Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

The German Nutrition Society is proposing that Germans cut their consumption of meat to an average of 10 grams per day. To put that into perspective a quarter pounder is 108 grams. So 3 quarter pounders a month would put you over their proposed quota. To be more culturally appropriate that comes out to 1/2 a Vienna Sausage a day.

https://www-bild-de.translate.goog/politik/inland/politik-inland/ernaehrungsverband-will-weniger-fleischkonsum-nur-noch-eine-currywurst-im-monat-84075944.bild.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true#fromWall

[AmosArch]

Global cooling er global warming er climate change is so popular among leftists because its an excuse to control nearly every aspect of your life. I wonder what bs they're going to come up with once fossil fuels become obsolete and mankind becomes spacefaring. Maybe something to do with how we're destroying pristine rock formations and gas clouds on mars and Jupiter or something like that.

[Kazinski]

Maybe we’ll get a reprieve, according to a new peer reviewed study Antarctic ice shelves have grown by 5305 km2 over the last decade.

Every time there is a large calving event we hear about it and the sky is falling but over all the ice shelves are growing:

“Over the last decade, a reduction in the area on the Antarctic Peninsula (6693 km2) and West Antarctica (5563 km2) has been outweighed by area growth in East Antarctica (3532 km2) and the large Ross and Ronne–Filchner ice shelves (14 028 km2). The largest retreat was observed on the Larsen C Ice Shelf, where 5917 km2 of ice was lost during an individual calving event in 2017, and the largest area increase was observed on Ronne Ice Shelf in East Antarctica, where a gradual advance over the past decade (535 km2 yr−1) led to a 5889 km2 area gain from 2009 to 2019.”

They used satellite data from NASA’s modis satellite imagery to conduct the study.

The total increase in ice was 661 gigatons, which means that a square km of sea ice only weighs 125 million tons.

But in any case 661 gigatons, is only .4% of the Antarctic ice shelves, so its just a rounding error. Remember that when the next iceberg the size of Rhode Island breaks off.

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/2059/2023/

[Nige]

You don't get it. That's an actual bit of good news, because if/when the Antarctic starts to melt then all that dreaded sea-rise really takes off. Meanwhile they're expecting ice-free Arctic summers by 2030.

[Gandydancer]

"They" are the usual set of loons who have yet to get any prediction right.

[Martinned]

Sure: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

[Gandydancer]

TLDR. Point to the prediction.

[Nige]

They've been giving plenty of advance warning. That you ignore them because, as they consitently point out, the worst outcomes are still in the future and can be averted, is because you huff cow farts.

[Gandydancer]

Yap, yap, yap.

Name the prediction.

[Frank Drackman]

1: In January 2024 it will snow in Green Bay Wisconsin
2: In August 2023 it will be hot and humid in San Antonio Texas

[Nige]

The world will get warmer, the seas will heat up, there will be more heatwaves, hurricanes will get more intense, as will wildfires, there will be more droughts and more floods. All coming true so far.

[Gandydancer]

Wildfires have of course decreased. And the rest have been repeatedly quantitatively ridiculously wrong.

[Kazinski]

The thing about Hurricanes getting more intense is crap.

Here's a graph of US hurricanes since 1851, there is no trend.
http://www.hurricanescience.org/images/hss/us-h-landfall_climate%20section.jpg

It Is easy to play games with hurricane frequency and intensity because before the satellite era a lot of hurricanes went undetected or were poorly measured, this metric shows hurricanes with US landfall.

But the actual science would also indicate milder hurricanes with a warming globe because it's not warmth that causes hurricanes and cyclones it's temperature differentials, the same way tornadoes are caused by hot weather, but by cold air meeting warm air.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The two main factors that affect hurricane intensity are water temperature and wind shear, and with global warming obviously the water temps would tend to be higher. That is why all the global warming models predict higher intensity hurricanes.

Frequency is a much more open question. As you point out, we don't really know the frequency of these storms in the distant past, so long term trends are hard to measure.

[Kazinski]

There is one.study using sediment cores from blue holes in the Caribbean that shows more frequent hurricanes during the Little Ice Age than during the present or the preceding Medieval Warming period:

"The compiled Bahamian records document substantially higher hurricane frequency in the northern Caribbean during the Little Ice Age, around 1300 to 1850, than in the past 100 years.

That was a time when North Atlantic surface ocean temperatures were generally cooler than they are today. But it also coincided with an intensified West African monsoon. The monsoon could have produced more thunderstorms off the western coast of Africa, which act as low-pressure seeds for hurricanes."

https://theconversation.com/were-decoding-ancient-hurricanes-traces-on-the-sea-floor-and-evidence-from-millennia-of-atlantic-storms-is-not-good-news-for-the-coast-186899

Of course the article spins it as as not good news for the coast because hurricanes used to be more frequent, and if their frequency goes up again its bad news, ignoring the imputed cause of the higher frequency.

[Kazinski]

They were expecting ice free summers by 2015.

What happened to that?

[Nige]

Who was?

[Gandydancer]

Al Gore.

"Facebook post, Feb. 22, 2021

YouTube, Al Gore Warns Polar Ice May Be Gone in Five Years, Dec. 16, 2009

BBC, Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013', Dec. 12, 2007

NPR, Al Gore Slips On Artic Ice; Misstates Scientist's Forecast, Dec. 15, 2009 "

Snopes, Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?, April 17, 2017"

[Nige]

I like Al Gore, but he isn't a climatologist. From your last link:

'In the late 2000s, the former U.S. Vice President sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic.'

It's the science, stupid.

[ThePublius]

"They" have been predicting ice free arctic summers in a decade every decade for the last three or four decades. Yet, it hasn't happened. Note their models can't even predict the past, let alone the future.

[Nige]

No, they have been predicting all along that at some stage the Arctic will go ice free in the Summer, now they are refining it based on current trends. It's like someone warns you that something is going to happen and you ignore the warning not because you've checked the evidence to see if the warning is valid but purely because it hasn't happened *yet.* If you're waiting for the warning to come true rather than taking actions to avert the danger, then you literally don't understand what a warning is.

[Gandydancer]

If you say that previously named dates (the latest version is "by the 2030's", LOL!) don't effect whether a prediction has been proven wrong then you've reached exactly the same state of gibbering idiocy as all the other religious loons who have to keep updating the date of "the Messiah's return".

[Nige]

Sure, if that makes you feel better.

[Kazinski]

Talk about going out on a limb, 95% of Earth's history there not been ice caps at the poles.

The largest ice sheet is the Antarctic ice sheet, it's only 5 million years old. That's only 1% of the time since the Cambrian age.

We are in an ice age, that's not normal.

[Nige]

We're not dealing with those kinds of time scales. We're talking about a century, at most.

[jdgalt1]

An ice-free Arctic, if it happened, would not affect sea level one bit. There's this thing called Archimedes' Principle, also known as the formula for buoyancy...

[BigT]

True. Only the ice on land in Greenland and Antarctica can increase sea level if it melts.

[Nige]

If we lose most of the ice in the Arctic the planet's albedo is changed, meaning less sunlight is reflected back, meaning even more warming.

Greenland's ice levels have been plummeting. Antarctic land ice levels have also been falling, albeit slower, the recent rise is a blip so far.

[Nige]

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

Actually, you may be overstating things a *little*.

[Nige]

The right rejects the reality of global warming because
1. to pwn the libs
2. they wouldn't have any solutions to offer anyway.

[Gandydancer]

As if Nige has solutions.

[Martinned]

Yesterday I saw an electric Mustang in the street. Even I thought that that is going too far.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac.

[Nige]

The solutions are many and varied. But you prefer to pwn the libs.

[Gandydancer]

No need. Lefty pwns himself. Look at what an embarrassment you are.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Try to be nicer today to conservatives like Gandydancer and Amos Arch, who got some bad news this morning.

They have to get fitted for colostomy bags, because they lost their asshole.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't speak ill of the dead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pat Robertson was a stain on mankind. Despite enormous privilege (son of a senator), he was nothing more than a delusional, mean-spirited, gullible right-wing bigot -- a greedy televangelist who milked his gullible, downscale followers for plenty.

[Theendoftheleft]

Now tell us about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), AIDS.

[Drewski]

Why? Robertson never hesitated to do so. Neither do you.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's too bad Christopher Hitchens isn't available to offer a eulogy along the lines of Jerry Falwell's.

[Gandydancer]

The Rev claimed that he couldn’t remember that I’d told him that I was an atheist because it was so hard to remember the characteristics of those who were deriding him (and indeed he came up with a long list, complete with imagined characteristics).

But that was only a couple days ago. His decline into dementia seems very far advanced.

[Michael Ejercito]

All of your solutions involve inconveniencing normal people!

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/06/03/ethics-dunce-ireland/

[Nige]

Oh dear. Sorry. That story is bollocks.
a) there are no plans to do any such thing.
b) um, how exactly do you think steaks get to your table? By asking nicely?

[Gandydancer]

"The Irish government is reportedly looking at plans to cull around 200,000 dairy cows to meet its climate targets. It's madness."
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2023%2F06%2F02%2Firelands-mooted-cow-massacre-warning-to-net-zero-britain%2F

When Nige claims that "there are no plans to do any such thing" while defending the related Dutch madness he isn't exactly dripping credibility.

[Gandydancer]

“Spending vast sums of taxpayer’s money on destroying productive animals would be a perfect summation of the net zero madness infecting the West. The Irish Department of Agriculture has said that the report was just a “modelling document”, but no sane government would even get to the point of including such a plan in ‘a deliberative process.’”.

So, no, the story is NOT “bollocks”. The Net Crazies need to be stopped before they screw us over again.

[Nige]

Your own quote shows that it is bollocks. There were no plans. There was a proposal of a proposal to assist farmers to move away from cattle. That’s it. What was this modelling document? Where did it originate? What did it actually say? Just because he put the modelling document and the words ‘deliberative process’ in proximity doesn’t mean that it came anywhere near a deliberative process or that a politician ever even saw it. You credulous hysterical fool. Getting mad at the mere idea that some cows may or may not get slaughtered while firing up the grill for a nice juicy steak that was presumably acquired with no harm to any cows.

[Cheerio]

2 things can be true:

1) it's a serious matter
2) the left aims to use it for political purposes

Hence, reasonable people with nuance need to find ways to both take it seriously and avoid the excesses (not unlike Covid...)

[Nige]

If you accept its reality, and it’s bizarre that it’s even a question, one side offers solutions, the other won’t even admit it’s real. That the solutions have to be implemented through politics is hardly sinister. Not sure what sitting on the fence acheives.

[Heedless]

The reality:

1. The world is warmer than it was a few decades ago.

2. Predictions about how much the world will warm, and what the effects will be are based on complex mathematical models.

3. On their own, greenhouse gases have a logarithmic affect on global temperatures — if doubling the amount of CO2 would raise global temperatures by 1°, you would need to double CO2 concentrations again in order to raise them by a further 1°.

4. Creating the models that predict catastrophic results requires that a series of positive feedback loops be introduced. There is as yet limited evidence that those feedback loops operate as scientists believe they do, and even the best environmental models are incapable of taking many key variables into account.

5. Weather and climate are well known in mathmatical circles to be some of the most challenging systems to predict. Lorenz’s discovery of chaos theory was touched off by the observation that a simple, three variable model of airflow (temperature, pressure, wind velocity) was so sensitive to initial conditions that even a small rounding error would give different results if a simulation was run a second time.

6. We should be very cautious in making 5, 10, or 20 year predictions when we still have trouble calling El Niño six months out.

[Nige]

That seems like a lot of navel gazing, to be honest. Climate models try to predict outcomes based on various inputs, best case and worse case scenarios and in between. The greenhose mechanism dirving planetary heating is pretty well understood, and that it is affecting climate is undeniable. That there is so much uncertainty in terms exactly when and what feedback loops happen is why they call it 'climate chaos,' but each one poses enormous risks that we're only facing because oil companies like money.

[Heedless]

This is why it is so frustrating to discuss this topic with people who do not understand math.

What are you referred to as “navel gazing” is precisely the question at issue: how much will the world warm and what will the effects be. (without making several quite dubious assumptions, the natural trajectory of greenhouse warming is that we plateau roughly where we are). If you cannot understand the models, you cannot understand the answer. All your certainty is secondhand.

Speaking as someone who does understand how the models work, and I am telling you that that certainty is undeserved.

[Martinned]

without making several quite dubious assumptions, the natural trajectory of greenhouse warming is that we plateau roughly where we are

Given that that contradicts pretty much everything I've ever heard from a credible source, including but not limited to the IPCC, I'm curious what your basis for that is.

I'm perfectly happy to concede your general points, i.e. that it's important to understand the models, that the amount of warming matters, etc. But plateauing at current levels is quite a claim.

[Nige]

Of course my certaintly is second hand, I’m not an expert on modelling. But the modelling only predicts what might happen, the theory behind it is well understood and firmly established.

[David Nieporent]

each one poses enormous risks that we’re only facing because oil companies like money.

No. This is dumb left-wing conspiratorial thinking, the equivalent of "vaccines are a trick by Big Pharma."

We do not use oil "because oil companies like money." We use oil because it is incredibly useful, an abundant source of relatively cheap energy, and the use of energy is what enables us to live our lives the way we want.

[Martinned]

Or, to put that slightly differently:

We do not use oil "because oil companies like money", but because people like driving. (And plastic. And flying. Etc.)

[Sarcastr0]

The energy density of gasoline is truly incredible.

[Nige]

We got hooked on a drug and the supplier likes to keep it flowing no matter how much damage it does. That oil companies knew about the likely effects of the greenhouse effect is as early as the late 60s is well established; that they spent several fortunes funding PR campaigns and pseudoscience to discredit the theory and the experts is also undeniable. They’re evil and rapacious and destructive, and it doesn’t take a whole lot of looking around to see it. Living your lives the way you want is mounting up costs that only poor people in countries and states with poor regulatory protections and high rates of corruption are paying for the moment. Don’t worry, when the time comes you’ll pay the cossts. The oil companies won’t.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I know I've read articles documenting how oil companies have taken account of global warming and rising ocean levels in their long term plans while at the same time publicly denying that global warming is real.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't understand how the left is using this for political purposes. It seems like a very inconvenient thing to have to say to people. Most people prefer to sit back and suck their thumbs, doing nothing, and be fed fantasies as to why they should continue to do nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

So what are YOU doing?

[Don Nico]

"now they are refining it based on current trends."
i.e., moving the goal posts

[Sarcastr0]

You know how science and policy work better than that, Don.

[Nige]

Oh, no, they never refine and adjust based on current trends, never have, never will, he made it up, you got him.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t understand...

That's pretty normal for you.

[David Bremer]

I've heard all sorts of programs pitched with some suggestion of marginal gains in CO2 emissions. For example, in my city (Minneapolis), they continue to build more and more bike lanes. These often come with some claim about going green or fighting climate change. Yet: (a) the lanes are pretty much useless 4-6 months of the year because of weather; (b) any marginal gains in bikers is easily offset in increased city congestion; (c) we're talking about a miniscule difference in CO2 emissions in any case.

Does anyone think an extra bike lane will help climate change? I certainly hope not. But now, if you oppose the proposed lane, then you're one of those evil right-wing climate-change deniers. You see this kind of stuff come up all the time. Some bogus claim about climate change that's just there to deflect criticism of some plan.

[Randal]

One bike lane won't matter, but a global shift away from cars would. Looks like Minneapolis has a goal of 15% bike commuters. Assuming it's achievable, that seems significant. Are you saying it's not achievable, or not significant?

[Heedless]

Both.

In a city with Mineapolis’s winters, even people who use bikes will still need to commute by car 4 months of the year, and very few cities have actually managed that sort of shift even in cities in paradise.

Also, bike commutes must by definition be shorter, so even if Minneapolis does achieve 15%, they will mostly be from the most inner of inner suburbs or within the city itself. Combine that with the fact that commutes are only about 15% of miles traveled, and they will be lucky to cut driving emissions by 2%. In return for which they will have blown up their city’s drivability.

It would have been cheaper and more effective to expand their rail system, and that is not a compliment either to the bikes or to the train.

[Martinned]

In a city with Mineapolis’s winters, even people who use bikes will still need to commute by car 4 months of the year

Public transport is a thing. Personally I bike to work in spring and fall, and use public transport the rest of the year.

[David Bremer]

Agree with Heedless. It's neither. It's completely impractical to commute by bike 4 months of the year. Winter weather aside, there are lots of practical reasons why cycling is not realistic for people (e.g., daycare/kid activities, need for showers/changes, rainy days, etc.). Regardless, the additional lanes (many of which are lightly used) aren't what's stopping people. Especially not at this point.

Meanwhile, there are areas where congestion has increased a bit because they've taken away travel lanes. That easily offsets any gain in total number of bike commuters.

My one quibble is his belief that it would cheaper to expand rail. Thanks to a bunch of limousine liberals (and a lot of lobbying by cyclists to keep a bike lane in a dedicated rail corridor), the current rail expansion is costing about 2.7 billion and won't be done until damn near 2030. If they cyclists were really concerned about the environment, they would have gladly moved the bike lane to make way for LRT.

[Nige]

One step at a time.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The best way to solve global warming to pay more taxes to corrupt organizations who cant solve a single thing and redistribute wealth for climate justice!

[Nige]

Considering how much of your wealth is being redistributed to billionaires and oil comanies already, shifting it elsewhere would seem relatively benign.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How rich should a politician or a federal bureaucrat be allowed to get?

[Nige]

What you got in mind, racist?

[Frank Drackman]

3: even if it was happening (it isn't) A: it wouldn't be bad, I like it a little warmer, B: Only way to stop it as to put out the Sun, which i: We can't do, and ii: would be even worse than "Global Climate Change"
and as far as predictions, I've got one even easier,
what was the Temperature/Humidity on July 4, 1776 in Filthy-Delphia PA, I mean since the Scientists know how warm it was a million years ago, that should be a piece of cake,

Frank "It's not the Heat it's the Humidity"

[Kazinski]

The thing is that climate activists and politicians are lying about the global warming science.

How do I know? I've read the AR6 technical summary, it's here:

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf

Nowhere in it is does it say there is a climate crisis or emergency, the only place it uses "collapse" is when it says the Atlantic multi decade occilation is unlikely to collapse.

But the political non technical AR6 summary claims we are all dying even though the scientists say no such thing.

[Randal]

Boy do you have rotten reading comprehension skills! Did you even read the report? Here's how it starts:

It is unequivocal that human activities have heated our climate. Recent changes are rapid, intensifying, and unprecedented over
centuries to thousands of years. With each additional increment of warming, these changes will become larger, resulting in long-lasting, irreversible implications, in particular for sea level rise.

After a bit more of that intro, it turns to the science. The bulk of the paper is scientific, meaning that it's presenting data, not conclusions. If you see a scientific paper talking about "emergencies" and "crises," it's bad science.

What a pathetic attempt.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Long lasting permanent changes” is not the same as “OMG it’s an existential crisis!!!”

[Sarcastr0]

We may not go extinct, but 'might not end the human race' is a really lot bar.

You should read all the adjectives:
Long lasting
larger
irreversible
permanent

I'm milder than some on here re: climate, but this is absolutely not really something worth ignoring.

[Randal]

What Sarcastr0 said. Existential crisis? No one's saying that.

I happen to think that it's not worth worrying about because we're definitely going to dig up and burn all the fossil fuels. The best we can do is futz with the timeline by a decade or two but that seems pretty pointless in the big picture. The whole reason we evolved intelligence was to get good at adapting so... good luck everybody!

[Kazinski]

What's extinction rebellion all about then?

What's all the crap about tipping points.

"This crisis is existential. If we know it’s existential, we have to behave like it’s existential."

John Kerry
https://twitter.com/ClimateEnvoy/status/1494729609014882305?t=ESzk7cq1av4tlQUdrBR0KQ&s=19

[Nige]

At a bare minimum it's going to make your quality of life way worse than it currently is, like New York blanketed in smoke, or some other effects, only most of the time, and you're in a protected, priveleged, wealthy nation. If you're lucky, society won't crumble.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I didn’t see what Sarcastro said.

Climate Heroine Greta? AOC?

How about the fucking Secretary of Energy?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5mzN9v0Cwao

Why do you think we busting our ass to wreck our energy delivery system? Why MUST we have this done by 2030.

Denying facts is easier than actually defending their stupidity, but in doing so it becomes your stupidity. And if sarcastro actually said nobody was saying that then he’s arguing very poorly.

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts bevis. Plenty of crises not extinction related. And extinction rebellion being cited shows how rare we are talking.

I’m also a bit skeptical of the timeline being rock solid. But your advocacy of fucking off and ignoring it is also bad.

[David Nieporent]

What Sarcastr0 said. Existential crisis? No one’s saying that.

No, lots of people are saying that.

[Mr. Bumble]

But is it true or is it hyperbole?

[David Nieporent]

The latter.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring nutters like Extinction Rebellion, I think there is a disconnect between 2 different definitions of existential – extinct the humans vs. catastrophic reordering of the world.

BTW, I do think the first if overblown, and the second the timeline's are not super clear. But I also think the idea that we should just ignore the issue because it's not extinction seems crazy.

Reduction and innovation in our emissions buys us more time, but I personally think geoengineering is what we have the political will for.

[BigT]

No, everyone understands that the Earth is warming - we are coming out of an ice age - but careful scientists also realize that mankind has almost zero impact on it. The charlatan propagandists have convinced fools like yourself who are too stupid to understand the situation that we have a huge impact.

[Martinned]

Here, have a chart that would allow even a Chimpanzee to see that that is nonsense. https://xkcd.com/1732/

[SRG]

Global cooling er global warming er climate change is so popular among leftists because its an excuse to control nearly every aspect of your life.

That's not an argument against the actual science of course. What motive did Svente Arrhenius have?

BTW it was the GOP who emphasised the term "climate change" over "global warming" because it sounded less threatening, and global cooling was never a serious thing - but it's always a useful term, because when anyone uses it, it says that they're malignantly ignorant.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it was the GOP who emphasised [sic] the term “climate change” over “global warming”

Not my recollection, we relentlessly mocked “global warming” during cold weather, so the fanatics changed it.

[Martinned]

Not my recollection either. Global warming is an incorrect shorthand, because the greenhouse effect causes many different changes to the climate, including cooling in some places. So it was dropped in favour of "climate change".

[Mr. Bumble]

"Climate change" is much more convenient since it can be used to explain heat, cold, drought, excessive rain/snow and just about any weather.
In a sense, global warming is more accurate to describe the earth over the last 12,000 or so years, or most of the northern hemisphere would still be under a few miles of ice.

[Martinned]

...and global cooling is much more accurate to describe the earth over the last 5 billion years or so, otherwise the planet would still be a ball of hot lava. What's your point? That we shouldn't strive for accuracy in labelling, and for detailed falsifiable predictions?

[Mr. Bumble]

My point, I suppose, is that unless you set parameters as to the time frames your discussing the labels are not accurate. So far all of the predictions have been falsifiable.

[Martinned]

Are you somehow under the impression that the IPCC models don't come with timeframes? Or that the changes predicted haven't been happening mostly within the confidence intervals set out? Heck, Enron did a model in the 1960s that has been pretty well on the money for 50 years. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, the IPCC models make claims going out to 2100. Few of us will be alive then to evaluate them (in fact I think I can say with certainty that no one commenting here will be). The Exxon (not Enron) graph in the linked article seems pretty close, although higher than observed, but the extended lines are meaningless (past performance is no guarantee of future results). The problem I have with models is the lack of adequate data points for a system as large and dynamic as the earth. You can only claim an average temperature if you agree as to how many samples are required.
You're an economist and therefore should be familiar with statistics as used in modeling.
Given the Earth as a single unit to be measured, from the highest peak to the deepest ocean over the span of one year,
how many data points would be required to be considered accurate?

[Martinned]

Statistically, predicting the average is easier (standard error falls with the square root of the number of things you're averaging over). So it's always going to be harder to test a prediction for a specific spot on earth than for the average of earth, hence the fun conservatives are having denying every single specific instance of climate change in a specific spot. For a specific time and place there's always another possible story you can tell.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, "the average temperature of the Earth" is a rather ill defined concept, isn't it? You have to make all sorts of arbitrary choices; Ground/water temperature? Air temperature? How high/deep? Do you count the temperature right over anomalous features like asphalt parking lots? What do you do when a formerly rural area becomes urban, or an airport runway is installed near your monitoring station.

It's not as simply as stirring a glass of water before you stick a temperature probe into it.

I mean, if you make these choices consistently, it helps, but you're still going to get different results depending on how you make them.

And, you tell somebody "It's 1.5C hotter now", without mentioning that the summers really didn't get much hotter, it was mostly milder winters, they might get the wrong impression.

[Nige]

Oh yeah, suddenly we're skeptical of scientists' ability to read temperatures.

[Sarcastr0]

the average temperature of the Earth” is a rather ill defined concept, isn’t it?

It's a convergent number; as you take more measurements your estimated average will converge to the 'true' average. That's plenty well defined for these purposes.

[SRG]

Your recollection is faulty.

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

In a confidential memo to the Republican party,[22] Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former.[23]

[Martinned]

And where did Luntz get it from?

[SRG]

Oh, I am not saying he originated the term. What I am saying, quite correctly, is that the widespread use of the term in preference to global warming comes from Luntz. The irony is that later, the GOP used the change of term to cast doubt on GW altogether, as we see some clowns here do.

[Martinned]

That seems to overestimate Luntz's influence on global (and even US) discourse. He's not as important as he likes to think.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

BTW it was the GOP who emphasised the term “climate change” over “global warming”

BTW, you're completely full of crap.

[SRG]

As I noted above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
In a confidential memo to the Republican party,[22] Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former.[23]

[Gandydancer]

Eat bugs.

[Nige]

You first.

[Gandydancer]

No, I'll eat the meat that is cheaper because you and your ilk are panicked about steer farts.

[Nige]

You come across as though you just eat the farts, to be honest.

[Gandydancer]

You come across as high on your own farts.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's easy for Nige since his head is always up his ass.

[Nige]

You'd both be the experts on fart consumption.

[Martinned]

You would think that with a big chunk of the American population breathing smoke from Canadian forest fires the climate change deniers would pipe down for a couple of days.

[Mr. Bumble]

A natural event exacerbated by poor forest management (usually in the name of environmentalism) has nothing to do with "climate change" (whatever that is today).

[Nige]

Environmentalists have been promoting better forest management for decades, usually to deaf ears, you think the mismanagement is something new? That leads to big fires, it didn't lead to something on this scale. The fact that you don't get the connection between climate and massive forest fires just shows you literally don't know what you're talking about.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Fire is a natural process in many forests, as it helps to thin out the underlayer. There are a few forest management techniques that help replicate this. They are controlled logging (cutting and removing selected trees) and controlled burns (smaller fires, meant to remove undergrowth).

Environmentalists have a bad habit of opposing both of these. It leads to overgrowth and sets the stage for massive forest fires.

https://www.leadertelegram.com/country-today/country-life/country-life-news/environmentalists-dont-like-prescribed-fires-they-may-save-yosemites-sequoias/article_1c86fb89-bc13-598f-b3c5-7366da5d96f7.html

[Nige]

Every environmentalists I've ever read on the subject has been crying out for controlled burns for decades and criticising mismanegement of forests and pointing out the disastrous consequences. Now all the same sorts of people who dismissed them are controlled burn evangelists when it's just too late. These aren't natural regenerative fires, these are all-consuming wildfires.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite just one that you have read.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Cite them. I've provided cites to the contrary.

[jb]

Here's a bunch of people who believe (a) climate change is making the problem of forest fires more acute, and (b) that prescribed burns are essential to forest management:

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1108748259/ecologists-wildfire-plans-climate-change

[Life of Brian]

Dunno about a "bunch" of people -- the entire tenor of the article is that the people they interviewed are a distinct minority screaming into the deaf ears of the majority that won't support prescribed burns. Here's a rather objective takeaway:

The federal agency says that at least 234 million acres of forest are at a high risk of dangerous wildfire. But in the last decade, controlled burns have treated less than 1% of that total.

[jb]

Now who’s making up anonymous sources? There’s not a single person in that article arguing against prescribed burns and both scientists and politicians advocating for them.

We both agree that there’s not enough of it actually happening, but you’re just sure that it must be because of evil environmentalists without any evidence to support that position. The closest thing we’ve seen so far is an uncited reference to the John Muir society saying that the costs outweigh the benefits, but in reality they support prescribed fires (but do not support thinning or other logging operations):

https://wildfiretoday.com/2010/02/03/john-muir-project-the-myth-of-catastrophic-wildfire/

[Life of Brian]

Now who’s making up anonymous sources?

Huh? That was a direct quote from the link you provided.

We both agree that there’s not enough of it actually happening, but you’re just sure that it must be because of evil environmentalists without any evidence to support that position.

Not clear why the burden would flip to me. The simple bottom line is that if enough people in decision-making positions supported controlled burns, we'd have more of them than essentially a rounding error. As your own article says clearly, we don't.

If your position is that all the environmentalists actually want them and have thus in just this one case departed from their general "all human alteration of Nature's Plan is bad, yo!" mindset, then it seems like you need to show who the REAL boogeyman is that's preventing their wishes from being fulfilled.

[jb]

The obvious bogeyman is the National Forest Service itself since they're the ones not doing it (and seem kind of bad at it when they try), but there's also private property interests that make it hard:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/us/oregon-prescribed-burn-boss-arrested.html

[Life of Brian]

Can't get Reason to post a link to one of its own articles -- weird. Trying this.

[Life of Brian]

[Link seems to be jamming up the Reason bot -- will try to post separately.]

Ah, so it's not happening because the federal agency that needs to do it is uncontrollable? If that's so, a childishly simple solution comes to mind: get it back under control.

But I don't think we need to worry about that. Here's a nice discussion of the extensive environmentalistism stones that get thrown in the road to prevent controlled burns. Salient quotes:

But the regulatory requirements one must meet before starting a controlled burn are complex and lengthy. According to Jonathan Wood, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation and an adjunct fellow with the Property and Environment Research Center, the National Environmental Policy Act requires "a couple-thousand-page document analyzing every single conceivable impact to the environment that the plan might have." This is a public process, Wood adds, that "often results in litigation." There's even more paperwork when the controlled burn might overlap with areas designated as critical habitat for an endangered species.
* * *
The Clean Air Act of 1990 creates another obstacle. The law treat the smoke from a controlled, prescribed burn as a pollutant that must be analyzed and permitted before the burn can be done. The smoke from a wildfire is not similarly scrutinized. But needless to say, the environmental impact of a multi-state wildfire is much larger than that of a smaller controlled burn.

Similarly, if your argument is that the environmentalists have lost control of the Frankenstein monster they've created and now can't get past it to do the things they really feel like need to happen, there's a solution for that sort of problem that hopefully we all get behind: get rid of the obstacles and do what needs to be done.

[Life of Brian]

And after I finally got this posted, it was misthreaded. Oy. See above for link.

[jb]

FWIW, I do agree that reviews like this have gotten out of hand.

It will be interesting to see to what extent the permitting reform in the debt ceiling bill is able to streamline the process. This might be an area to look at what other countries do to balance between, e.g., environmental protection and forward progress. Based on infrastructure costs alone, they seem to be doing much better.

[Randal]

The Environmental Policy and Clean Air Acts are laws, not environmentalists.

Environmentalists can be frustrated by red tape just as easily as anyone else.

[Life of Brian]

The Environmental Policy and Clean Air Acts are laws, not environmentalists.

Good grief -- who do you think pushed for those laws? Oilcos?

Environmentalists can be frustrated by red tape just as easily as anyone else.

See above -- red tape they themselves created and cheered on, many decades after the need for controlled burns was well understood. As I said to jb earlie, if they're starting to understand the actual character of the monster they created and realize something needs to change, I stand ready to work with them to kill it so we can start working some of these clearly foreseeable downsides of hyperenvironmentalism back out of the system. But I'm not hopeful of that given the current reflexive "buh, buh CLIMATE change" scapegoat we see littered through this thread.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There’s a “bunch of people” that think thst climate change is making hurricanes worse and we’re responsible for recent “unprecedented” flooding in California. They’re full of shit.

There’s a bunch of people that believe that Trump won in 2020.

A bunch of people believing in something doesn’t mean diddly.

[Nige]

But you believing or disbelieving something isn’t a reliable indicator of anything since your only concern is to be in the centre, regardless of the issues themselves.

[Randal]

Except he doesn't like moderate ideas or politicians either. Really he's just a nihilist, probably because it's easy.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Believing" stuff is nice. But lawsuits show what really matters.

The Sierra club has a history of opposing removing deadwood from forested areas. As demonstrated by their legislation.

https://www.elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/32.20618.htm

[jb]

That's cool. Now show one for controlled burns, which is what we're talking about here.

[Nige]

Over-simplifying a tad, aren't we?

'The court first holds that the EIS fails to disclose and analyze scientific opinion in support of and in opposition to the conclusion that the project will reduce the intensity of future wildfires in the project area. Likewise, the Forest Service failed to address scientific evidence that opposes post-fire logging.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, you are a commenter who is not forthright. You do not deserve a reply. But you present a target too fat to pass up. Here is your citation:

To Conserve Unimpaired — Robert B. Keiter.

There are multiple references throughout the book to burn policy. The first of them, on page 3, cites the U.S. Park Service’s mid-1960s Leopold Report. Here is a quotation (not available online):

According to the Park Service’s own historian, the agency was practicing, “facade management,” not ecological conservation. That finally changed during the mid-1960s when in response to the influential Leopold report, the Park Service embraced the idea that the national parks should be managed to represent a “vignette of primitive America.” Such management meant allowing fires, predation, and other natural processes to operate with minimal human interference so as to maintain more historically representative ecological condition. Paradoxically, it also contemplated more human intervention to achieve restoration goals, including the use of controlled burns, the transplantation of missing predators, and the removal of dams that blocked free-flowing rivers and other natural processes.

Keiter has for decades been a notable environmentalist, and authority on the history of environmental policy nationwide, with special emphasis on using the national parks as exemplars.

Here from the book jacket is Keiter’s description: “Robert B. Keiter is the Wallace Stegner Professor of Law, University Distinguished Professor, and founding Director of the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.”

For the sake of full disclosure, Keiter is an old friend of mine. We met in first grade in 1952 at the Clara Barton elementary school in Cabin John MD, and together with others spent years exploring the outdoors together.

More generally, of course anyone trying even slightly can turn up countless similar citations on the internet (though few so authoritative, or which go back so far). Why is it, do you suppose, that we cannot trust right-wingers to argue forthrightly or in good faith?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Armchair, you are a commenter who is not forthright.

ROFLMAO!

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Armchair, you are a commenter who is not forthright. You do not deserve a reply"

Wow...You do realize...I wasn't replying to you, right? But since you've inserted yourself into the conversation, do you believe that asking for cites to support ones position (especially after providing your own cites demonstrating the opposite) isn't "forthright" or "good faith"?

[Kazinski]

Do all the environmentalists support logging too?

[Nige]

I think you know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not just that, there was a hurricane last fall and hence a lot of uprooted and dead trees just ready to burn.

[VinniUSMC]

Environmentalists think forest management means "leave it alone".

[Nige]

I'm sure some do, but those who are experts have been criticising poor forest management for a long time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite?

[VinniUSMC]

Appeal to anonymous experts. Ok Nigey boy.

[Randal]

You're thinking of hippies, not environmentalists.

[Martinned]

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

https://natural-resources.canada.ca/climate-change-adapting-impacts-and-reducing-emissions/climate-change-impacts-forests/impacts/13095

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing but speculation in your linked article.

[Gandydancer]

Nige literally has no idea what he's yammering about. A simple Duckduckgo search turns up, e.g., https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/01/24/bjorn-lomborg-despite-breathless-climate-reporting-about-ever-increasing-fires-us-fires-burn-5-10x-less-today/

Watch the video.

[Martinned]

You're right, I'm definitely going to believe some random video on the internet over the Canadian government forestry service.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://fee.org/articles/forest-fires-aren-t-at-historic-highs-in-the-united-states-not-even-close/

[Nige]

It's amazing how just a few years of insanely destructive fire seasons have become normalised. Talk about boiling frog syndrome.

[Krayt]

Physical scientist points out problems.

Physical scientsts screams it will devastate humanity.

Economist says, no it won't.

Effect on humanity w.r.t. quality of life is an economic question.

This debate was had over and over going back to the 1970s, and the economist won. In an economically free society, the people keep ahead of the curve and their lives continue improving.

This isn't to say pollution issues aren't real. Indeed, restrictions on pollution to increase the purity of the polluted resource are not dissimilar to efforts to increase resources otherwise. A resource is "used up" and thus unavailable, if it is used or polluted. And the wealthier the country, the more it can afford such things.

[Martinned]

For the record, that economist you cite there is like the one physicist who always goes on Fox news to explain that there's no such thing as global warming. The marvel of science is that there's no forced consensus. Everyone can write what they like. They might not be able to get it published in a prominent journal, but they can at least self-publish a book or stick it on the internet. And sometimes those cranks are right. But usually they're not.

[Nige]

But ecomomics is pure voodoo witchcraft bullshit.

[Martinned]

I guess technically a right-wing think tank is not the same thing as "some random video on the internet", that's true.

[Mr. Bumble]

fee.org is "right-wing"?

From wiki:
The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is an American conservative, libertarian economic think tank.[4][5][6] Founded in 1946 in New York City, FEE is now headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a member of the State Policy Network.[7][8]

[Martinned]

Literally everything in that description screams "shill for oil companies and other big business".

[Mr. Bumble]

Really? How so?

[Gandydancer]

Literally nothing in your response even attempts to be an argument against any of the data on forest fires in Miltimore's article.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you not understand the words "conservative" and "libertarian" and where they fall on the political spectrum?

You might as well argue that "red" isn't a color. JFC.

[Drewski]

Read your own reply again, repeat until you understand it.

[Gandydancer]

Just because you don't know who https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg is is no excuse for pretending that some politician's plaything is anything except a bogus authority.

As Bjorn says, “Refs in thread”

[SRG]

Lomborg is an economist, of course.

[Martinned]

So am I, that's no excuse for lying your *ss off.

[Life of Brian]

Good point. We all know economists are singularly unqualified to tackle analyses requiring a basic grasp of math and statistics. Oh, and reading.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Life of Brian, was that irony, or do you actually suppose an MIT educated economist is someone without a grasp of math and statistics?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Life of Brian, was that irony, or do you actually suppose an MIT educated economist is someone without a grasp of math and statistics?

How about the Nobel Prize-winning MIT educated ones?

“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” ~ Paul Krugman, 1998

“Remember when everyone was panicking about inflation, warning ominously about 1970s-type stagflation? OK, many people are still saying such things, some because that’s what they always say, some because that’s what they say when there’s a Democratic president, some because they’re extrapolating from the big price increases that took place in the first five months of this year. But for those paying closer attention to the flow of new information, inflation panic is, you know, so last week. Seriously, both recent data and recent statements from the Federal Reserve have, well, deflated the case for a sustained outbreak of inflation.” ~ Paul Krugman, June 2021

“Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.” ~ Paul Krugman on Trump’s election victory in 2016

Etc, etc…

[Kazinski]

How about a scholarly paper published in the International Journal of Quebec Studies:

"MY COUNTRY IS FIRE : QUÉBEC, CANADA, FORESTS, AND FIRE
Stephen J. Pyne Arizona State University
Québec - the fabled country of winter ; of cold, ice, rock, and water - is also a country of summer ; of drought, winds, woods, and fire. The boreal forest burns with stand-replacing fury roughly every 60-100 years. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest burns with a mixed cadence, undergoing more frequent surface fires along with the occasional crown fire. Until recently, an inhabitant anywhere in Québec could, within the span of an average lifetime, expect to experience at least one significant fire. Since the Laurentide ice sheet left, Québec has likely burned a hundred times."

https://www.erudit.org/en/books/new-perspectives-in-quebec-studies/positioning-quebec-in-global-environmental-history--978-2-89518-279-5/003048co.pdf

[Nige]

Bjorn Lomborg? Christ why don't you just go see what Lord Monckton has to say on the subject.

[Gandydancer]

Yep. Bjopn Lonborg or Nige. Hmmm…

As he says, refs in thread.

[Nige]

He's definitely your sort of clown.

[Amused Onlooker]

A similar event — forest fires in Canada causing air pollution in the US — occurred during the American Revolution about 250 years ago, long before climate change became a thing. Birds went to sleep and people lit candles at noon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England%27s_Dark_Day

Climate change activists stoke panic by out of context claims. An event like this is not unprecedented. It has happened before

[Nige]

I know this is a law blog, but finding a precedent for a forest fire is not the same thing as finding a legal precendent and thus proving some legal point.

[Mr. Bumble]

What the fuck are you talking about?
Shouldn't you be demonstrating?

[Gandydancer]

The only thing Nige is capable of demonstrating is determined ignorance.

[Nige]

That must be why every exchange with you ends up with you just spluttering insults. Actually quite a few of them start that way, too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re the one who was saying these fires are unprecedented!

[Nige]

No, what's unprecendeted is the intensification of wildfires over the last ten years or so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I know this is a law blog,

This is not a law blog (have you read the comments, or the posts that precipitate them?). This is a transgender-drag queen-transgender-Muslim-lesbian-transgender-god-guns-gays blog. Or a faux libertarian-movement conservative-disaffected culture war casualty blog.

[Theendoftheleft]

Is that why you're obsessed with it, then, AIDS, and have spent years on it? Are you something like a necrophiliac?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is a satellite video floating arpund showing how all those fires started at the same time.

Neat trick by the Climate Change God.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good point....

[Don Nico]

Sure, every wildfire is due to climate change. Large wildfires are endemic in forests, always have been. In CA, the have worsened because the State has refused permission for controlled burns.
Please put all the cards on the table

[Frank Drackman]

well yes, if you set your Country on Fire it will be a little smoky downwind.
But guess what, eventually the fires go out, and the smoke goes away.
Fucking Canada,

Frank

[Ben_]

“…Canadian forest fires the climate change…”

This is how we know you’re a religious nutcase. Forests burn. They always did. They always will.

It’s not your Earth god’s judgement upon the Americans you despise.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Deniers”. Lol.

They are heretics, so they just can’t help themselves. Because everyone knows that every unusual event is caused by climate change.

[BigT]

There are reports that the fires were set deliberately. Not sure if it was arson or a controlled burn’ gone bad.

[Nige]

Big agri meat lobby must be, as it were, bulling.

[Gandydancer]

We're on to you, Nige. Bull is your specialty.

[Nige]

Gone vegetarian, Gandy?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably healthier than your Sausage addiction.

[Nige]

edgebot not even trying

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Big Agri Meat can't patent cows. Do you know what it can patent? "Cultured meat" and technologies surrounding it.

That's why they are on board with you.

[Nige]

...why?

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski, the way I see it, there are different groups out there that propose all kinds of dumb stuff; the GNS is no different. Also, the Bild is a little...sensational. 🙂

I think they're nuts because meat is a very efficient source of protein and certain B vitamins (pun intended). I'm not signing up for eating bugs, no thank you. Cricket flour? Seriously? Naaaaah.

Grass fed, grass finished beef for me: Tastes amazing.

[Nige]

Converting grass into protein is nobody but a beef PR person's idea of efficient. But even so, there's too much of it, and too much arable land being given over to feed the cattle to the detriment of other foodstuffs, it's causing immense damage to biodiversity and waterways, not to mention all the methane. It's the fossil fuel of food.

[Gandydancer]

And Nige is going to stop you. HE's got SOLUTIONS! Soylent green!

[Nige]

In terms of right wing solutions: QED.

[Gandydancer]

Nige "solutions": Crickets, sounds of. Or eat.

[Nige]

Help yourself, Renfield.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

You should explain how inefficient it is to Darwin and the vast percentage of biomass on Earth

[Nige]

Yes, I will, I'm sure he'd love to hear all about it.

[MeanGene]

So you want grain and vegetables grown on those highly erodable slopes now in pasture?

[Nige]

'Slopes?' If you don't want them to erode, get rid of the livestock, plant 'em up.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, you can get B vitamins from eating bugs, and what are lobster and shrimp if not under sea bugs?

Not that I want to force people to eat bugs, I'm not into absolving my sins by flagellation by proxy. I just like discussions to proceed on a factual basis.

Actually, the roasted, freeze dried soldier fly larva I give my chickens as a treat smell disturbingly yummy...

Edible Insects versus Meat—Nutritional Comparison: Knowledge of Their Composition Is the Key to Good Health

Bottom line is that insects aren't terribly different from meat in nutritional terms, aside from the fact that the insects have dietary fiber, because they don't remove the chitin. (If people typically ate the feathers on chicken, they'd have dietary fiber, too!)

They're maybe a bit high in terms of the calorie to protein ratio, the lipid profile isn't great, and there are some concerns about some of the insect proteins having high allergenic potential. But they're generally in the same ballpark as meat.

So it's not like you're going to harm the average person by having them eat bugs. But forcing them to switch to bugs?

Like I said, forgiving your (climate) sins via flagellation by proxy. Not my gig.

[Nige]

This is dumb. Nobody has proposed forcing anyone to eat bugs. Where did this stupid idea come from? People have been extolling the nutritional values of insects since at least the seventies to nothing but general distaste, except where they are already some part of the cuisine. Insect populations are in decline anyway, which is, y'know pretty bad news all round.

[Mr. Bumble]

Insect populations are in decline anyway, which is, y’know pretty bad news all round.

Cite.

[Gandydancer]

One only has to look at the effort being made to promote meat-substitutes. ["Promote" is of course understatement. Nige and his pals will not limit their attempts to suppress cow farts to promotion, unless you think of mandates as a form of promotion.] Most distastefully, there’s the argument that we should feed the world on insect protein. A quick search of the World Economic Forum website reveals an obsession with the idea. Here’s a small selection of articles from the last few years: “Worms for dinner? Europe backs insect based food”; “Good grub: why we might be eating insects soon”; and “Fancy a bug burger?”

The house journals of global capitalism, the Financial Times and The Economist, take a similar line. Both publications advocate for entomophagy beneath perky headlines such as “Eating bugs: a culinary idea with legs” and “Why eating insects makes sense”.

https://unherd.com/2022/01/why-well-end-up-eating-bugs/

[Nige]

Meat substitutes... but not insects?

I don't see any of those indicating anyone forcing anyone to eat bugs.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Nobody has proposed forcing anyone to eat bugs. "

The left always denies they're going to do stuff right up until the moment they do it. Remember how it was only a few months ago that they were denying any intention to ban gas appliances? Going further back, remember how the advocates of the ERA claimed all the stuff opponents were talking about was nonsense, and then turned around and fought for that stuff in court on the basis of the 14th amendment?

It's enough of a behavior pattern that if you were to deny you had any intention of conducting a genocide, I'd move up taking care of my bucket list.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

"Nobody wants to take your guns."

"Nobody wants to ban gas stoves."

Etc, etc......

[Nige]

On that basis you can claim 'the left' are going to do any old thing. Or, more to the point, you have made yourself completely credulous.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The left always denies they’re going to do stuff right up until the moment they do it."

We've already covered your intellectual deficits and your propensity to lie through your teeth, but I have to ask yet another question about you:

Do you only have one eye? Conspiratorial bullshit aside (which leaves extraordinarily little for anyone to discuss with you, ever), why are you only capable of such incredible foresight with "the left?"

[Life of Brian]

They’re maybe a bit high in terms of the calorie to protein ratio, the lipid profile isn’t great, and there are some concerns about some of the insect proteins having high allergenic potential.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Actually, the roasted, freeze dried soldier fly larva I give my chickens as a treat smell disturbingly yummy…

It’s amazing how nuts chickens go for those things. Mine will run over each other to get to the back porch any time I step out there with the 5 lb bag of dried BSFL I keep on hand for treat day. I can’t say that I share your positive assessment of their aroma though, and I’ve eaten (and enjoyed) a few types of dried bugs before (mostly crickets dusted with various flavorings).

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't it amazing, though? They even suspect I'm coming with them, they go crazy.

It's very handy, since I'm no longer agile enough to catch a chicken. I want them back in the coop, or out of my way while I'm cleaning the bedding, I just toss some on the ground, and they're tied up until they are absolutely certain they haven't missed any.

That wasn't really a positive assessment. They're disturbingly yummy smelling. Starts out with an enticing roasted odor, then your nose says, "Hey, wait a minute...".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It’s very handy, since I’m no longer agile enough to catch a chicken. I want them back in the coop, or out of my way while I’m cleaning the bedding, I just toss some on the ground, and they’re tied up until they are absolutely certain they haven’t missed any.

I use them for the same purpose on occasion, and have actually conditioned them to come running just by yelling, “Who wants a treat?!” when I walk outside with them. That was very useful when one of my hens escaped and began wandering the neighbor’s property about 150 yds from the area they’re normally confined to. I opened the backyard gate and just yelled the aforementioned phrase and she immediately stopped what she was doing and ran home as fast as she could (with both wings flapping furiously in turbo-boost mode) to get her share of the goodies.

I'm now finding that the same conditioning works on my goats as well, which I'm sure will be just as useful some day.

[Don Nico]

I'm with you C_XY

[Martinned]

By the way, I wouldn't suggest Bild as a reliable news source for Germany. They're an unabashed tabloid whose owner calls up the editor to tell him which right-wing talking points he wants pushed that week.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/13/axel-springer-ceo-mathias-dopfner-leaked-messages-reported

[Bob from Ohio]

Citing The Guardian as a reliable news source?

[Martinned]

The last time I cited a source in German I got complaints, and the Guardian is the only English-language newspaper that is a) not paywalled, and b) occasionally notices that non-English speaking countries exist.

Here, have a source in German: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/presserat-zeit-springer-mathias-doepfner-chat-zitate-1.5860713

[Bob from Ohio]

"non-English speaking countries exist"

They do? Not important ones.

[Krayt]

To put that into perspective a quarter pounder is 108 grams

And McDonald’s has a buy one get one for a dollar special, for that, Big Mac, or 10 nuggets.

So that’s 216 grams for a day. Er, for a meal.

Or just knock yourself out with a double quarter pounder.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Hmm...I wonder why the duopoly parties are so insistent on limiting ballot access for third parties?

"Almost half of American voters would give serious thought to casting a ballot for a third-party candidate if President Biden and former President Donald Trump are the Democratic and Republican nominees next year, according to a new poll.

"The survey released on Tuesday by NewsNation and Decision Desk HQ found that 49% of registered voters said they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to consider picking someone else instead of Biden, 80, or Trump, 76....

"The poll also found that younger and non-white voters were more likely to consider a third-party option in the event of a Biden-Trump rematch.

"Only 32% of people over 55 said they would consider voting for a third party compared to 61% of individuals between the ages of 18 and 34. Among voters 35 through 55, 60% said they might vote for a third-party candidate over Trump or Biden.

"Nearly two-thirds of African-Americans (65%) said they would consider a third-party candidate, making them the most likely racial group to break party ranks. Whites were the least likely, with only 45% saying they would consider voting for a non-Trump or Biden candidate, while 62% of Asians and 63% of Hispanics said they would consider a third-party candidate as well."

https://nypost.com/2023/06/06/nearly-half-of-voters-would-consider-a-third-party-candidate-over-donald-trump-joe-biden-poll/

[Gandydancer]

In California you don't even get a second party on the ballot. At least that was the case for US Senator last time that office had an election. Not sure about President.

[Kazinski]

Cause you don’t know how California’s elections work.

Its not that hard to get on the primary ballot for US Senator, 3500 filing fee or about 5000 signatures. Not huge hurdles for someone reasonably serious about running.

But its a jungle primary, all candidates regardless of party running against each other. Top two regardless of party go on to the general election. 2 Dems, or 2 GOP, or one of each or a Green and a libertarian, it doesn’t matter. If you are a 3rd party candidate the primary makes or breaks you.

[Gandydancer]

I know how it doesn’t work. Not that it worked well before, but I could at least vote Libertarian in the real election. (At least the NAME expressed my preference even if the PARTY was a bunch of potheads.)

[OtisAH]

No, you don’t know that either.

[Gandydancer]

^^^^ Mr. Determined Ignorance projects.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has California banned write-in votes, or is Gandydancer full of shit?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we understand.

The general election is THE election, constitutionally speaking. And jungle primaries are a mechanism for keeping minority parties off the ballot in that election.

[Bob from Ohio]

"jungle primaries are a mechanism for keeping minority parties off the ballot "

No, they are a mechanism for the dominant party to keep the second party from winning.

Southern states used them to stop the GOP in the Jim Crow era. California doing the same.

[Martinned]

hey are a mechanism for the dominant party to keep the second party from winning.

A primary where everyone who gets more than a (low) number of signatures can compete equally is a mechanism for keeping smaller parties out? How do you figure?

[Bob from Ohio]

Dominant party gets both top finishers because the dominant/secondary gap is large enough,

The secondary party might get lucky in a general. A sudden indictment or, in the old days, being caught with a dead boy.

But if you can keep the secondary party out of the general, that cannot happen.

[Martinned]

What you're describing is the more popular party getting more votes. That doesn't sound like a cunning plan to undermine democracy so much as democracy at work.

As I understand it, nothing is stopping the less popular party from saying and doing things to get more popular, win more votes, and get their candidates through to the second round.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, my point is that the general election is, constitutionally speaking, the ONLY election.

Primary elections are just a convenience, originally the major parties offloading an internal expense onto the government. Not all parties even US primaries, and they're inapplicable to independent candidates.

[Randal]

The difficulty you're having is that your point is dumb. You just made that all up.

Anyway, third-party candidates have a better shot in a jungle primary system than in a traditional primary system for two reasons. First, in a jungle primary, the multiple major-party candidates will split the vote, unlike in a traditional general. Second, the relatively low turnout in the primary will give an edge to excited third-party voters compared to competing in the general.

[bernard11]

That makes no sense.

If the third-party candidate can't even finish second in the primary, what makes you think they would win the general?

[Krayt]

They don't want a general election with two popular Democrats splitting the vote. That's not good news for Republicans. But the party system was to allow those of like-minded ideas to field candidates.

This suggests two flavors of Democrats are actually distinct parties, ganging up to disenfranchise Republicans.

Which is nonsense because the two candidates are always the usual arrogant assholes ripping each other to shreds because power is to be had. And, side stuff, don't look behind the curtain.

[Sarcastr0]

Another example of a decision to embrace stubborn ignorance to feel persecuted.

The CA GOP is not going to win anything. This allows ideological diversity to get before the people in a way that a party primary would not.

You are not innumerate; this is elementary game theory. And yet, you keep it up year upon year after multiple people have walked you through it.

Chosen ignorance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Chosen ignorance."

Yes, you have.

You think the Democrats in Cali went to this system to increase "ideological diversity. Insanity.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't venture a guess as to the motives of the change, I'm looking at the actual effect.

[Randal]

It’s even stupider than that, Sarcastr0. Not only does the jungle primary increase idological diversity, it pushes California politics significantly to the right. With a traditional primary, the leftiest lefty who won the primary would also win the general. With a jungle primary, the more moderate Democrat will win in the general. It changes the incentives within the Democratic party to move toward the center rather than toward the extreme edge.

So… what are you complaining about, Bob? Chosen ignorance is right.

[EscherEnigma]

... what state do you think Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is from?

[Bob from Ohio]

He's not elected statewide now is he.

[EscherEnigma]

What an odd place to drag the goalpost to.

Republicans win and run in California all the time. Like literally, every election cycle. For 2023-2024, California sent 12 Republicans to the House of Representatives. That's more representatives then 38 states get. Give me a random Republican representative, and California is in the top five states they're likely to be from (I mean, i'm pretty sure it's #2, but I don't feel like checking so many states to be sure).

Of 120 state legislators, 26 are Republicans.

And yes, in most general elections, you'll see a D against an R (including the most recent election for senator).

This idea that Republicans can't win in California is bogus. The system is not gamed against them, they win seats every year, and the last districting map had Republican support.

Reason obsesses about how "unfair" California elections are because they're all based out of LA and can't get their heads out of their collective asses long enough to realize that California keeps voting for Democrats not because the system is rigged, but because that's what California voters want.

[Bob from Ohio]

Did I ever say it was 100% successful. Minority parties usually win something.

There are millions of GOP voters in the whole state, its difficult to eliminate all their seats.

"For 2023-2024, California sent 12 Republicans to the House of Representatives."

Out of 53. Less than 25%.

"Of 120 state legislators, 26 are Republicans." Less than 25% again.

Even Trump got 34%.

The bogus "non-partisan" redistricting commission and the jungle primary both serve to ensure the GOP gets only crumbs.

[EscherEnigma]

... you mean when Alex Padilla (D) won against Mark Meuser (R)?

As for president, those don't operate under the jungle primary.

[David Nieporent]

In California you don’t even get a second party on the ballot. At least that was the case for US Senator last time that office had an election. Not sure about President.

You have to go all the way back to the distant past of 2022 to find a U.S. Senate election in California with a Republican on the ballot.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I suppose in light of the conversation above I should make clear that I refer to ballot access in the general election, where independent candidates and various political parties ought to be able to present their candidates to the public.

Any form of govt-run primary system gets the state involved in internal party matters to such an extent that one wonders where the state ends and the parties begin.

For convenience, why not just have one party which runs the state, and is run by it, and leave voting to that party's primaries?

[bernard11]

I should make clear that I refer to ballot access in the general election, where independent candidates and various political parties ought to be able to present their candidates to the public.

OK, but how does the jungle primary actually differ from that?

Suppose you had a general election like the one you describe, with a runoff between the two top vote-getters.

Where is the difference?

Or do you think the top vote-getter in the first election should just win, even if they only have a plurality?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Or do you think the top vote-getter in the first election should just win, even if they only have a plurality?”

OK, not only do I not believe this, you can’t find anywhere that I even suggested this.

Doesn’t the welcome-to-the-jungle primary cut out political parties altogether? If a party, though its own internal procedures, endorses a candidate, that ought to be noted on the ballot. Suppressing such facts, in the name of who-knows-what goo-goo theory, sounds like election misinformation.

And if the welcome-to-the-jungle primary is just like a general election followed by a runoff, why call it a primary at all? Why not call it a general election and move the date accordingly?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'd be open to having a jungle general election, at the specified general election date and subject to a runoff. I'd like the ballot to note which candidates have political-party endorsements, because like it or not some voters are so un-advanced as to prefer some political parties over others. Crazy, right?

Also, what happened to concerns about "ballot clutter" in the welcome-to-the-jungle primary? Is that simply a tactical argument to be turned on and off depending on who benefits?

[EscherEnigma]

CA elections include a rather detailed handbook explaining the different candidates (including candidate statements), propositions (including arguments from the major proponents and detractors), and so-on.

This includes party endorsements.

And yes, this handbook is both delivered to voters, and available at voting precincts.

Which is to say... if you don't know which candidate your party endorsed, that's on you, not California.

[bernard11]

not only do I not believe this, you can’t find anywhere that I even suggested this.

I didn’t think you did. I was just trying to figure out the differences here.

Case A: Jungle primary, top two finishers run off in the general.

Case B: Open general election. If no one gets a majority the top two go to a runoff.

The second is a little different in that there might not be runoff, but this doesn’t happen all that often, and when it does it’s highly likely that candidate would be the ultimate winner in Case A.

IOW, while I can see preferring B to A, as you do, I don't see much difference between them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My quibbles – if you call them that – are

-why hold what amounts to a general election in primary season (bearing in mind I’m not into government-run primaries)?

-and

-why keep party endorsements off the ballot (apparently they’re relegated to a voter-information pamphlet, but if there’s no difference, why not on the ballot, too)?

This is assuming there’s liberal ballot access, which to me would ideally mean organizing a party/independent candidacy complete with campaign committee and treasurer (and maybe a nondiscriminatory advertising fee aka filing fee), but not violating the principle of the secret ballot by getting petition signatures.

If adopting something like the welcome-to-the-jungle primary is the way to get liberal ballot access through the back door, more power to it, with the reservations I’ve stated.

It also puts in perspective the arguments of the duopologists in other states that they can’t allow liberal ballot access because the sky would fall, dogs and cats living together, etc.

[bernard11]

Well, you have to have it some time before the general. If you think it should be later than it is now, fine.

As for party endorsements on the ballot, I don't care one way or the other. I suppose there are those who pay zero attention to the campaign and then vote according to party endorsements. No reason to deprive them of the information.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9erLsEHAZRI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGnCyMc_X-4

[MeanGene]

Well, isn't the alternative to "government run primaries" a caucus-and-convention system? Can you sell that to the voters after a century of propaganda about "smoke-filled rooms"? Or are you suggesting that parties, as groups of like-minded individuals coming together for a common purpose should be effectively abolished and replaced with "open primaries" , runoffs and ranked-choice balloting?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Use a smoke filled room or a tobacco-free environment, vote in person or by Zoom or via computer poll – let the parties decide which method would be more palatable to the public.

Or a candidate could run on his own behalf without a party, if indeed the public grows disgusted with parties (or, rather, if the public chooses for once to manifest this disgust).

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose that's one alternative. Another one would be that if political parties want to hold elections to select their party's candidate, they can pay for them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, indeed, and it ought to be a scandal whenever the government makes you and I pick up the tab.

[AmosArch]

Heres something funny I’ve realized. The contemporary definitions of ‘extreme theocratic dystopia’ and ‘lovely LGBKLDFJ!LDFLKDSFLKDL?*$KFLDFFFD people just trying to live their lives and mind their own business’ are essentially the same. Just swap out the group doing it and make it a bad thing in the former but a good thing in the latter.

Extreme horrifying theocratic dystopia/’LGBDDKLFJDLFDLF people just trying to live their lives and mind their own business”: Noun, a social phenomenon whereby a group among other things:

1. demands and successfully implements the pervasive and explicit teaching and enforcement of their cult in public school and workplaces.

2. Introduces pervasive and widespread changes to the educational curriculum of both children and adults. Examples include the changing of the history curriculum to show their group in a better light, put in more group history and group figures on the basis that they’re supposedly ‘underrepresented’ .

3. Successfully bullies authorities into establishing holidays celebrating their group. Where participation is essentially mandatory on pain of societal penalties

4. Is one of if not the most powerful special interest groups in the nation if not the world. Demands all public and private entities celebrate the group and is largely successful. Gets government entities to essentially establish it as a defacto state creed, festoon themselves with group symbols.

5. Intertwined closely and works hand in hand with the government

6. Also deeply intertwined with private entities that are obligated to sell group merchandise. And every company from cookies to cars run nonstop advertisements extolling the virtues of the group.

7. Has tv shows and movies and every form of media also constantly sing its praises. to the point where its practically omnipresent at all times in all corners of the nation.

8. Demands taxpayer money for group rites and practices on basis that its good for their psychological wellbeing.

9. Tries to inculcate children to their beliefs behind their parents back.

10. Punishes people questioning or not playing along with group. Successful to the point where large portions of the population are intimidated into compliance and bandwagoning.

Who knew these two things had so much in common?

[apedad]

Why are you describing recent events in Oklahoma?

Oklahoma approves first taxpayer-funded religious school, setting stage for legal battles

https://www.foxnews.com/media/oklahoma-approves-first-taxpayer-funded-religious-school-setting-stage-legal-battles

[Michael P]

Charter schools are private and opt-in. They are not a case of "demands and successfully implements the pervasive and explicit teaching and enforcement of their cult in public school". All the other points are also not describing that school or the Catholic Church.

[Kazinski]

Well then what else is grass good for?

I’d say taking something, of course it’s better not to take it, letting the cows go to the grass, that has no other uses and turning into delicious beef, milk, cheese, and butter is very efficient.

Or do you want to build condos on it?

Let's not forget before America was populated with cattle it was populated with enormous herds of buffalo doing exactly the same thing to the grass. And Europe was populated with bison and Aurochs.

[Kazinski]

I guess i put that in the wrong place.

[Nige]

Grass is good for loads of things, including storing carbon, but cattle pastures are monocultures, not the rich rolling biodiverse ecosystems of the prairies and steppes, and they're not actually sufficent to feed all the cattle, so lots of cropland is devoted to feeding them. The inefficency is reflected in how much grass and feedstock and land is required to produce each gram of protein, and how all of that is driving deforestation and using up land that is better suited to growing other foodstuffs.

[bernard11]

Private?

[David Nieporent]

Charter schools are public schools.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I don't think your cite really fits the 10 items AmoArch posted. If a state chooses to fund private schools (OK did), the state cannot discriminate against private religious schools.

When I read AA's list of 10 items, I thought Marxism.

[Martinned]

I assume he meant "cultural Marxism". You know, nudge nudge, those people.

[Gandydancer]

Loons like you.

[bernard11]

If a state chooses to fund private schools (OK did), the state cannot discriminate against private religious schools.

How in the world is a school funded by the government a "private school?"

That's from Fantasyland.

And no, they shouldn't fund religious schools. The government has no business whatsoever subsidizing the Catholic church, which is exactly what they are doing here.

It's a slam-dunk 1A violation, though I suppose Gorsuch can make up some lies and let them get away with it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How in the world is a school funded by the government a “private school?”

That’s from Fantasyland.

No, it's from reality. If a school is privately owned and operated then it is a private school, regardless of the source of its income. If a private manufacturing company received all of its income from government contracts, would it cease to be a private company?

And no, they shouldn’t fund religious schools. The government has no business whatsoever subsidizing the Catholic church, which is exactly what they are doing here.

It’s a slam-dunk 1A violation, though I suppose Gorsuch can make up some lies and let them get away with it.

You're an idiot of the highest order. The fact that an accredited school is run by a religious organization in no way makes funding of that school an establishment of religion.

[Randal]

That could be true, and it's what happened in Maine.

But that's not what's happening in Oklahoma. It's a taxpayer-financed public Catholic school. Totally gross an un-American.

[Nige]

We get it, you're scared of lgtbq and black people and don't think they should be treated the same way as you feel you ought.

[Gandydancer]

Black people: 64% of murderers where the race of the murderer is known. (IAW FBI)

But, yeah, White Supremacists are the big threat. (Also FBI. Biden's FBI, anyway.)

[Nige]

White supremacist terorism is, yes.

[Gandydancer]

Not remotely. I pointed to data. All you've got is hallucinations.

[Sarcastr0]

I pointed to data.
Yeah, not controlled for any conflating variables. Great for racist morons; bad for the truth.

Here's a stat:
https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today/

Number of People Killed in Deadly Attacks in the Post-9/11 Era, by Ideology
130 Far Right Wing
107 Jihadist
17 Ideological Misogyny/Incel Ideology
12 Black Separatist/Nationalist/Supremacist
1 Far Left Wing

[Bob from Ohio]

How about a list? Anyone can create a pretty chart saying anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Good news! You can click through to my linked source.

[Bob from Ohio]

I did. It doesn't show the data, just two allegedly "cumulative" charts.

Lets see a list of specific deaths to check the math.

[Sarcastr0]

Mouse over the charts, genius.

[Bob from Ohio]

Thanks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Cite.

[Gandydancer]

Wray: ""I would certainly say, as I think I've said consistently in the past, that racially motivated violent extremism specifically of the sort that advocates for the superiority of the white race is a persistent evolving threat," Wray said. "It's the biggest chunk of our racially motivated violent extremism cases for sure and racially motivated violent extremism is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism portfolio."

The thing to note is that the ""It's the biggest chunk of our racially motivated violent extremism CASES" bit is an after-the-classification-and-filters result. Black-on-White crime dwarfs White-on-Black crime and, yes, a lot of that is a reflection of racial animus, but the CASES don't track that reality, somehow. Wonder why.

[Martinned]

Black-on-White crime dwarfs White-on-Black crime and, yes, a lot of that is a reflection of racial animus

Is it, though? (The bold bit.) Some evidence might be nice.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I know if I am at the ATM at night withdrawing cash in a bad part of town, I ain't looking over my shoulder for Christians or other White people.

[Frank Drackman]

If you can't plan ahead so you're not at an ATM in the bad part of town (OK, pretty much anywhere in Atlanta could be considered the "Bad part of town" no matter what time it is) you deserve what you get. It's like the ditzy college Co-eds (is that still a word?) "It was just Jamaal, Kelvin, Ja-rule, and Kanye, oh and this weird old man who said he was Dr. Cosby, how would I know they would take turns raping me????"

Frank

[jb]

Love the implication that only white people are Christians.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Love the implication that only white people are Christians.

I guess you missed the more obvious implication...that being that he is white himself.

[Super Scary]

Do you know what "or" means?

[EscherEnigma]

Call me when Christians are disproportionately murdered in the US.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I'll call you when blacks are disproportionately killing other blacks l, are killing Whites, and are raping and and stealing from Whites.

*ring* *ring*
Pick up the phone, that's me calling you now.

[Kazinski]

As a Bay Area native its sad to see the decline of San Francisco.

The owner of the largest hotel in SF, and another very large hotel as well is abandoning both hotels to the lender and just walking away from their investment.

"Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (“Park” or the “Company”) (NYSE:PK) today announced that, starting in June, it ceased making payments toward the $725 million non-recourse CMBS loan which is scheduled to mature in November 2023, and is secured by two of its San Francisco hotels—the 1,921-room Hilton San Francisco Union Square and the 1,024-room Parc 55 San Francisco. The Company intends to work in good faith with the loan’s servicers to determine the most effective path forward, which is expected to result in ultimate removal of these hotels from its portfolio. "

https://www.pkhotelsandresorts.com/investors/news-and-events/press-releases/2023/06-05-2023-113043391

[Martinned]

Why are we supposed to care about a hotels company going bankrupt? That's capitalism: companies that sail too close to the wind go bust.

[Michael P]

The hotel company is not going bankrupt. It's exercising (or trying to exercise) an option that a lot of leftists claimed was morally justified not many years ago: "jingle mail", where someone who is badly underwater on a mortgage loan surrenders the property (by mailing the keys to their lender, thus "jingle mail") and walks away from the mortgage with no bankruptcy.

The reason this hotel company sees no viable future for large hotels in San Francisco is that the city has driven away hotel guests while raising costs.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course freeing up the rooms for migrants and the homeless. Right?

[Nige]

Be nice if it did.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, THEY'LL pay the taxes that keep the corrupt City and County of San Francisco government going.

[Nige]

Easier to get a job with accomodation.

[Gandydancer]

Easier to get a job if you're not a drugged up crazy person.

[Martinned]

That explains why you have so much time to argue with people on the internet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Going low today?

[Gandydancer]

Why should I have more trouble doing that than you or Nige or Gaslightr0?

[Kazinski]

90% of homelessness is mental illness and addiction problems, and most are unemployable.

If homelessness was just bad luck, or lack of resources or education you'd think illegal aliens would be much more likely to be homeless than the native born population, but of course the opposite is true, and those illegal aliens that do end up homeless its mostly transitory, or the ones that have mental and substance abuse problems.

Really I think the solution is rather than decriminalization of drugs, we have an institutionalization of drug addicts, housing, therapy, medication, work release, monitoring, and long term follow-up. It'll be expensive, but the benefits of turning a blight on society into productive citizens will be worth it for them and us.

Three hots and a cot and walking around money doesn't solve anything.

[Nige]

How many are homeless because of mental health and substance abuse, and how many have mental health and substance abuse problems because they're homeless? I applaud your inclination to help them rather than dehumanise them, but considering how destructive and wasteful and what a colossal failure the war on drugs has been I can't see how anyone can support keeping drugs criminalised. Yes, addiction is terrible, but adding criminality to it only makes it so much worse.

The Sacklers should be in prison, though.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts rents motel rooms for people the state is responsible for housing.

What does it cost to maintain a hotel as a rooming house instead of a spot for business travelers? Change the sheets weekly instead of daily. Let the people clean their own rooms.

[Gandydancer]

Let the people clean their own rooms. I'm sure they'll get around to the shit smeared on the walls eventually.

[ducksalad]

Guess you haven’t stayed in a lot of motels lately?

Even high end ($>100/night) hotels only change the sheets every week unless you specifically ask. Many are going the same way with towels. They usually try to sell it as an environmental thing.

Most will still make the bed, using the old sheets, but that’s starting to go also.

[John F. Carr]

I last stayed in a hotel about five years ago. At that time some advertised infrequent changes and some did not.

[Commenter_XY]

Jingle Mail....funny. Truthfully, that is just contract law. I never had any issue with 'Jingle Mail' as long as the mortgage contract allowed it.

[Michael P]

In most cases supported by the left, the contacts didn't allow it, but the lender had no real prospect of recovering damages, so the costs were shifted to non-deadbeats.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, non-deadbeats...I think that means us, Michael P. 🙂

[Gandydancer]

But eventually you run out of non-deadbeats.

[Ed Grinberg]

Leftists just don't understand this.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/138248-the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-you-eventually-run-out

[Randal]

That's true... but getting increasingly less true over time.

I'm no fan of Socialism, but it's worth thinking about how this equation is changing and will continue to change.

One way to think about "productivity" is how much manpower it takes to support one person's lifestyle. We're getting to the point where a crappy but liveable lifestyle (food, shelter, healthcare) only requires maybe five hours of work per week to maintain. So if I work 40 hours a week, that could support 5 freeloaders with enough left for me to have a 3x better lifestyle than they do. Once it's down to two hours (because the AIs are doing almost everything), my 40 hours could support 15 freeloaders with a 5x lifestyle for myself.

I think that will change society's economic calculus quite a lot. (In dollar terms I'm essentially describing UBI.)

[jb]

Some states (including California but also Montana and Oklahoma) have non-recourse mortgages, so lenders can't go after other assets in the event of default on a mortgage. Other states (including New York and Massachusetts) allow for deficiency judgments if you still owe the bank money after foreclosure. This isn't a right versus left thing, just a feature of state law that seems not to map to our current political ideologies in a meaningful way.

[Martinned]

I heard about that. Weird...

[bernard11]

You're an idiot.

First of all, this is decided by state law, not on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, some states require mortgages to be non-recourse.

Do you think the lenders don't know this, and that this isn't reflected in the rates charged, lending standards, other conditions?

Not much faith in markets there.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
The point is that many businesses, small and large, are abandoning downtown SF because it is unsafe for their workers and customers.
It has nothing to do with capitalism

[Martinned]

What you’re describing there is Ilya Somin’s beloved foot voting. Again something we’re all supposed to be in favour of, even if opinions vary about whether it’s effective.

[ducksalad]

Well, yes. And just like with regular voting, we can use the results as a rough approximation of who is doing a good job. Except the foot voting is more accurate because people generally do a lot more thinking and research before making a foot voting decision.

[Martinned]

Well, we can use the results of foot voting as a rough approximation of who is doing a good job at pleasing the foot voters. But that doesn't answer the questions whether pleasing the foot voters is what government ought to be doing.

For example, adopting a bunch of anti-union legislation is a great way to attract more businesses to your state. But that doesn't mean that that's good government policy.

[Randal]

How is it not capitalism? It's exactly capitalism.

Hire security. Pay people more. Adjust your room rates.

If you can't figure out a way to make a profit, well, that's capitalism for you.

Florida and Texas keep boasting about how much easier it is to operate businesses there than in California. Capitalist businesses.

[Bored Lawyer]

I often wonder if you are just stupid or arguing in bad faith. It's not the hotel we are "supposed to care about," it's the city of San Francisco. This is one more sign of SF's decline.

[Martinned]

Because a couple of hotels go out of business? That seems like an exaggeration. If you have complaints beyond Kazinski's original comment you're welcome to make them, but I was trying to work out what he was on about.

[ducksalad]

We distinguish some different cases here:

– Making a financial decision to sell a viable business, and using the proceeds to do something else.
– Being forced out of business, but selling the assets at market rates to minimize the damage.
– Writing it off totally, telling the bank they can have the whole thing ’cause it ain’t worth shit anymore.

Haven't followed the details but the discussion sounds like Case #3.

[Martinned]

The only difference between your cases 1 and 3 is the level of debt in the business. (Which my university textbooks called leverage, but why my British colleagues insist on calling gearing.) See also: the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which has gone into receivership yesterday even though the operating company is a perfectly viable business. It's simply not viable enough to carry the £1bn of debt that's in the holding company.

As for being forced out of business, I see no indication that that's happening here. That would be a case for the courts anyway.

[ducksalad]

I didn't mean "forced" in the sense of coerced by some higher authority. I just meant forced by financial realities.

But anyway, you seem to be implying that a hotel's willingness to donate their real estate to a bank says nothing about the value of the real estate. I think it shows that the hotel saw no realistic chance of finding a buyer, and that in turn shows that the property has lost quite a bit of its utility. Which in turn says something about the tourist market in SF.

[Martinned]

O, in that case your first two are the same.

[bernard11]

Hard to know without seeing the numbers.

Basically, if they could cover the debt payments they would keep operating, because that conserves something for equityholders.

To let it go to the bank rather than finding a buyer just means the debt is greater than whatever they could sell it for.

As martinned says, our interpretation depends on the level of debt. If it's very high then letting it go might well be the best option.

By the way, I notice in Kazinski's quote that it is the company that is having trouble, not specifically these two hotels. That complicates things a bit, though obviously the SF hotels likely aren't the jewels of their portfolio.

[Kazinski]

No, the company says its the San Francisco hotels that are dragging them down, so they are dropping the anchor holding them back:

"Ultimately removing the loan and the hotels will substantially improve our balance sheet and operating metrics"

"Now more than ever, we believe San Francisco’s path to recovery remains clouded and elongated by major challenges – both old and new: record high office vacancy; concerns over street conditions; lower return to office than peer cities; and a weaker than expected citywide convention calendar through 2027 that will negatively impact business and leisure demand"

When you are having trouble you don't drop the profitable part of your business, you try to sell it.

[bernard11]

Sure, this is what I meant to imply was likely the case.

[Kazinski]

Cities that sail to close to the wind go bust too.

But there is a big shakeout going on in commercial real estate in large cities, especially in blue states across the country. Companies have realized huge downtown office towers are expensive, unnecessary, and the employees don't like them anyway.

But the good news is most of those cities have a housing shortages so I think we are going to start seeing a lot of condo conversions.

[Ed Grinberg]

You vote in crazy "progressives" -- you get this sort of "progress." It's mathematical.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Will JFK be posthumously prosecuted for what it is proposed Trump be prosecuted for?

Remember those U2 pictures of the launchers shown to the UN? Yes, those were HIGHLY classified but the POTUS has the power to declassify anything and legal technicalities matter no more than judicial ones do for SCOTUS, which is free to ignore precedent.

This is not good for the country.

[Martinned]

He brought a Stasi spy into the White House to have sex with her. If posthumous prosecution was a thing, that seems like something that should go higher on the list.

As for the President's power to declassify things, I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with, or why on earth this is an argument you'd be interested in having.

[Gandydancer]

That's a new one to me.
Search doesn't turn up anything.
Does this STASI spy have a name?

[Martinned]

First result when I typed "JFK Stasi spy" into Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Rometsch

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not proven, it seems.

Even if true, there’s a difference between sleeping with a spy and actually and deliberating passing on classified information. For example, planning a military attack on a map at one's hotel with guests casually looking on.

[John F. Carr]

Nearly coincident with the Profumo affair.

[Mr. Bumble]

Christine Keeler was so hot.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, she was (is?) DSL's from hell.

Frank

[Gandydancer]

Wikipedia: “Ellen Rometsch (born Bertha Hildegard Elly,[1] September 19, 1936 in Kleinitz, Germany) is a German former model who was alleged to be an East German Communist spy who was assigned on diplomatic cover to the West German embassy in Washington, D.C., during the early 1960s. During that time, Rometsch was widely thought in some Washington journalism circles to have been a mistress of President John F. Kennedy. However, the FBI never turned up “any solid evidence” that Rometsch was a spy or that she had relations with President Kennedy.[2]”

You: “He brought a Stasi spy into the White House to have sex with her.”

Do you ever get tired of lying about what you supposedly know?

[Martinned]

Wait, you're upset that I insulted the memory of JFK?

He was a terrible president who almost got us all blown to smithereens during the Cuban missile crisis, got the US into Vietnam, stole the 1960 election, appointed his brother to the cabinet, and slept around with who ever he could get his hands on. The only good thing he ever did for the country as president was get killed.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, he did serve in wartime which is more than you did (I know, "Homo, much better now")

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"The only good thing he ever did for the country as president was get killed."

You are a piece of crap.

[Martinned]

With Kennedy alive the Civil Rights Act 1964 would have never been passed, and Lyndon Johnson would have never become President.

[Frank Drackman]

both good things

[Kazinski]

So Johnson did kill him after all?

[Martinned]

He certainly had motive...

[Bob from Ohio]

I guess you favor killing more politicians in order to get things you like passed.

Well, at least its an ethos.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- he would not have beat Goldwater in '64 and knew it -- why do you think he went to Dallas that day? He'd be a Gerry Ford had he lived -- and it's not clear that he would have lived to January, 1969 -- he had serious health issues and was on heavy drugs.

[Martinned]

He would have beat Goldwater with two hands behind his back, assuming that Goldwater would have still been the GOP nominee. He may have been a terrible president but he sure could give a speech. As an incumbent he would have been pretty unbeatable. (By 1964 the US hadn't voted an incumbent out of office since 1932.)

[Bob from Ohio]

Probably but of course the Civil Rights Act 1964 would not exist according to you. It was Goldwater's opposition to that that really sank him.

[Martinned]

That's a fair point. But Kennedy would have run on being a Democrat yet also a heroic leader of the country fighting off the Commies in Russia and in Cuba while sending a man to the moon, and he would have won on that.

[not guilty]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would likely not have been enacted except for Lyndon Johnson´s legislative skills in beating back a Senate filibuster. If he had lived, Kennedy may not have been able to accomplish that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Howie Carr discussed it in one of his Kennedy Babylon books -- she was also married which I had an issue with.

But the first thing I thought of was what a perfect way to spread disinformation. LET her go through your (fake) briefing book and the rest, and then tie up all their assets in trying to figure out what part of it is and isn't true -- and you can give them some true but useless information to encourage them.

Resources are finite, and if you could get the Stazi chasing their tails, so much the better.

I've heard of a known spy with Diplomatic Cover randomly riding the Moscow subway system just to drive the KGB crazy -- they had to tail him, and then try to figure out what he was up to.

Now the Russian maybe-spy that Bill Gates was dating...

[Martinned]

I read about it in Seymour Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot. But it's been a while, I'll admit.

[OtisAH]

No. Move on to the next stupid question.

[Moderation4ever]

Do you know that Kennedy did not have the photos declassified before he made them public?

[jb]

Not the best cite in the world, but this webpage asserts that Kennedy declassified them:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/phot-nf.html

[Krayt]

I accept the theory the president can declassify with a thought. Though any normal president would soon have an aid file paperwork on it, so everyone else knows. In a quickly moving situation, that's especially fine.

What did Kennedy do? Showed it to the world to prove the point.

What did Trump do? Kept it in boxes, never filed some notice on it.

[Sarcastr0]

I accept the theory the president can declassify with a thought.

You accept that the President is above the law. Because no organization works like this.

[SRG]

Standard reaction from any Trumpsucker to any accusation against Trump - first, it never happened, second, other people did something similar,

[David Nieporent]

Will JFK be posthumously prosecuted for what it is proposed Trump be prosecuted for?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Michael P]

The first rule of Loudoun County Middle School Fight Club is that apparently everybody is in on Loudoun County Middle School Fight Club.

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2023/05/loudoun-co-middle-school-students-host-fight-clubs-with-help-from-parents/

[Michael P]

The second rule of Loudoun County Middle School Fight Club is that at least they're not shooting each other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/06/carjackings-dc-maryland-virginia-data/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/07/funeral-service-owner-shoots-pallbearer/

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, on the left cost, the murder rate in Portland has jumped so much that police assure people that a serial killer is not on the loose.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/after-6-women-found-dead-portland-officials-warn/story?id=99838337

[Martinned]

It might be of interest to my American friends that the Lord Chancellor removed a circuit judge from office this week. The judge was found to have deliberately deleted data in the knowledge that it was of interest to police officers carrying out a criminal investigation. (No information given beyond that, as far as I can tell.)

https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/disciplinarystatements/Statement0823/

[Bob from Ohio]

"might be of interest"

Doubt it.

[Bored Lawyer]

They still have a "Lord Chancellor?" I thought he got a new, more modern title.

[Martinned]

He is also the Secretary of State for Justice. (And I think it is technically in that capacity that he took this decision.)

[Michael P]

In other news, telehealth providers for putatively transgender patients seem unscrupulous about malpractice: https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1666496308150951954

[Frank Drackman]

Well "Telehealth" itself is bullshit, well maybe not, considering how little the current generation of "Providers" knows about examining the human body..
But the whole Tranny thang causes problems with the "Standby" sitch-u-asian, So, normally, if I'm gonna be feeling up a girls tits, I mean doing a breast exam, I have to have another female in the room, to insure I'm not enjoying the exam too much.
BUT what if it's a Female to Male to get her Add-a-Dick-to-me checked out, OK, she's really a female, so do I get another female?? Or a Male to Female needs his Neo-Gash lubed, same problem, it's enough to make somebody quit primary care right on the spot.

Frank "Open wide, no, your mouth"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm not going to be a gatekeeper...I'm going to write them this letter."

So much for the claim that they won't perform these procedures on anyone who wants them, regardless of whether or not they have other mental health issues.

[Commenter_XY]

A question for the VC lawyers and law professors....

I've been reading a number of blogs here about motions written using AI technology, replete with non-existent cases, and completely false assertions. Thusfar, the blogs have written about a judge requiring statements from lawyers appearing before him (did not use AI to write brief), false citations, defamatory statements, etc.

If I am the client whose lawyer used AI to write a brief that was subsequently trashed by the judge because there were false citations....what is the remedy for the client? Is there one?

[not guilty]

An aggrieved client can seek professional disciplinary sanctions against the lawyer.

A civil damages action for legal malpractice is a possibility, but the client would need to show injury to him -- distinct from consequences to the lawyer -- traceable to the lawyer´s misconduct, and he would need to show that but for the lawyer´s conduct falling below the standard of care, he would have been successful in the underlying lawsuit.

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, when a former client seeks professional disciplinary sanctions, what do they typically ask for? Yank the license? Money? Pound of flesh?

Did you ever have a client try that with you? (you practiced law for 28 years, no?)

[Martinned]

Historically English barristers could not be sued for breach of contract (since formally they don't have a contract with their clients). Also, the court did not allow them to be sued for negligence, even after the tort of negligent misstatement was recognised in Hedley Byrne v. Heller in 1963.

Here is no lesser judge than Lord Denning upholding that rule: https://ethicsforpupils.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/rondel-v-worsley-1966-3-all-er-657.pdf

Fortunately that is no longer the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, barristers had "qualified immunity".

[Martinned]

More like absolute immunity.

[not guilty]

In my jurisdiction when a complaint is filed, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Board of Professional Responsibility investigates to determine whether formal charges should be brought. If not, the complaint is dismissed. If charges are brought, a three member hearing panel composed of practitioners is appointed. Discovery is available as in civil lawsuits, Most complaints are disposed of by agreement between Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent. If not, a full blown evidentiary hearing is held, with the hearing panel determining whether misconduct occurred and if so, recommending penalties which may include public censure, suspension from practice or disbarment. Money damages are not available, although restitution to persons or entities financially injured as a result of the respondent attorney’s misconduct may be ordered.

Judicial review of the judgment of a hearing panel is available, first by a circuit or chancery court, and ultimately by the state supreme court. Actual imposition of sanctions is by order of the state supreme court.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, this was the key to me = Most complaints are disposed of by agreement between Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent.

I'm guessing the agreement is a version of: You're busted, don't make us have to have a hearing...

This was a very informative post not guilty. Thanks for the explanation.

[John F. Carr]

To prove a malpractice case it may be necessary to redo the original trial before the malpractice case jury to show them that it was a winner. A "trial within a trial".

[bernard11]

A civil damages action for legal malpractice is a possibility, but the client would need to show injury to him — distinct from consequences to the lawyer — traceable to the lawyer´s misconduct, and he would need to show that "A civil damages action for legal malpractice is a possibility, but the client would need to show injury to him — distinct from consequences to the lawyer — traceable to the lawyer´s misconduct, and he would need to show that but for the lawyer´s conduct falling below the standard of care, he would have been successful in the underlying lawsuit.

Isn't the injury trivially obvious - fees paid, expenses, wasted time?

And what is the standard for showing that "but for the lawyer´s conduct falling below the standard of care, he would have been successful in the underlying lawsuit?"

ISTM that just showing that it had some chance of success would be enough. Surely the lawyer's misconduct lowered those chances, and may have reduced them to zero. That lost chance should be part of the damages.

[Ridgeway]

My understanding is that legal malpractice is very narrow. To simplify slightly, the client needs to show that (a) he lost the case, and (b) he would have won the case, had it not been for the lawyer's malpractice. Only after clearing that high hurdle, do you get into the calculation of damages issue.

[bernard11]

So it's basically expensive and wildly unlikely to succeed.

Wonder who set those requirements.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Wonder who set those requirements."

Its good to be the king!

[Commenter_XY]

There is not much chance of an actual remedy, in my example. The client is screwed, through no fault of their own. not guilty laid it out...the process is lengthy. And Ridgeway explained how high the bar is set.

This whole thread was pretty interesting to me. AI is going to be unsettling for a while.

[David Nieporent]

Not exactly. He has to show that the outcome was worse, not necessarily that it flipped from win to lose. If your case was worth $500k and you settled it for $50k (or only got a $50k judgment) because of the lawyer's errors, that's still malpractice.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I think I understand the point of the culture wars from the point of view of culture war strategists. What I do not understand is the point of the culture wars from the point of view of the culture war enlistees. They are so plentiful and so energetic on this blog. It seems they have little else to do. What's in it for them? Anyone care to explain?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask Kirkland.

[apedad]

Isn’t it as simple as fighting for something that the person really cares about?

2A enthusiasts want to protect their interests.
LGBTQIA+ folks and supporters want the same (protect their interests).
Pro-life/pro-choice; fighting for what they believe is right.
Save the whales.
Fight cancer, etc.

When your deeply-held, personal interests are being attacked, then you will naturally want to fight back – and with gusto!

[apedad]

And BTW (as I've said before on VC), our "culture wars" are a GOOD thing for our country (as long as they don't include violence).

We are a better, stronger, more viable nation when everyone has the opportunity to have a say in their way of life.

Obviously OVER THE LONG TERM progressives are winning and yet there will be times when other interests will - in the short term - prevail, e.g., current backlash against transfolks, abortion (and those slips will be corrected in due time).

But it's our flexibility as a nation that allows us to thrive.

[Commenter_XY]

apedad, I've been playing in the kitchen lately. Are you a fan of sweet potatos? Well, here is a stupendously simple sweet potato recipe that is killer (I substitute garam masala for curry).

Preheat oven to 400
Peel 6 sweet potatos, cut into 2" chunks
1-2 TBSP olive oil; pour over sweet potato chunks; mix to coat all chunks
2-TSP garam masala; sprinkle over potatos, then mix to spread seasoning over potatos; let sit 10 minutes
Line a baking sheet with foil; spread some olive oil over foil to lightly coat; put sheet into oven ffor 5 minutes
Take out HOT baking sheet, dump potatos onto baking sheet (it should sizzle a little)
Put in oven for 15 minutes; take out and turn potatos; bake another 20 minutes.

The carmelization is....outstanding. The curry+cinnamon combo is also outstanding.

https://toriavey.com/curry-roasted-sweet-potatoes/

[apedad]

Love sweet potatos but my better half doesn't so . . . .

[Frank Drackman]

I think a bag of Not-Yo-Cheese Doritos would be healthier

[Ridgeway]

I have made some similar recipes, and they are really good. Roasting vegetables in general is a game changer -- much better for almost everything than steaming, boiling or even frying/sauteeing. Only leafy things like spinach don't benefit from roasting, and I usually prefer them raw.

One other thing I have discovered is dispensing with the foil. I just roast right on the baking sheet. 9 times out of 10, something leaks into the pan anyway, so there is no reduction in cleaning, and the foil tends to stick more than the pan.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, asparagus and brussel sprouts are also very friendly to roasting. You're right about game changer. I'll have to try ditching the foil.

[Ridgeway]

Broccoli is another (as is cauliflower).

Roasting avoids any of the sulfurousness that can make broccoli unpleasant.

[Brett Bellmore]

We usually just steam it briefly on the stovetop, using one of those steamer baskets that looks like a folding parabolic dish antenna. I don't think I'd ever roast broccoli, it needs so little cooking.

[santamonica811]

Dude,
(I put away all political and ideological conflicts when food gets involved.) You have to at least try roasting broccoli and cauliflower before dismissing it. It totally transforms it. With broccoli, I also add a sprinkling of sharp cheddar over the top.

The only problem is that it tastes SO GOOD that I can end up eating a full 6 lbs (raw weight, before cooking) dish in an evening.

(p.s. I've never tried garam masala when roasting sweet potatoes. Will definitely try this next time.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Got Barbara Kafka's "Roasting: A Simple Art" Great cookbook. The "Melting Potatoes" recipe is incredible.

The best way I've found for roasting root vegetables, though, is underneath a meatloaf. In the bottom portion of the roasting tray that comes with most stoves. The grease really keeps them from drying out.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like a cardiologists nightmare, but delicious = The best way I’ve found for roasting root vegetables, though, is underneath a meatloaf.

I'll have to give it a whirl. I promise to report back. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's actually obvious that, in the long run, 'progressives' have only been winning on some issues. You haven't been doing that great on gun control, for instance. And you've really lost the public on racial quotas, even in California they're a loser if they end up on the ballot.

Many of your victories have been in areas where you could impose your policies outside the democratic process, so that public opinion really didn't matter. I'm not sure how secure such victories are, in the long run.

[Michael Ejercito]

Then one issue they had was gay rights.

Could you imagine someone supportive of marriage equality winning the Republican nomination in 2012?

[Brett Bellmore]

Couldn’t have won the Democratic nomination in 2008, never mind the Republican nomination in 2012. Remember, Obama started out opposed to SSM.

The left won on SSM because the judiciary was willing to steamroller the country. One state after another voted against it, then got told that voting wouldn’t be permitted to matter. The only way it could have been stopped was a federal constitutional amendment, and enough of the political elite were privately in favor of it that they could prevent that from happening.

I tend to think that the resignation that set in is gradually converting to approval with generational change, but I’ll never agree that how it was accomplished was procedurally legitimate. Really, it was a demonstration that when the 'elites' agree on something, democracy stops working, and public opinion doesn't matter any longer. They've got too much leverage for voting to mean anything.

I think, though, they’re really over-reaching with the trans stuff. That’s where they stand a good chance of seeing an effective backlash.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Brett Bellmore, always a reliable voice for old-timey bigotry and white grievance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Obama started out opposed to SSM"

Not exactly correct. He started out in local politics in favor, switched back to run for federal office, then reverted back to support.

[Martinned]

That's always the question, isn't it? Do you want politicians to do what their voters want, or do you want them to tell voters they're wrong?

Edmund Burke said this, but then didn't get re-elected...

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

[Bob from Ohio]

Burke was wrong, as on most things, as he was a Whig.

The fact that he got the French revolution right gives him undeserved credence.

[Martinned]

If you're going to demand that elected representatives do what voters want in specific cases before the legislature, you might as well cut out the middle man and have government by referendum. The reasons why that's a terrible idea are frequently explained on this blog by Ilya Somin.

[bevis the lumberjack]

On stuff involving their neighbors freedom, I want them to tell people they’re wrong. That’s an easy one.

[bernard11]

The left won on SSM because the judiciary was willing to steamroller the country.

You are now an expert on the MA constitution as well as the US one?

Besides, do you really think the judiciary should only make politically popular decisions?

[Gandydancer]

Progs have done some winning, but trees do not grow to the sky.

In the long term we're all dead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But until then, people like you will continue to comply with the preferences of better people.

[Theendoftheleft]

No, AIDS: people you like YOU will be rendered into soylent green. 🙂

Your side is weak and decadent. You WILL lose this cold war, and you will be unable to defend your values globally as they shrink from the world. You are done, and your betters will have their way with you, baizuo.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Obviously OVER THE LONG TERM progressives are winning

That's the American way. That's what makes America great. That's what makes me content. That's what drives clingers to delusion, disaffectedness, self-pity, and desperation.

It's all good.

[Theendoftheleft]

AIDS, you foolish twit, over the long term your country is doomed. Focusing on your internal squabbles is to miss the forest for the trees.

Although it will be nice when a sizeable portion of the losing team in your country resorts to large-scale violence before they go down. As a matter of global justice, surely you can see how you and your lot don't deserve to be on the planet, and how justice would be on the side of those undertaking such actions in order to thwart you from perpetrating any further cultural, political, economic, and environmental harm upon the earth and other societies.

[Ben_]

"What’s in it for them?"

Fewer raped or mutilated children.

[EscherEnigma]

I assume I'm included in the "culture war enlistees".

And I'm only here when I don't have things to do. When I'm busy at work, I don't post.

As for "what's in it for me"... well, nothing. As I've said before, I'm not here because I agree with the perspectives here, or because I think any of y'all can be persuaded to be less awful, I'm here to make sure my perspective isn't skewed by surrounding myself with folks I already agree with.

I talk because, like most humans, when I read/hear something, it makes me think, and I like sharing my thoughts. That most of y'all don't like me sharing my thoughts is 100% irrelevant because it's not about you.

[Michael P]

The first rule of central Virginia Democrat Primary Fight Club is that when it comes to abortion, no nuance is allowed: the only good pregnancy is a potentially terminated pregnancy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/08/virginia-elections-democrats-abortion-charlottesville/

(The second rule is that everyone must claim their opponent's attempt to mislead voters is worse.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nova Scotia has a climate -- and forests -- very similar to Maine.

And with all of the "climate change" hysteria, what no one is saying is that something very similar happened to Maine way back in 1947 -- the year that Maine burned. There were fires everywhere, but the most infamous was Bar Harbor (Acadia National Park) one which cleaned out all the fancy "cottages" and grand hotels of the gilded age. Residents had to be rescued by lobster boats that then had to flee straight out to sea as there was no place else to go -- and even then almost didn't make it as the fire chased them for a few miles over the open water, flaming tree boughs falling from the sky and the rest.

That was 76 years ago -- before evil humans had filled the atmosphere with Carbon Dioxide. It and the Novy fires of today had similar causes -- a past hurricane bringing down lots of trees, and then historic drought.

Now the real question is where was their idiot Prime Minister in asking for help, and Brandon in not offering it before now? Canada *is* a NATO ally -- where is the rest of NATO???

[Mr. Bumble]

Giving rise to "Fall Foliage" season in Bar Harbor as the fire destroyed the predominately pine forests, which were replaced with hardwood forests.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- wrong twice.
First, pine doesn't grow along the shore -- two damp and they are too brittle -- hard even when you plant and nurture them.

Second, the climax forest for this area IS the oak, maple, & ash -- all of which was cut in the 18th Century and sailed down to Boston to use for, as this was far easier than hauling it 10 miles or so over rutted dirt roads. They sailed it down from as far away as Machias, sold it to the British (who paid in gold) and then returned with grain that didn't grow along the damp Maine coast.

John Adams wrote to Abby that Maine would remain loyal to the British (and largely did) because of this trade issue. The spruces and planted pines that burned were probably only 50-75 years old.

[Mr. Bumble]

Per the NPS on the Acadia fire:
Today’s forest, however, is often different than what grew before the fire. Spruce and fir that reigned before the fire have given way to sun-loving trees, such as birch and aspen. But these deciduous trees are short-lived. As they grow and begin to shade out the forest floor, they provide a nursery for the shade-loving spruce and fir that may eventually reclaim the territory.
https://www.nps.gov/acad/learn/historyculture/fireof1947.htm

[Nige]

A one off event versus something that is being established as yearly, and intensifying with every year.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not even remotely true but par for the course for you.

https://fee.org/articles/forest-fires-aren-t-at-historic-highs-in-the-united-states-not-even-close/

[Nige]

That article tries very hard, but pushing the worst wildfire season back three years doesn't really contradict the notion that wildfires have been intensifying for years.

[Mr. Bumble]

The article doesn't "try" to do anything. It is a list of the worst fires.

[Gandydancer]

"...pushing the worst wildfire season back three years doesn’t really contradict the notion that wildfires have been intensifying for years."

More like 95 years, and THAT is the maximum because the data only goes back that far, Other indications show larger forest fire burns before that. Watch the video. "References in thread."

https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/01/24/bjorn-lomborg-despite-breathless-climate-reporting-about-ever-increasing-fires-us-fires-burn-5-10x-less-today/

[Nige]

Lomborg again. Lolborg more like.

[bernard11]

It is remarkable that you reason like this:

1. Undesirable event A, happening now, is attributed by some to cause X.

2. But a similar event, B, happened in the past and could not have been caused by X.

3. Therefore, A is not caused by X.

As though there can be only one cause.

Fire chief: "The house fire was caused by an electrical problem."
Dr. Ed: "That's impossible. There were lots of house fires for centuries before houses had electricity."

[Bwaaah]

I think he's questioning this reasoning:

1. Undesirable event A, happening now, is attributed by some to cause X.

2. But a similar event, B, happened in the past and could not have been caused by X.

3. So it's like X is causing *all* the horrible things these days, isn't it?

[bernard11]

Maybe you, or he, can find someone who claims that *all* wildfires are caused by climate change.

But no sensible person does. Now, you may find a nut case who thinks so, and we will then be told that this is what "the Left" thinks. But that's not true.

[Ben_]

1. Event A is attributed to X based on zero facts or knowledge of the actual cause of event A.
2. Event B is similar, could not have been based on X.
3. Therefore, because we see a pattern of events like A and B happening not based on X, with no indication at all that X is involved in any way, there's a good reason to believe X is not the cause and no reason at all to believe X is the cause.

Local wacko cultist: "The house fire was caused by vengeful forest spirits punishing sinners."
Dr. Ed: "House fires have simple causes like candles, cooking accidents, electric wiring faults, etc.. Here's some examples no where near any place where there was ever a forest. No vengeful forest spirits."
Fire chief: "We determine the cause of fires based on evidence. We'll look for evidence and get back to you."

[Nige]

Ed and the Fire Chief kiss passionately while the wacko cultist plays a funky riff on their lute.

[not guilty]

A grand jury in Miami reportedly has recently been meeting in regard to the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago, suggesting that some prosecutions may take place in the Southern District of Florida. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/miami-grand-jury-trump-classified-documents/ It is possible that some persons will be charged in the District of Columbia and others in Florida.

Per 18 U.S.C. § 3237, a federal offense begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well one thing we know for sure is that the DOJ will time it so it interferes with the 2024 election.

[Michael P]

The other thing we know is that no one will be prosecuted for illegally leaking grand jury information in this case. Much like Keith Ellison:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/questions-for-keith-ellison.php

[OtisAH]

It’s been empaneled for a month and this is the first anyone’s heard of it. The “leaks” are coming from those who testify or their lawyers, either by going to the press or speaking with other lawyers who then go to the press.

[Gandydancer]

Sure, corrupt leaks are not a thing at the FBI.

Where is this rock you've been living under since 2016?

[Moderation4ever]

Should the election matter? Should criminal and civil litigation be subject to the election cycle? Prosecutors should indict when they are ready and have a winnable case?

[John F. Carr]

There is no way to keep these cases out of the election cycle. Department policy is to avoid an "October surprise". Charges against candidates should not be announced in the month before an election.

[OtisAH]

They won’t be announced a month before the election, which is a year and a half from now.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nowadays, the "election cycle" seems to last 4 years.

[gVOR08]

How is an arraignment next Tuesday timed to interfere with the election?

[John F. Carr]

No matter how many districts the DoJ could legally justify, Florida is obviously the right location for the Mar-a-Lago documents cases.

One of the reports yesterday said there was a department policy manual on venue but it was not taken seriously by the department.

[Gandydancer]

LOL! No way are the Anti-Trumpers in charge going to let this be tried in Florida when they can get it in front of 97% Democrat DC denizens.

[not guilty]

Some potential defendants´ criminal conduct may have occurred entirely within the Southern District of Florida, such that they can be tried only in that district. Others may have committed offenses occurring in multiple districts, in which case the prosecution may charge in any of them.

[santamonica811]

1. Respect to you, for making a falsifiable prediction, in advance.
2. Of course, now you look like a moron. You didn't write, "I suspect that..." or "I think that...." Nope, it was NO WAY. In other words, there was zero doubt in your mind.

One hopes that, the next time you are dead-certain about something, you'll take a deep breath, you'll remember how spectacularly-wrong you were about this, and you'll be a bit less certain about your dire predictions.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

First rule of VC commenting: Never express doubt or uncertainty about any opinion or prediction, and never ever admit to being wrong.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Whose life is better now that the Federal Government is 50% bigger? Other than the Administrative State and politicians families lf course.

[Moderation4ever]

To answer your question you would have to identify the point of origin. The Federal Government is 50% bigger than it was in _____. Do you have that initial time? We can then answer your question.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

2018

[Moderation4ever]

I looked at a number of charts and nothing suggests that the government is significantly bigger in 2023 that in was in 2018. The number of Federal employees only increased 3% from 2018 to 2020 and so I don't see that as hitting 50%. The only new agency I am aware of is Space Force. Not sure why you think the government is 50% bigger in 2023 than it was in 2018.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Federal Spending 2018: $4.142T

Federal Spending 2022: $6.273T
Federal Spending 2023 (projected): $6.372T

[Moderation4ever]

That not the size of the government that is debt and they are different.

As for your question now translated into who benefitted from 50% increase in debt. Many, the 2017 Tax cut allowed wealthy investors to bring back money from overseas accounts, they then used that money for stock buy backs that increased their overall wealth. Military spending increased so that owner and stockholders of military suppliers and contractors are wealthier. These are a few but I could name many others.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I didn't say debt. I said annual spending.

The Federal Government spends 50% more than it did just a few years ago.

Why are you talking about debt? Because that makes your tropes and memes fit into the conversation?

[jb]

This actually got me to go look at where the increases in federal spending have come from. Looking at data for 2018 vs. 2022:

Social Security: $982B – $1.2T (~20% increase)
Defense : $623B – $751B (~20% increase)
Medicare : $582B – $747B (~30% increase)
Nondefense discretionary : $639B – $910B (~40% increase)
Interest : $325B – $475B (~45% increase)
Medicaid : $389B – $582B (~50% increase)
Income security : $285B – $581B (~100% increase)
Student loan forgiveness : ~$0 – $482B

The student loan forgiveness line item is a one-time cost that may or may not ever come to be; the accounting is a little weird, though--I'd think that it would be more realistic to think about the expense being incurred when the payments are due.

In any case, those expenses and about $200B of Covid-related programs in non-discretionary non-defense spending shouldn't be part of future budgets, and they amount to about a third of the total increase.

It would be interesting to dig into the income security line item some more since that's driving ~$300B in increased expenditure, and it's clear from the rising debt service number that it is actually important to get the deficit under control. Unfortunately, it's also clear that's going to be hard to do without addressing health care costs, some broader entitlement reform and likely some more revenue.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There wasn't a $482B charge to Federal Spending for student debt in 2022. Also, there is no future projection where the spending declines. We jumped 50% from COVID and the spending stayed there.

2019 - $4.447T
2020 - $6.553T (Covid clearly)
2021 - $6.823T
2022 - $6.273T
2023 - $6.371T (Projected)
2024 - $6.883T (Projected)
2025 - $7.090T (Projected)
2026 - $7.294T (Projected)
2027 - $7.589T (Projected)

Sources: https://usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2027USbf_24bs2n#usgs302

And before you attack the domain: "The federal government provides budgetary data for the current year and the next year. It also provides estimated budgetary data for the following four years." - https://usgovernmentspending.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-we-got-data-for-usgovernmentspendin.html

[jb]

Here’s the CBO data on spending for the year which clearly shows the student loan forgiveness included in the $6.3T number that your data agrees with:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58888

Mandatory spending will ensure that spending increases significantly each year, especially in a relatively high inflation environment where you have a large population aging into Social Security and Medicare eligibility. So you have to reduce other parts of the budget A LOT to try to see an actual decrease in spending.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

That's 2023, you assigned it to 2022 earlier.

[jb]

Anyone clicking on the link will see 2022 in big bold font. I have no idea where you are finding 2023 on that page.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're right, my bad. Fiscal Year 2022 begins Oct 2022 and ends Oct 2023.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the key metric isn't "percentage increase", but instead "percentage of the increase". I mean, something could go from pocket change to five bucks, and the percentage increase would be huge, but it would still be insignificant.

Social security went up $218B
Defense went up $128B
Medicare went up $165B
Non-defense discretionary went up $271B
Interest went up $150B
Medicaid went up $193B
Income security went up $296B
Student loan forgiveness went up "Ain't happening". Seriously, not gonna happen.

The big killers are income security, aka "Paying people to do nothing", and non-defense discretionary.

Unfortunately, interest on the debt is NOT coming down, it's just going to accelerate, because inflation is driving up the rate on the debt that's turning over, and the principle is going up, too.

The main number there that can actually be manipulated is "paying people to not work".

[jb]

I agree that taking a hard look at that income security number is important. Keep in mind, though, that the biggest part of that bucket is usually the earned income tax credit, which is basically the opposite of "paying people not to work".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Refundable tax credits are absolutely "paying people not to work".

If you have no tax liability because of your low-earnings/low work effort and you get a refundable EITC, guess what you're doing?

[jb]

Dunno if this is sufficiently obvious to you or not, but in order to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit you have to have some earned income. So people not working absolutely do not qualify.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Some income but you don't need enough income to provide for yourself and rely upon money from the government to full in the gap.

How on earth did they even get away with inventing the nonsense concept of having a negative tax liability.

[David Nieporent]

How on earth did they even get away with inventing the nonsense concept of having a negative tax liability.

Crazy Marxists like Milton Friedman propounded the idea.

[jb]

I assume the reference is to federal spending, which increased dramatically under Trump and has now declined significantly under Biden (although yes, still considerably higher than 2018).

[VinniUSMC]

2018? Talk about cherry-picking. Maybe something happened in 2020? I forget.

[jb]

Seems weird that you're responding to me since BCD chose the year.

Although I think it made perfect sense for the government to spend a ton during Covid, there's the obvious question of how much of that spending should be durable. See the breakout upthread for where growth in spending is coming from.

[VinniUSMC]

Ah, ok. Sorry, BCD is just a grey box for me.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What significant decline are you referring to?

[jb]

The 10% decrease from 2021 to 2022 in your exact data above.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

We grew 50% in one year, allegedly due to COVID spending. Year COVID+1 is 75% higher.

That's a significant increase. In context of the increase, your decrease really shouldn't be colored as "significant".

[jb]

I used the adjectives "dramatic" for the 50%/75% increase and "significant" for the 10% decline. You're free to choose different adjectives if you want, but I don't think if we rewrote my sentence as "federal spending increased dramatically under Trump and declined somewhat under Biden" it would really change the meaning that much.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sure it would. Further it would be even more accurate to state Federal Spending increased dramatically for COVID then has barely dropped years after COVID.

It's almost as if a one-time crisis created a new and permanent federal spending floor.

Trump didn't make permanent the COVID emergency spending. Biden and Pelosi did.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Seems you may be missing something important there, and avoiding the trendline....

[Martinned]

I often disagree with Mick Lynch, the UK's most famous union leader, and in fact I disagree with at least half of what he's saying here, but it's always amusing to see him trounce TV presenters live on the air. No one has heard serious left-wing political arguments since at least the 1970s, and they just don't know how to deal with him:

https://twitter.com/The_TUC/status/1666403344267526145

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good for him!

[John F. Carr]

I said a few days ago I wished Cornel West could be in the debates in America. He does not talk like the preprogrammed robots who participate in empty exchanges of phrases.

[Martinned]

There are viewpoints that are beyond the pale, but every other POV deserves a smart, articulate advocate. Public debate is the better for it.

[Frank Drackman]

I like Corn-hole West, looks like "Grady" from Sanford & Son.

[Gandydancer]

Who is the "presenter"?

[Martinned]

The person on the left.

[Gandydancer]

Somehow I suspect that I’ve not got a dog in this fight. The yapper is complaining that the railways were “bailed out” with 16 Billion pounds (period unspecified) and the labor guy retorts that the bosses got paid 400 million (period unspecified). So they’re both brainless twats, and if the latter is your example of “serious left-wing political argument” then “serious left-wing political argument” is just the joke that I think it is.

[Kazinski]

Both sides are left wing: do we want government owned railroads, or do we want government subsidized railroads?

[Moderation4ever]

A recent article in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, caught my attention. The State of Wisconsin like many employers is having trouble filling workforce vacancies. The article in particular mentioned care worker at Veteran homes and prison guards. What interest me is that I often see comments to just cut the government employees by 10% or another number. The reality is that government still has obligations and until those obligations are reduced it cannot reduce its workforce.

The old theory was to starve the government of funds and it would get smaller. It didn't the debt got larger. Starving it of employee will work no better.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Increasing the debt was deliberate. It would create pressure to cut spending and "starve the beast".

[John F. Carr]

There is a more general shortage of medical workers. Nurses and plain old doctors without a specialty aren't paid enough. When I say aren't paid enough that is not a moral judgment. That is a description of supply and demand. A doctor told me he can't get a nurse for his office because the big chain that owns the practice won't offer enough money. Most of us don't pay for our own medical are so we can't vote with our wallets. Most of us would demand lower insurance rates and not even connect that demand with a longer wait for worse quality care.

[Gandydancer]

Think of the poor starving doctors!
Some how you don't seem to really connect "Most of us don’t pay for our own medical" with supply and demand problems.

[VinniUSMC]

A recent article in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, caught my attention. The State of Wisconsin like many employers is having trouble filling workforce vacancies. The article in particular mentioned care worker at Veteran homes and prison guards. What interest me is that I often see comments to just cut the government employees by 10% or another number. The reality is that government still has obligations and until those obligations are reduced it cannot reduce its workforce.

Government bureaucrats cannot be substituted in for those care worker jobs. We could easily "gut" the fed by 10% without going near care workers, and then have more money to hire care workers. Win-win.

[Kazinski]

Well of course we need care workers, but please don't lump white collar bureaucrats that are making at least double what the caretakers are making into the "people will die" category.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many times have you driven through a bad part of town and said to yourself "Boy, I sure am afraid all these White Supremacists"?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am not afraid of white supremacists, because I know better Americans have been figuratively stomping these bigoted conservative losers in the culture war throughout my lifetime, and that this is destined to continue until the Federalist Society conducts its meetings in the Chick-fil-A restaurant nearest Washington, D.C.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're not afraid of what the Federal Government says is the greatest threat this country is facing?

That doesn't seem congruent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, seething, delusional right-wing whites could be among our biggest problems and be a relatively small problem. America is a substantial, successful, established nation, thanks to the magnificent progress arranged by our great liberal-libertarian mainstream.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wow what racist comment. Of course our White history made us great, but who can deny our decline spurred on by the Great Replacement?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That was intended to be white supremacists (the subject of the discussion), not whites.

[Moderation4ever]

The thing is I can avoid the bad part of town or go during daylight hours. What worries me is that I can be in the grocery store and some fruitcake who spend his days surfing the conspiracy and white supremist site, decides he is going to shoot up the store.

[Frank Drackman]

so move to Zimbabwe

[Michael Ejercito]

You do not have to worry about such a thing outside the bad part of town.

[SRG]

Perhaps not, but if you regularly go to synagogue, you do.

[bernard11]

Nothing to fear from white supremacists.

Just ask Ahmaud Arbery.

[Nige]

If you spot anyone from the Aryan Brotherhood be sure to give them a wave.

[not guilty]

Mark Meadows has testified before a grand jury investigating Donald Trump. This likely indicates that he has reached some kind of agreement with the Department of Justice regarding his own conduct.

Some media outlets are reporting that Mr. Meadows has agreed to plead guilty to unspecified federal crimes. Counsel for Meadows, however, disputes that. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-indictment-espionage-prosecution-charges-b2353397.html

Absent a cooperation agreement or some kind of immunity agreement, calling Mr. Meadows to testify before the grand jury would be idle ceremony.

[John F. Carr]

Some lawyers are into idle ceremony. Trump was forced to take the fifth on the record, for example.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some lawyers assemble evidence. Some lawyers persuade witnesses to testify. Some lawyers arrange court orders. Some lawyers send target letters. Some lawyers prosecute un-American criminals.

On the other hand, some lawyers get censured, or sanctioned, or disgraced (this site won't permit additional links, so just point your Google-compatible devices at "John Eastman" and "Jeffrey Clark" and "Rudy Giuliani" and "Sidney Powell" and . . . ).

[Gandydancer]

The walls are closing in!

[Frank Drackman]

like when Tony Soprano got arrested on that BS gun charge, my money's on "45"

[not guilty]

The walls are indeed closing in. Absent an agreement of some kind with DOJ, Mark Meadows has considerable exposure. He would no doubt invoke his privilege against self-incrimination before the grand jury.

A prospective defendant obtains such an agreement -- whether it be a deal to plead to a lesser charge or a grant of testimonial immunity -- by implicating a higher value target. In Meadows´ case, the only one higher up the food chain is Donald Trump.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Meadows strikes me as a flipper. Low character, selfish, likely deathly afraid of incarceration.

I hope he testifies truthfully and comprehensively. If he does, I wouldn't mind some leniency.

If he doesn't, I wouldn't mind a lengthy term of imprisonment.

[Sarcastr0]

The walls are closing in!

Trump says he has been indicted on federal charges in Mar-a-Lago case and has to report to courthouse in Miami on Tuesday.

This is the first time in history a former president has been indicted on federal charges.

[not guilty]

It´s about time! Interesting that Florida is the venue.

I can hardly wait to read the indictment. At this point all we have is Trump´s word that the indictment has been found, and he is hardly a reliable narrator.

[Life of Brian]

This is the first time in history a former president has been indicted on federal charges.

Yeah, I must have missed the requisite chin-stroking over decorum and norms. Can you please repeat?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Also the first time in history a sitting president has indicted his opponent. I'm so old I remember when you were opposed to that sort of thing.

[Sarcastr0]

I remember when facts mattered to you.

There was an investigation. Trump did crimes. He is not above the law just because you became a terminal right wing contrarian.

[Life of Brian]

There was an investigation. Trump did crimes.

Putting aside that pesky presumption of innocence thang, it's almost as though you're arguing that everyone else's three felonies a day somehow aren't crimes.

Otherwise your comment seems a wee bit flatter than you no doubt intended.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So did Bill and Hillary.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure dude. Maybe.

I dunno. Neither do you.

It’s not really relevant here. Just a straw you are grasping.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I saw Bill commit a felony.

Why don't you just admit the Dems condoned Clinton's criminal behavior?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Some of them did, no question about it. What does that have to do with whether Trump should be indicted? Do you think the right thing would've been to indict Clinton? Or are you making the argument that Democrats in Congress in the 90's are the paragons of good government against which all future actions should be measured?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Actually he was indicted by grand juries, among which Biden was not a member.

Boo fucking hoo for the gaslighting assholes like you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, the Biden administration had nothing to do with it. Boo fucking hoo for over-literal assholes like you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't seem to understand what a Special Counsel is.

I for one, am shocked that you're so dumb. Truly shocked.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, you don't seem to understand what a Special Counsel is.

And I'm not shocked that you're so dumb. You've exhibited your stupidity many times before.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Explain how Biden's responsible for Trump's behavior and indictment.

Cite your favorite sources. Use your favorite dipshit arguments.

You'll still be wrong. People as morally bankrupt as you are always will be.

Cry more, Mr. Projection.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The chief executive is responsible for the actions of the executive branch. This isn't that hard.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I notice you somehow didn't mention Trump's behavior. Did Biden force Trump to steal classified documents?

Did he force Trump to refuse to turn them over for more than a year? Perhaps he made Trump lie about returning all responsive documents when a subpoena was issued for them? Maybe Biden is the person who moved documents out of the storage room in an effort to hide them from the FBI too?

A Special Counsel was chosen specifically to avoid the conflict of interest problem.

It's pretty telling that you won't bother to engage on any of the actual facts.

You're just a whiny bitch who doesn't like that his orange popsicle is melting away. LOL.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Did Biden force Trump to steal classified documents?"

No. Did Trump force Biden to steal classified documents? Again, no.

But they both did, and only one got pursued for it. The difference is that Trump had the power to declassify at the time, and so has a defense available that Biden didn't.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden didn't steal anything, Brett.

The equivalence is false, no matter how much you make it.

No intent, no attempt to cover up (self-reported in fact), no claim of authority.

I know you want it to be the same, but alas your guy is vastly worse. Maybe don't nominate him.

[Sarcastr0]

Willful retention of national defense information, corruptly concealing documents, conspiracy to obstruct justice, [and] false statements.

Not stuff Biden did.

[not guilty]

Brett, what facts suggest that Joe Biden stole government documents, classified or otherwise? And while we haven´t yet seen the Trump indictment, I will be very surprised if conversion of government records (18 U.S.C. § 641) is among the offenses Trump is charged with.

And when you suggest that Trump´s power to declassify affords any kind of defense, you are at best mistaken. That point has been discussed often enough on these threads to suggest that you are more likely deliberately lying.

And in any event, Biden´s Senate tenure ended in 2009. He left office as vice-president in January 2017. What would be the point of initiating a criminal prosecution that would be untimely according to 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Brett, what facts suggest that Joe Biden stole government documents, classified or otherwise?"

The fact that he had them, obviously.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, theft is the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property.

There is zero proof of that intent for Biden.

Tons of it for Trump.

Plus, of course the:
Willful retention
corrupt concealing
conspiracy to obstruct justice,
false statements.

Biden has NONE of that. This is not going to end well for ya.

[not guilty]

What facts suggest scienter, Brett? Please be specific.

To prove a knowing conversion without authority the United States must establish:

1. that the defendant knowingly converted to the use of any person other than the rightful owner, property;
2. owned by or under the care, custody, or control of an organization or state or local government agency protected by the statute;
3. without authority to do so; and
4. with knowledge that he did not have authority to do so.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1008-knowing-conversion-without-authority

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Hey Brett,

You should probably read the indictment. I don't know how many times you've been made to look like the dumbest fuck around here, but the number has now been raised by 1.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf

Telling his lawyers to hide documents, showing classified documents to people and telling them that he could've declassified them while President, but 'not now' and telling them it's secret, etc.

Every excuse you've offered up in hopes of being asked to suck him off someday has been thoroughly destroyed by the evidence in the indictment alone.

I'm going to guess right now that you're just going to disappear like the fucking weasel you are. You certainly aren't about to acknowledge any of the facts -

You NEVER do.

[Moderation4ever]

It would be a shame if Mark Meadows get off on the document charges. He was Chief of Staff, and it was his job to see that the Presidential documents were returned at the end of the administration. Trump should not have taken the documents and Meadows should not have let him take the documents.

[bernard11]

He already got off on vote fraud.

No five-year sentence for him.

[Moderation4ever]

Ya, he did get off. There are snowbirds in Wisconsin that use post office boxes rather than addresses. A few did use the postal box when requesting a ballot and some prosecutors are going after them. Now the snowbirds were wrong and they should be held culpable, but their mistake was an unknowing error. Meadows get off with nothing. The American justice system at it finest.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Despite blatantly and deliberately committing voter fraud, Meadows was not prosecuted at all. Prosecuting his case would've been the easiest trial in the history of the US, but remember: Republicans are being persecuted because "M L" made a list of a handful of Republican criminals and their accomplices.

[gVOR08]

A former aide of Meadows has said that on the final night of Trump's presidency Meadows, at Trump's direction, removed a thousand pages of classified documents from the White House.

[bernard11]

I'd tend to believe Meadows' lawyer. Not clear what he would gain by lying. If the story were true I'd expect him to refuse to comment.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually easy to see what he got: In return for his client being let off the hook on a slam dunk charge, he testifies against the people they really wanted to nail. Happens all the time.

In political cases the quid pro quo of being let off the hook isn't always publicly documented.

[Sarcastr0]

Not what bernard is talking about.

But go off, declare all pleas for government cooperation invalid.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I actually think it is illegitimate to purchase a plea agreement implicating somebody else by agreeing to not prosecute a different offense.

Buying testimony is a slimy business.

[Sarcastr0]

Slimy is your own value judgement, but not unreasonable.
Illegitimate is stupid.

Credibility is up to the finder of fact.

[Martinned]

Notorious lefty Alex Tabarrok on air pollution: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/06/air-pollution-redux.html

The good news, hidden inside the bad news, is that the costs of air pollution on productivity are so high that there are plausible ways of reducing some air pollution and increasing health and wealth, especially in high pollution countries but likely also in the United States with well-targeted policies.

Admittedly, that's good news only for an economist who understands the concept of externalities. (Which, judging by the first 100 comments in this thread, seems to exclude most commenters here.)

[Gandydancer]

"there are plausible ways of reducing some air pollution and increasing health and wealth"

Name one.

[Frank Drackman]

Kill all the lawyers

[jb]

Backwards looking, but getting rid of leaded gasoline is a super easy/obvious example.

[Brett Bellmore]

Documenting the past existence of low hanging fruit doesn’t demonstrate that it hasn’t all been picked at this point. Economists are supposed to understand the concept of "diminishing returns", aren't they?

[Sarcastr0]

Gain no hope from past success. Never try.

[Nige]

Better public transport infrastructure.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, about that alleged $5 Million Bribe Biden took while VP from a foreign power.

Seems like that should be heavily investigated. Special counsel type stuff. Especially since the DoJ is ordering investigators on the IRS side off the related case....

https://oversight.house.gov/release/icymi-former-ag-barr-refutes-democrats-lies-that-biden-bribery-investigation-was-closed%EF%BF%BC/

[Moderation4ever]

So, what is the threshold for an investigation? Is a mere allegation enough? There are plenty of allegations out for any number of people do we have enough people to investigate all of them.

AG Bill Barr, a Republican in a Republican administration, closed the case of this investigation. Why should it be reinvestigated?

[Kazinski]

Bill Barr says Jamie Raskin is lying the case wasn't closed:

“It’s not true. It wasn’t closed down,” William Barr told The Federalist on Tuesday in response to Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin’s claim that the former attorney general and his “handpicked prosecutor” had ended an investigation into a confidential human source’s allegation that Joe Biden had agreed to a $5 million bribe. “On the contrary,” Barr stressed, “it was sent to Delaware for further investigation.”

And of course the FBI told Comer it's still under investigation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I mean, the link literally says "Barr refutes democrat lies that Biden Investigation was closed", but you just went on and repeated the lie anyway?

[Moderation4ever]

The link is also from the oversight committee headed by Republican James Comer. Rep. Jamie Raskin has stood by his statement and added;

"If William Barr has a problem with this characterization, his problem is not with me but with the FBI, Mr. Brady, and other high-level officials reporting to him in his own Justice Department who signed off on closing down Mr. Brady’s probe."

[bernard11]

Bill Barr is not a famous truth-teller.

[apedad]

Rural Oregon movement to join 'Greater Idaho' gains traction with vote in 12th county

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rural-oregon-movement-join-greater-idaho-gains-traction-vote-12th-county

Another loser idea by a bunch of losers.

"In contrast, Republican state Rep. Judy Boyle said, "Yes, I am supportive of the Greater Idaho idea. I have lived along the Oregon border my entire life, so have many east Oregon friends. They have been quite frustrated with the liberal I-5 western Oregon corridor running their state and completely ignoring their values and needs."

Democracy sucks when you're on the losing side.

[Gandydancer]

So sad for you in 2024.

[apedad]

How many Rep presidents have won the popular vote more than 51% in the last 50 years?

[not guilty]

Two. None more recent than 1988.

[VinniUSMC]

2004 didn't happen? Bush apparently got >50%. So, 3 Reps. Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 (and Nixon, in '72).

By the same token, 3 Dems. Biden, Obama, Carter. Not Bill though, who was less popular than Trump 1st term, by the numbers.

Sauce: WikiWiki..pedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

Sooo, what is your point exactly?

[not guilty]

Apedad´s criteria was more than 51% of the popular vote in the last fifty years. In 2004 George W. Bush won with 50.7%. Nixon in 1972 was fifty-one years ago.

[VinniUSMC]

What's so special about 51% or 51 years? Majority is >50%.

I note your silence on the matter of Dems having the exact same problem, as that still leaves it with 2, Biden and Obama. So, again I say, what is the point exactly? I don't expect that apedad understands the point he was trying to make, but maybe you have a thought.

[not guilty]

I was answering the question posed by apedad, in response to the criteria he specified. There was no need to discuss extraneous matters.

[Frank Drackman]

Good thang that the popular vote doesn't erect POTUS's

[apedad]

But the popular vote does show that people are in the voting booth also voting for senators, House reps, governors, mayors, etc.

You know, those are important too.

[Brett Bellmore]

The popular vote would be more significant if we actually had a nation-wide popular vote for President.

Because we don't have a national popular vote, (political) minority vote is heavily suppressed in noncompetitive states, especially when they use jungle primaries to make sure that the minority party members won't have anybody to vote for in most races.

As a result, I don't think you can realistically use the popular vote under an EC system as a gauge of what the popular vote would have been in a national popular vote system.

[ducksalad]

Apedad, leaving aside whether these particular guys are losers, do you think it is ever compatible with democracy for some part to vote to leave and join another democracy?

How about if the whole democracy votes to allow some part of it to leave?

Or is maintaining the geographical boundaries of a democracy so important that it overrides democracy itself?

[Martinned]

It should be much easier than it currently is to redraw the borders of US States. At the moment, because both Congress and the state legislature have a veto, it is almost impossible to get it done. If there is an area in state X that borders state Y, where a sufficiently large number of voters want to join state Y, that should be possible without Congress or the state legislature of state X being able to prevent it.

The more difficult question is how this should work internationally. There are lots of international borders that it might make sense to redraw. But you don't exactly want to give the Putins of this world an incentive to go invade their neighbours.

[ducksalad]

It's not clear to me that Congress would have to approve a case where two states agreed to move their boundary, and I am guessing (sorry no cite it's a guess) that lots of minor surveying inconsistencies and such have been adjusted without Congressional approval.

[EscherEnigma]

I mean, I can think of at least one state-line change that not only required congressional approval (for the state to join the union) but was mandated as such.

I'm talking, of course, about Texas, and that long thin stick of Oklahoma, that went above the longitude allowed for slave states, and was thus discarded by Texas in order for it to join the union as a slave state.

[Brett Bellmore]

There was also the Toledo strip between Michigan and Ohio.

[Martinned]

If two states agree to move their boundary, I would consider that a state being formed "by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States".

[bernard11]

The difficult part is the geography of liberal/conservative splits. Eastern Oregon wants to join Idaho because they don't like being controlled by people in Portland. OK.

But what about TN? There you have the opposite situation. The blue enclaves - Nashville and Memphis - are subject to a radical RW legislature. What state can they join?

And of course that situation is not uncommon. Where should Atlanta go?

And do we really want to make one-party domination of states even worse?

[Martinned]

That's why I said the area looking to change states has to be adjacent to the state they want to join. No exclaves, please.

The kinds of urban/rural divides should be sorted out in another way. In extreme cases that can be done by radically devolving powers to the sub-state level(s).

[VinniUSMC]

The more difficult question is how this should work internationally. There are lots of international borders that it might make sense to redraw. But you don’t exactly want to give the Putins of this world an incentive to go invade their neighbours.

Why do you think the matter of states within a country has any bearing on the matter of country borders? You know they’re not the same thing, right? You realize the US is not the size of England?

[EscherEnigma]

Personally I'd be 100% in-favor of a (rather complicated) Constitutional Amendment that governed how states can break-apart, join together, leave the union, surrender their statehood and become territories, how territotries can claim statehood, and so-on.

Hell, I'd even support it governing how states (and territories) can secede from the union alltogether.

There are caveats, of course. I'd want it to require more then just plurality votes, I'd want repeated consecutive votes for whatever the change is across at least two (preferrably three) presidential elections (to ensure it's a long-standing desire of a large number of citizens, and not a passing fancy or grievance), and so-on. There'd be guidelines regarding distribution of debt and property, and so-on.

But in general, I think the US should definitely have a "divorce law" for states. States (and territories) should not be hostages.

[ducksalad]

If you're doing a constitutional amendment anyway, it should also have a provision for expelling a state from the union.

[EscherEnigma]

Sure. Same caveats about super-majorities, repeated elections and so-on, including guidelines about division of property and debt in the absence of a specific negotiated deal.

[Frank Drackman]

Senescent Joe hasn't fallen this week, whats up??

[Mr. Bumble]

Suction cup shoes and gyroscopic stabilizing.

[Michael P]

He is borrowing Hillary's pantsuit-compatible exoskeleton.

[Gandydancer]

Not being seen in public where the falls and shaking of hands with nonexistent persons can't be edited out helps.

[John F. Carr]

God has called Pat Robertson home at the age of 93. For a decade or two he was one of the most important forces in American politics. He lived to see Trump push his coalition out of the spotlight.

[Martinned]

-- Hell is a strait and dark and foul-smelling prison, an abode of demons and lost souls, filled with fire and smoke... The prisoners are heaped together in their awful prison, ... so utterly bound and helpless that ... they are not even able to remove from the eye a worm that gnaws it...

--They lie in exterior darkness... the fire of hell, while retaining the intensity of its heat, burns eternally in darkness. It is a never ending storm of darkness, dark flames and dark smoke of burning brimstone, amid which the bodies are heaped one upon another without even a glimpse of air...

--The horror of this strait and dark prison is increased by its awful stench... Imagine some foul and putrid corpse that has lain rotting and decomposing in the grave, a jelly-like mass of liquid corruption .. giving off dense choking fumes of nauseous loathsome decomposition. And then imagine this sickening stench, multiplied a millionfold and a millionfold again ... a huge and rotting human fungus. Imagine all this, and you will have some idea of the horror of the stench of hell...

-- O, how terrible is the lot of those wretched beings! The blood seethes and boils in the veins, the brains are boiling in the skull, the heart in the breast glowing and bursting, the bowels a red-hot mass of burning pulp, the tender eyes flaming like molten balls...

--The damned howl and scream at one another, their torture and rage intensified by the presence of beings tortured and raging like themselves.... They are helpless and hopeless: it is too late now for repentance....

-- The devils ... mock and jeer at the lost souls whom they dragged down to ruin. It is they, the foul demons, who are made in hell the voices of conscience. Why did you sin? ... Why did you not repent of your evil ways? ... Now the time for repentance has gone by. Time is, time was, but time shall be no more!...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Any God that would have worked through Pat Robertson is a deplorable loser.

Robertson might have been worse than Jerry Falwell, if possible.

[Frank Drackman]

By God, I think you're right on this one "Reverend",
I mean "Coach"
Hard to understand a Surpreme Being who lets really horrible evil people like the Ayatollah K, Idi Amin, Bobby Mugabe, Pat Robertson live to ripe old ages,

Frank

[Gandydancer]

Who's working through you, Rev?

[not guilty]

Why do you surmise it was God who called Pat Robertson home?

[John F. Carr]

Because in the 1980s Oral Roberts demanded millions of dollars or else God would call him home. Ever since then I associate the expression with charismatic preachers.

As Dave Barry put it in his 1987 year in review: "January 3: Oral Roberts tells his followers that unless they send him $4.5 million by the end of the month, God will turn him into a hypocritical money-grubbing slimebag."

Of course I can not prove to a legal certainty where Pat Robertson's new home is or whether or not Oral Roberts was a scumbag.

[OtisAH]

He sowed misery and reaped profits. And now he’s dead.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He had the benefits of being a senator's son. Access to a strong education. Connections.

And he still turned out to be a delusional, gullible bigot and a selfish, phony televangelist.

[Frank Drackman]

but he never got convicted of 42 counts of rape, did he, "Reverend"??

[OtisAH]

Pat Robertson was not delusional. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was a blasphemer and a false prophet who shook down folks who want to believe in something for some 70 years. Now he’s dead. And I bet he prayed his cynicism pays off and there’s no Hell. Because if there was any trace of true believer in him, he knows that’s where he’s headed. And no last minute “bygones?” will change that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"blasphemer and a false prophet"

I always look to Otis for evaluation of Christian ministers bona fides.

[OtisAH]

Nobody gives a shit what you look at Bob.

But there’s a silver lining for you and all the other rabid morons here: if Robertson is in Heaven nobody needs to worry about Hell.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, when you get there say "hi" to him then.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I always look to Otis for evaluation of Christian ministers bona fides.

What is your assessment of an ostensible adult who believes a god visited the September 11 attack and hurricanes on America as a punishment for treating gays too decently?

I look forward to the day mainstream America no longer recognizes accreditation of Regent University.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree = For a time 1995-2005, Pat Robertson had great influence on the body politic. Baruch Dayan, Ha-Emet.

[Martinned]

Just what we needed, more deepfake in American politics: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/8/23753626/deepfake-political-attack-ad-ron-desantis-donald-trump-anthony-fauci

[Mr. Bumble]

Fake ads are a staple of politics everywhere.

[Martinned]

Everywhere in the US maybe. Other countries have laws about that sort of thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Other countries have laws about that sort of thing."

Other countries have less freedom. Any government that can ban "fake" ads can ban ads they merely don't like.

[Martinned]

And yet they don't.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure where you got that idea.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22238582

[Martinned]

Sorry, I realise my previous comment was unclear. My “and yet they don’t” referred to “other countries have less freedom”, not to the rest of Bob’s comment. The UK, where I currently reside, does in fact ban ads the government doesn’t like much more than I think it ought to. But the notion that the UK is less free than the US is bonkers.

https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total%20Score%20and%20Status

[Bob from Ohio]

"bonkers"

UK police regularly arrest people for social media posts.

[Martinned]

Indeed, and in the round it's still a freer country. Must make you wonder how the US ended up so screwed up.

[Michael P]

Has the US gotten ASBOs while I wasn't looking?

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm, let's see: The US is 33/40 on "political rights" and 50/60 on "civil liberties". So I looked to see what their complaints were.

They REALLY don't like Donald Trump.

And, judicial independence is questionable because some judges were nominated by Donald Trump

Covid was blamed on China by... Donald Trump! We got dinged for that.

And we actually occasionally stop an illegal immigrant from crossing the border. Brrr! But not as much now as when Donald Trump was President, so there's that.

And the political process gets to make choices about what abortion laws to adopt, we really got dinged on that one. Blame it on Donald Trump being permitted to nominate judges.

And, did I mention they really don't like Donald Trump?

Now, New Zealand got 40/40 on political rights, and 59/60 on civil liberties.

Well, no Donald Trump, that's for sure.

Literally setting up concentration camps during the pandemic was OK, doesn't count against them.

Canada is 40/40 and 58/60. Guess coercing people into agreeing to be euthanized doesn't count against them.

Japan is 40/40 and 56/60 Routinely resorting to coerced confessions doesn't count against them, but at least it got a mention, unlike Canada's coerced euthanasia. They got slightly dinged for not recognizing SSM, and for having much, much, MUCH more restrictive immigration.

The weight on that Donald Trump thing is pretty high, I guess, but I figured that from how many times they mentioned him.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, movement
conservative blog has operated for

FIFTEEN (15) DAYS!!!!!

without using a vile racial
slur; it has published vile
racial slurs in at least

FOURTEEN (14) DISCUSSIONS

(that's not just 14 racial slurs;
that's 14 distinct contexts, many
involving multiple racial slurs)
during 2023 (so far).

This assessment does not address
the Volokh Conspiracy's incessant,
everyday expressions of bigotry
aimed at gays, women, Muslims,
Jews, immigrants and other targets
of this blog's conservative fans.

[Frank Drackman]

Well stop saying "Klinger" Jerry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why doesn't Prof. Volokh correct the record when I mention how frequently he uses vile racial slurs?

It's because my assertions are correct, and this is a blog full of bigotry.

[Super Scary]

If you couldn't post without being racist, I don't think you would post at all.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What makes you think Prof. Volokh is going to read your comment about him?

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

On my mind: It's very obvious what is causing the wildfires in Canada. Or rather, it's obvious who is causing them.

It's Dr. Fauci. He's angry that so many of us defied him during COVID, and he's determined to make us wear masks one way or another.

Just watch. The truth will out!

[David Nieporent]

You're lying to cover up the involvement of the Jewish space lasers.

[hoppy025]

Kavanagh is proving to be a disaster. We already knew that about John Roberts. The idea that the Voting Rights Act, as written, REQUIRES race-based discrimination is absurd.

[Frank Drackman]

the only way to discriminate by race is to discriminate by race.

[Aunt Teefah]

Beer-liker Brett Kavanaugh turns on Republics after they start attacking Bud Lite. Coincidence?

[John F. Carr]

The Boston mayor's car got into a crash this week. The driver was a police officer who ran a red light even though there was no emergency. The mayor was going somewhere unimportant. Boston is a "Vision Zero" city, meaning drivers are supposed to suffer for the supposed benefit of other groups. But the person responsible for transportation policy doesn't have to wait in traffic.

Same deal when Governor Patrick proclaimed a car-free day. He got a State Police chauffeur because car-free was not convenient for him. Governor Romney once made an appearance at a subway station to promote mass transit. He didn't know how to pay for his fare. Governor Swift got a helicopter ride to her home 150 miles away rather than brave holiday traffic. Governor Weld's people smacked down a highway engineer who mentioned that our roads were designed for 70 mph traffic. Then he got a speeding ticket for going over 70 mph in New York. You have to go back over 30 years to find a governor who understood how ordinary people travel.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Ed King was Massport.
You have to go all the way back to Volpe, and he went to DC to be Nixon's Sec of Trans, which is how we got Sargent.

[John F. Carr]

Dukakis rode the Green Line. At least sometimes. More than all other recent governors combined, I'd bet.

Also a Red Sox pitcher whose name I forget took the Green Line to Fenway Park.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Steven Wright. Also Joe Kelly.

[Kazinski]

Bill Lee took a UFO.

[santamonica811]

thread-winner (mostly because it's probably true)

[M L]

Cohen went to Prague!!

Remember that one?

There's been such a constant stream of media hoaxes and blunders, followed by memory-holing, the Trump era it's hard to keep track of them all.

[Mr. Bumble]

But they did win Pulitzers.

[M L]

YouTube Deletes Years-Old Mike Tyson Interview With RFK Jr.

The video was on the platform for almost three years and has only been deleted during Kennedy's presidential campaign.

In another censorship move, YouTube has deleted several high-profile interviews with US Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Among the videos removed from the platform was an hour-and-a-half-long podcast featuring Kennedy in conversation with boxing legend Mike Tyson, as noticed by video journalist Matt Orfalea. This takedown occurred just ten days ago, following the disappearance of another RFK Jr. interview – this time with comedian Theo Von – from the video-sharing platform.

The two deleted interviews, both dating back to 2020, had garnered significant popularity among YouTube’s vast user base. The interview conducted by Von had received almost a quarter of a million views, while Tyson’s podcast with Kennedy had been viewed almost half a million times. This popularity underscores the wide reach these videos had and the potential impact of their removal.

YouTube’s justification for this sudden takedown remains unclear, particularly as Kennedy is currently running for President and the videos were safely on the platform for almost three years.

https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-deletes-years-old-mike-tyson-interview-with-rfk-jr

[apedad]

Guys, I think we can agree there has to be some protocols in public mensrooms. (Note: This is mainly for smaller (office/restaurant, etc.), restrooms. Protocols may change for large, highway style rest areas.)

1. Announce your presence with a muffled snort or cough (entering the area or if you’re in a stall)
2. Always leave a buffer. If possible, leave a urinal or stall between yourself and other bathroom occupants.
3. Avoid phone calls.
4. No eye contact with other patrons.
5. Keep talking to a minimum. Under no circumstances do you talk to a man while he’s pooping.
6. If in a stall, try to wait until the area is clear before doing stuff (we don’t need to hear splashing or wiping). Of course if it’s an emergency then bombs away!
7. Always flush. Flush a second time if needed to clear up leftover… stuff.
8. Wash your hands, even if you’re not an employee returning to work – and dry as best you can.

Any others?

[ducksalad]

A totally different and more libertarian proposal: we’ve already got two side-by-side restrooms as standard infrastructure, and it’s a matter of personal choice which to use. Therefore:

Restroom A (used to be the women’s room) is for men, women, or others who just want to relieve themselves while preserving some privacy and dignity. The rules you proposed apply, plus Rule 10 that you go into a stall before dropping your pants or raising your skirt.

Restroom B (use to be the men’s room) is for men, women, or others who have some kind of social point they’re trying to make, or want to meet other people, or want to take an argument from the bar to the next level, or have a strong desire to see and be seen at a level not allowed outside, or wish to use the fixtures in unconventional ways. There are no rules.

[Ridgeway]

How do you feel about toilet stalls not going all the way to the floor?

[apedad]

I agree with George Costanza on that issue.

[Ridgeway]

Can we change the subject?

[Commenter_XY]

Any others?

Yes, immediately adopt Buc-ee's bathrooms as a standard. 🙂

You haven't lived until you hit a Buc-ees.

[Krayt]

Come on, it’ a big Supreme Court day! Where are the official threads? There was a huge decision!

No, not the Alabama racial redistricting issue, with the consetvatives not being to form.

No, it’s the Jack Daniels dog poopy trademark rooling!

[hoppy025]

Roberts is not a conservative, and Kavanagh really isn't either after his concurrence in Bruen.

[Brett Bellmore]

Supreme court embraces racial gerrymandering, so long as it's good racial gerrymandering.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

No longer good law. I guess the recent "illegitimate" mau mau-ing had its effect.

[hoppy025]

Which also makes me think that these two will never actually enforce Bruen.

[hoppy025]

Kavanagh was a terrible choice.

[Frank Drackman]

He likes Beer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bud Light.

[Martinned]

I'll give you my view, since it may surprise you:

- I think all of this is bad policy. One (wo)man one vote.
- I think the legal issue is tricky because (subjective) motivation is plausibly a relevant factor. It seems arguable that you'd get from the 15th amendment's "on account of race" to City of Mobile's "racially discriminatory motivation”.
- The idea that people should be assumed to intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions is well-established in the law.
- So a map that foreseeably produces an election result where candidates favoured by black voters are underrepresented is presumptively iffy.

All the detail after that is for another day. As you can tell from my frequent procrastinating today, my day has been tedious enough already without having to read through 100+ pages of Americans making elections needlessly complicated.

[hoppy025]

Why do semi-retarded black voters have the right to be grouped into a district such that they get to elect an equally retarded black to represent them?

[Kazinski]

Part of the problem with this kind of racial gerrymandering, is that increases the racial divide. It makes for much more conservative white dominated districts, and much more progressive black dominated districts, with no hope for a moderate.

[Martinned]

I agree, which is one of many reasons why I don't favour it as a policy matter.

[Moderation4ever]

You need to accept the fact that Alabama Republicans over played their hand. In a state where 25% of the population is black and you have them either split up or packed in so that they get only one of seven representative seats.

[hoppy025]

First, 25% of the population may be black, but a huge percentage of these are either low IQ, criminals, or people who are bastard born, and thus should not be eligible to vote.

Second, even if they should be, why do you presume that blacks can only be represented adequately by other blacks? You would never grant that to whites.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog Of America's Vestigial Racists.

[hoppy025]

Do you deny that these people are genetically inferior in terms of maintaining civilization?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You belong in a ditch somewhere. Nobody will miss you.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you weren't a racist, you'd offer up a more objective statement on the decision.

Like "SCOTUS holds that discriminating based on race violates the Voting Rights Act."

[hoppy025]

Alabama didn't discriminate based on race. Blacks had the same votes as whites did (even though they shouldn't).

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should probably check your facts, seeing as how SCOTUS literally just ruled otherwise.

I hope the next noose you prepare is for yourself.

[hoppy025]

SCOTUS did not rule that blacks were discriminated against and prevented from voting.

[M L]

BlackRock ploughed UK pension funds into Putin’s war chest

Millions of British pension-holders have helped build the immense Russian war chest that emboldened Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

The asset-management giant BlackRock, which manages pensions for more than 10 million people in the UK, has invested huge amounts in Russian state-owned energy and banking enterprises in recent years. These companies have contributed to Russia amassing $630bn in foreign reserves – a financial position crucial to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2022-04-05/blackrock-ploughed-uk-pension-funds-into-putins-war-chest

[M L]

In Fink We Trust: BlackRock Is Now ‘Fourth Branch of Government’

When the Fed looked for bond-buying help in a crisis, it turned to the giant money manager.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-21/how-larry-fink-s-blackrock-is-helping-the-fed-with-bond-buying#xj4y7vzkg

A Glaring New Conflict Of Interest Undermines Public Trust In Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve just made the problem of financial firms considered 'too big to fail' a whole lot bigger.

That's because the U.S. central bank has hired investment giant BlackRock BLK -1.3%,* which manages some $7 trillion in assets, to run purchases of corporate bonds and commercial mortgages that are part of its response to the pandemic-led recession.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacosta/2020/04/20/a-glaring-new-conflict-of-interest-undermines-public-trust-in-federal-reserve/?sh=25c8db15135d

[Martinned]

Did they get good returns? Just asking because some of my pension money is managed by BlackRock.

[M L]

No:
BlackRock takes $17bn hit on funds with Russia exposure

But if your goal is to warmonger then maybe yes.

[M L]

The FBI is "afraid" their informant on Biden corruption will be killed

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-afraid-informant-killed-biden-information-unmasked-congresswoman-luna

[Jason Cavanaugh]

An unreliable Trump cultist alleges that is what the FBI said.

Notably, she's the only one saying it.

When will you figure out your defects and try to correct them?

[M L]

Better to go by unknown, anonymous probably nonexistent "sources" amirite?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did Rep. Luna identify her sources (if they exist)?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Intelligent people check to make sure the information they believe to be accurate has actually been corroborated by more than one person.

As you are not in that set of humans, I can understand why you'd take the word of a single Trump cultist, without it being confirmed by literally anyone else, including the FBI and other Trumptards.

Have you considered that perhaps you're just a gullible idiot?

[M L]

The story here is that a Congresswoman says that the FBI is afraid that an informant who gave information about the Bidens could be killed if their identity is made public. She says this is based on information she learned at a House Oversight Committee meeting. The story is true.

Now, is it true that such a claim was presented at the Committee meeting? Is it true that the FBI or someone in the FBI said they were afraid this informant could be killed if their identify is revealed? Is it true that the FBI or someone in the FBI is afraid this informant could be killed if their identity is revealed?

That's all up for debate. I don't know, and haven't tried to dig in very much. Note, though, a few more seconds of reading reveals that a piece in favored intelligence community mouthpiece WaPo admits, "It does appear to be the case that the FBI expressed concern that, by making public an unredacted version of the interview, the safety of the confidential human source would be at risk."

You've offered the informative, high-IQ take that that it's false because the Congresswoman is a "Trump cultist" and a "Trumptard," among other ad hominems. Thanks for your contribution.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Thanks for bringing up the WaPo quote. I notice that you didn’t bother to contextualize your bullshit:

“I think now it’s upwards of 3.3 million impressions just on Twitter alone,” Luna boasted about her tweet to former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon on the Tuesday edition of Bannon’s fringe-right podcast. “Obviously that’s huge, because had it not been for social media I don’t know that this truth would be out there like this. I just simply put out a fact that came out of the briefing in Oversight.”

Not really, of course. She took a concern the FBI has been using about its source from the outset and framed it as being not about the source but about Biden.

As it turned out, though, that was perhaps the most defensible claim she made in her conversation with Bannon.

“We know that Comer has been obviously working to get a certain document from the FBI that proves that Biden was receiving money from a foreign national, $5 million, when he was a vice president,” she claimed. “So it’s public corruption.”

Receiving millions of dollars to take an action would be corrupt, certainly. But the FBI document doesn’t “prove” this happened; the indication is only that the FBI informant spoke to someone who seems to have made the same claim that Giuliani first elevated. The informant may even have spoken to the same person as Giuliani did.

In fact, while Comer said on Monday that the interview was part of an ongoing investigation, Raskin said that Barr and the U.S. attorney didn’t find reason to open a full investigation based on the allegation made to the informant.

Comer and Raskin were in the room for the briefing. As she admitted to Bannon, Luna was not.

I can see why you’d think she’s reliable, with not having been present at the meeting at all. I also see why you didn’t bother to make it clear that any concerns the FBI does or does not have revolve around the ‘source’ seemingly not being in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/07/biden-comer-oversight-luna-fbi/

Don’t peddle your bullshit here.

[M L]

“I can see why you’d think she’s reliable”

Where did I say she’s reliable? I’ve never even heard of her before.

But as far as the claim that the FBI is afraid this informant could be killed if their identity is revealed, intelligence community mouthpiece WaPo seems to agree.

Are you really the smartest that ShareBlue has to offer? They should assign you somewhere else and bring someone better in here, because your stupidity is shocking.

[Sarcastr0]

intelligence community mouthpiece WaPo seems to agree.

Are you really the smartest that ShareBlue has to offer

Haha you suck dude. Ad hominem all day.

Where did I say she’s reliable? I’ve never even heard of her before.
This is a backpedal. You defended her credibility above with by attacking a strawman about unknown, anonymous probably nonexistent “sources”.
Stick to your thesis, don't pretend you never had it.

[M L]

Well the story is true that a Congresswoman has made this claim, and it's newsworthy and interesting. That was my only thesis here. But upon further review, it seems that this particular claim, that the FBI says they are afraid this informant may be killed if their identity is revealed, is likely true.

I've never even heard of this Congresswoman until just now. I can't imagine ever making the claim that any politician doesn't lie, or is "reliable." But yeah, any claim made publicly has to get at least a slight edge for accountability compared to a completely anonymous claim.

In Jason Cavanaugh's defense, his posts are worth a slightly higher ShareBlue wage than yours.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you posted it here because you didn’t think it was true?

I couldn’t help but notice how you skipped over the context a second time.

Quit pretending like you don’t have an agenda here. You’re not fooling anyone.

[M L]

The story is that the Congresswoman made this claim. The story is true and newsworthy.

What's more, it looks like the claim is true, too. So what are you bitching about? Oh I see, you want to change the topic to other things the Congresswoman has said -- for obvious reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

You do this a lot.

You offer a bullshit take and then scuttle away when people engage with it saying you never meant it.

If you don't want to be associated with some bullshit, but still want to post bullshit for some reason, you need to say that's what you're doing.

[M L]

What bullshit take did I offer exactly? None. What have I backed off on? Nothing. You are flailing wildly and making things up, as usual.

[VinniUSMC]

Intelligent people check to make sure the information they believe to be accurate has actually been corroborated by more than one person.

That's why you believe "anonymous sources close to the President"?
Moron. You're not a gullible idiot. You're just fucking stupid.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Big swing and a miss by the unwanted marine.

I’m amused that you don’t understand what corroborated means.

Amused, but hardly surprised.

[M L]

Picture of the US national debt. This is not just "big number very bad," it shows the comparison to revenue which is very apt.

https://twitter.com/exjon/status/1523057019111936000/photo/1

[Martinned]

No it isn't. Debt is a stock, revenue is a flow.

[M L]

Sure. By your logic nobody would ever care to know a dividend yield, or an earnings per share.

[Martinned]

Well, they certainly don't put the numerators and the denominators of those metrics in a chart together.

[M L]

The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1641770945/reasonmagazinea-20/

Anyone read this? Looks interesting.

[M L]

Is the science changing again? Sucralose was a supposedly super healthy and safe sweetener alternative to sugar, used for decades and tons of it dumped into just about every food and drink product imaginable.

Sucralose: Sweetener May Damage DNA and Increase Cancer Risk

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/this-common-sugar-substitute-may-damage-your-dna-and-increase-your-cancer-risk

America's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Damages Our DNA, Scientists Say

https://www.newsweek.com/artificial-sweetner-sucralose-dna-damage-1804008

"a spokesperson from Splenda said that the brand's sweetener was safe and effective"

Hmmm, those are some nice familiar buzzwords. "Safe and effective!!"

[Martinned]

It's almost as if science is constantly discovering new things. I wonder what Aristotle would make of that.

[M L]

It's almost as if "the science" is just a commonly asserted propaganda construct to impose value judgments and assert power, rather than reflecting objective scientific information.

[EscherEnigma]

Dude, if you want objective scientific information, go read any number of academic journals.

But if you're getting your information from pop-sci articles, persuasive writing pieces to congress, or corporate-backed PR events, then yeah, you're getting propaganda.

[M L]

"But if you’re getting your information from pop-sci articles, persuasive writing pieces to congress, or corporate-backed PR events, then yeah, you’re getting propaganda."

You forgot to include government officials, bureaucrats, and federal agencies. Otherwise agree.

[EscherEnigma]

I'm sorry, I assumed that the capture of of the "food" part of the FDA by corporate interests was sufficiently known and accepted and didn't need enumeration.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It’s almost as if science is constantly discovering new things. I wonder what Aristotle would make of that.

The problem isn't science constantly making new discoveries and changing in response to those discoveries. Indeed, that's a feature, not a bug...and a good feature. The problem is those, who are more often than not fundamentally ignorant of the very nature of scientific inquiry, who are so fond of proclaiming a given scientific position as incontrovertible fact and declaring anyone who questions it as "anti-science"...with the irony of doing so utterly lost on them.

When it comes to medicine and nutrition, few things have done greater damage to public health than the previously dominant belief that dietary fats were evil incarnate, and that they should be replaced as much as possible by more carbohydrates in the American diet...because that was allegedly what the science said. In fact governmental agencies are still peddling that nonsense, in spite of how clear it's become that it was not supported by the totality of the evidence, and is now largely contradicted by it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why is it not a crime to have creative legal theories and interpretations regarding "fortifying elections" but is a crime to have creative legal theories regarding "election fraud"?

[Moderation4ever]

Because fortifying implies make the election process and democracy stronger and fraud implies antidemocratic authoritarianism. Does that help you understand?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You seem to be saying that arguing in court for things you don't like should rightfully be crime, while arguing in court for things you do like is noble.

That seems antidemocratic and authoritarian.

[Moderation4ever]

No what I am saying is that trying to extort election fraud from state officials, on tape, is a crime. Trying to set up fake electors is a crime. Trying to get your vice President to throw out election results is a crime. If you accuse poll workers of wrongdoing with no proof that is liable. If you have a case take it to court, but don't show up and tell the court you have lots of theories you just don't have evidence. That is wrong.

Supporting the right for people to vote for representation of their choice is good.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Extortion requires threat of something. Where did that happen?

Trying to get your vice President to throw out election results is a crime.

Urging him to "do the right thing" breaks what law?

If you accuse poll workers of wrongdoing with no proof that is liable.

THERE'S FUCKING VIDEO OF THIS SHIT, WTF. Are you people retarded?

You people live in an alternate universe. A genuine different timeline.

[Moderation4ever]

Brad Raffensperger said he felt threatened, he wrote it in a book. Trying to persuade your VP to do something unconstitutional is a crime. There is no video evidence just video of people working at the polls and counting votes. You have no idea of how election work is done so educate yourself before making silly statements.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So if you don't make any threats, but someone later says they felt threatened you committed a crime?

Asking the VP to do something you believe was in his power to do is not a crime.

There are videos of Ruby running the same stack over and over and over.

[ducksalad]

“Trying to persuade your VP to do something unconstitutional is a crime.”

Do you really want this as a general rule, or just for actions you think are especially bad? Consider the following:

POTUS asks Secretary of Education to implement program forgiving student debt. SCOTUS rules program unconstitutional on separation of powers and spending clause grounds. POTUS committed a crime?

POTUS asks VP to take leadership on federal program banning people with domestic restraining orders from owning firearms. SCOTUS rules program violates 2nd and 10th amendments. POTUS committed a crime?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This is Trump Law we are talking about, not some principled understanding or belief that gets applied uniformly.

[Moderation4ever]

They are not equivalent actions. The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and that includes a peaceful transition of power. Your examples are questions of the extend of executive authority. The case in question has nothing to do with executive authority but is rather an attempt to displace the President's Constitutional responsibility to turn over power to his elected successor.

[ducksalad]

Well, fine, but that's a different rule than the one you originally stated.

[jdgalt1]

Just signing an appropriation for the Dept of Education is unconstitutional, because education (outside DC and the military) is not one of Congress' enumerated powers. And Federalist #45 explains why you don't get to read unlimited powers into the general welfare clause.

[David Nieporent]

THERE’S FUCKING VIDEO OF THIS SHIT, WTF. Are you people retarded?

NO THERE ISN'T. YOU ARE VERY VERY GULLIBLE!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Here, especially for Nieporent, is a reader comment from the NYT, in response to an article about the decline of American kestrels (a small falcon which subsists mostly on insects). I direct this to Nieporent's attention because he sneered at an almost identical comment I made. Nieporent even brings it up from time to time, to sneer at again. If he paid more attention, he would realize that comments like mine and this one have become commonplace, which tells you something. Here is the NYT comment:

Ever since I was a kid in the 1960’s our family took road trip summer vacations throughout the Midwest. I remember the windshield and grille of our vehicle so absolutely pasted with a thick coat of insects. So many in fact we, (more accurately the now extinct station attendant) had to squeegee them off every time our tank was filled.

For the past twenty years or so my windshield has been practically devoid of bugs, not needing to be cleaned for weeks.

Of course this is anecdotal evidence, but it’s not much of a stretch imagining chemical pesticides as the culprit.

Insects are comparable to terrestrial plankton- the existential foundation of all land life.

Once more, again and always the blame falls upon the shoulders of the self serving corporate-sellouts we elect.

I hypothesize the worst contributor to that insect decline is not anymore the chemical pesticides, but instead GMO agriculture. It now covers acreage in the U.S. equal to the entire area (not just the agricultural area) of the following states combined: California, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

It is important to understand that GMO farming methods are a more efficient and a more general means to accomplish the old goals which earlier pesticides and weed killers accomplished far less efficiently—to kill everything in a farmer's field which does not contribute actively to food production.

And that is what GMO methods do. Drive into an area planted heavily with GMO crops, stop on the shoulder of a farm road, and get out of your car. Do not bother with bug repellent. You will not encounter insects. Do not listen for birds. They will be absent. Nor are you likely to see any mammals or reptiles. What you will see is a startlingly unnatural-looking display of laboratory-clean looking earth, from which perfect looking food or fiber crops rise in unchallenged perfection. The only plants in sight will be the GMO crop plants, with every other kind killed off.

It works for the farmers, but it is killing everything else, and doing it more efficiently, and more comprehensively, than older methods ever could. This ecological catastrophe has been inflicted will-nilly, courtesy of the free market.

There was never any notable policy review before it began, and not much since either. What sane legislator would have voted to endorse a policy to kill annually everything but food crops across a combined acreage as large as the one now given over to GMO methods?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

comments like mine and this one have become commonplace, which tells you something

That you think this is a serious argument for...anything...certainly tells us something about you, and it isn't flattering.

[ducksalad]

“It works for the farmers.” And everyone who eats what the farmers produce.

What do you think of this long term scenario:
1. We are approaching peak human, probably in about 50 years. 2. GMO will allow that number of humans (and their livestock) to be fed using less acreage.
3. Therefore, GMO will lead to reforestation and restoration of natural grasslands, relative to no GMO.
4. Net result is more natural habitat, at the cost of making the already not-natural habitat somewhat less natural.

To put it another way: there is no such thing as “natural” agriculture, which by definition is man-made modification of the environment. GMO reduces the net amount of agriculture necessary.

[jdgalt1]

It has yet to be shown that reducing Man's impact on the planet is desirable in any way. Humans are what the earth is for.

[Sarcastr0]

Hubris fuck yeah

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why do half-educated conservatives embrace random capialization?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad, I think your long-term scenario is nonsense. It is recognizable, however, as familiar GMO industry press agentry.

I do agree that agriculture involves modification of the natural environment. It is inaccurate and unwise to suppose that means anything done under the rubric of agriculture is an equivalent modification to anything else. GMO technology poses particular ecological threats which mixed agriculture practiced by traditional methods is incapable of.

Food availability has always been a principal limiting factor on population. There is no reason to suppose a larger world population is inherently better naturally than a smaller one. More the opposite. Smaller populations achieved gradually, without disasters, are wiser ecological policy than open-ended population increases achieved by radical alterations of ecological fundamentals.

Diversity of species, and profusion of individuals within species, are the most fundamental ecological principles yet discovered. GMO technology attacks both those fundamental principles, and does so as its justifying purpose. It is the most powerful technology for that purpose yet discovered, and it is not a close comparison with others. That efficiency is what explains its commercial success, and its rapid displacement of prior competitors.

It is the purpose itself which is unwise. Note that more-traditional agricultural practices work that way only slightly, and do it so inefficiently that they not infrequently end up increasing local diversity and profusion instead of reducing it.

GMO technology never fails to reduce local diversity and profusion. Used repeatedly, it imposes local extinctions on a scale unprecedented during human existence. It is partly to escape responsibility for such outcomes that the GMO industry advises farmers who buy its products to set aside some of their land for continued use of traditional methods. As the industry understands, those warnings go mostly unheeded.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"And that is what GMO methods do. Drive into an area planted heavily with GMO crops, stop on the shoulder of a farm road, and get out of your car. Do not bother with bug repellent. You will not encounter insects. Do not listen for birds. They will be absent. Nor are you likely to see any mammals or reptiles. What you will see is a startlingly unnatural-looking display of laboratory-clean looking earth, from which perfect looking food or fiber crops rise in unchallenged perfection. The only plants in sight will be the GMO crop plants, with every other kind killed off."

It's time for another dose of meds, Lathrop.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cavanaugh, do you want to see for yourself? Go during the summer to the Bombay Hook national wildlife refuge in Delaware. You will have the place mostly to yourself. The profusion of insects deters even enthusiast birders, who mostly prefer to visit in the other three seasons. The birds, on the other hand, thrive on the insects.

Surrounding the refuge in summertime are thousands of acres of GMO crops. Drive out of the refuge no more than 100 yards, and get out of your car among the crops. They are grown on land which was previously identical in character to the refuge itself—low lying, dissected by tidal inlets, formerly wooded, and so bug infested that even the most liberal application of insect repellent does not suffice to make a 10-minute visit into a wooded area a practical possibility. I know about that, because when I tried it on the refuge, I came out of the woods promptly, and on a run.

But not anymore in the cropland. You literally can browse the view of perfect corn stalks for as long as you like, with no bug repellent at all, and never see an insect. You won't see many birds, either. Some may fly over, on their way to somewhere else where they hope to find food.

The refuge is a chaos of species, profusion, bird-song, and life of all kinds—literally hundreds of species of birds, plants in endless variety and profusion, foxes, voles, rabbits, fish, reptiles and amphibians.

All summer long, the adjoining cropland stays as simple and quiet as a grave. The boundary between the cropland and the refuge—by which I mean the natural contrast—is so sharp it is startling. That sharp boundary has been drawn by GMO technology.

Unless your ideology forbids experience, go see it for yourself.

[ducksalad]

Insects cluster around standing water. The difference in insect density you are talking about is because the cropland has been systematically drained and leveled, while the nature preserve has pockets of standing water.

People knew that draining swamps reduced mosquitos maybe 3000 years ago.

"The boundary between the cropland and the refuge—by which I mean the natural contrast—is so sharp it is startling. " Yes, cleared and planted land looks different that natural brush. And has ever since agriculture was invented.

It's amazing this has to be proved to you, but I will try: Go to an art gallery (other than modern art) and look at the landscape paintings. The cropland looks different than the woods. Amazing!
John Constable: 1800. Monsanto GMO: 1983.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad, you want to defend GMO technology, you think that sounds plausible, so you say it. What if GMO agriculture really does kill massively and indiscriminately (it does; that is what it was engineered to do)? What would make you want to defend that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad, when I say boundary I am not talking about the appearance of the land. I am talking about the presence or absence of diverse species. On the refuge side of the line, life swarms. On the farming side of the line, almost nothing lives at all. Just corn or soybeans. It was not always like that in the nation's farm country. Farmer's field attracted birds, they did not repel them, as they do now.

Do you have any personal familiarity with mixed farming as it was practiced before factory farming largely crowded it out? Did you ever live on a farm which raised mixed crops and livestock? Perhaps you are not old enough even to know how different the natural environment of the nation is now than it was 50 years ago, including the natural environment on farms.

[ducksalad]

61 years old and my father made me spend weekends doing farm work up through high school. I wish we’d had GMO orange trees so we could use herbicides, since essentially all the effort in the grove was fighting down the weeds. I especially hated the sickle bar mower, spent way more time stopped to fix it, unjam it, or pushing it back after it snapped out, than actually getting weeds cut.

Anyway, the purpose of a corn field is to grow corn. There is nothing shocking about it being single species corn.

Furthermore, if we take your anecdote at face value it proves a vibrant refuge can co-exist with an adjacent GMO field. Great win for everyone!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Farmer’s field attracted birds, they did not repel them, as they do now."

Dearest Stephen,

Do you know what a 'scarecrow' is? Seriously dude, holy shit.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you give us the monkey selfie forgery again? Your new stuff isn’t bad, but sometimes people want to hear the classics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, why do you keep bringing that up? Do you suppose it is some kind of critique of me, or my knowledge of photography? Why would you be stupid enough to do that without knowing anything about me or photography?

[M L]

Apparently an "asylum seeker" stabbed a bunch of little kids on a playground in France.

Apparently there is a video, but the censors at Twitter and Reddit are out in force deleting it everywhere it appears.

[Martinned]

How damaged do you have to be to want to see video of kids getting stabbed?

[M L]

How damaged do you have to be to promote videos like that of George Floyd dying from a drug overdose, while censoring videos like this, all for demented political purposes?

[jdgalt1]

Depends on why you want to see it. If you want to judge the guilt or innocence of a participant in the scene then you may need to see it.

[EscherEnigma]

I can't speak to this specific case, but "censoring" videos that show actual graphic violence is common in more "respectable" social media sites. This most likely has nothing to do with "censorship" and just to do with not showing kids getting stabbed.

Or, to put it another way... if you want to watch videos of kids getting stabbed (and dying), just go to LiveLeaks already.

[M L]

That's certainly a plausible-sounding explanation, but completely incorrect as to Twitter. Videos that show actual graphic violence are extremely common on Twitter and typically they are allowed without restriction, in rare cases age-restricted, but virtually never deleted.

For example: https://twitter.com/breaking911/status/1666248514244947969

Or this one has been all over Twitter for the last year: https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/las-vegas-vape-store-owner-defends-himself-by-stabbing-would-be-robber/

In fact, there are countless Twitter accounts dedicated solely to posting videos of actual graphic violence. For example the account "Vicious Videos" has 1M followers. There are many such accounts with various emphases such as fighting, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Other bad videos being up doesn't mean there's a double standard, it means twitter's kinda janky these days.

Not showing children being stabbed is good, actually. You're so focused on ginning up persecution you're coming of like kind of a psycho.

[M L]

"these days"

No, it's been the same for years, and it's not janky, it's the policy. Not just a few "other bad videos," it's literally with respect to every single video and post, this is the policy (except when they want to do censorship for political reasons apparently).

Twitter's terms define "graphic content" as follows:

Graphic content

Graphic content is any media that depicts death, violence, medical procedures, or serious physical injury in graphic detail. Some examples include, but are not limited to, depictions of:

violent crimes or accidents;
physical fights;
physical child abuse;
bodily fluids including blood, feces, semen etc.;
serious physical harm, including visible wounds; and
severely injured or mutilated animals.

Graphic content is specifically ALLOWED on Twitter, though you can't post it in live videos, profile pics, cover photos etc. However, "excessively gory" content isn't allowed. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-policy

So what explains things like removal of this video that don't seem to fit the policy and usual practice? I don't know, but I think one explanation sometimes profferred is something like - violent videos of all kinds with all kinds of perpetrators are fine, but if the perpetrator is a "migrant" or something like that, that's not ok because by disseminating the video you are encouraging violence against migrants, or something crazy like that.

[Martinned]

LOL. There are only two rules on Twitter these days:

- You can publish whatever Elon allows you to publish.
- If you want to publish something Elon doesn't want you to publish, he might have borked the algorithm enough that you can still do so for a while.

[M L]

Trump- raided, indicted, arrested
Roger Stone- raided, arrested
Steve Bannon- arrested
Peter Navarro- arrested
James O’Keefe- raided
Daniel Perry- arrested
Rudy Giuliani- raided

Even the USSR was more subtle

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1666582053599559688

Question for discussion: Should the right pursue the same tactics against their political opponents, if they have the ability?

[Michael Ejercito]

Of course they should.

We were dragged across this line- in 2014.

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=161693

Nothing, not the Constituition, not statute, not ethics- should get in the way of retribution!

the rules have changed.

any prosecutor who can nopt play by the new rules should resign!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Question for discussion:

Are you such a fucking retard that you think a list of Republican criminals, and those who kept evidence of those crimes, somehow infers a political persecution?

Yes. Yes you are.

[Moderation4ever]

Can't argue with your logic here.

[VinniUSMC]

Get a room you two

[Life of Brian]

Oh, right -- if their political opponents brand them as CRIMINALS first, then all good and anything goes. This is easy!

[Nige]

I know you think that's how it SHOULD work and are just jealous because your lot did actual crimes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Clinton did actual crimes too. Your lot did nothing but defend him.

[Sarcastr0]

Tu quoque even? Any felonies or indictments? Oh maybe go for the Clinton Death List!

How sad you have become.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Yes, lying to a grand jury is a felony. But you knew that, Gaslightro.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton could have been prosecuted after leaving office. Robert Ray (Kenneth Starr´s successor) made a deal not to prosecute him.

That has absolutely no bearing on Donald Trump´s culpability or lack thereof.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You certainly seem to have a different attitude toward the felonies committed by Clinton, vs. Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah. Your equivalence sucks.

And is also irrelevant. You can’t stop changing the subjects.

I think we all know why.

[TwelveInchPianist]

My equivalence is awesome. You won’t admit that you are applying a different standard to criminal activity by Clinton than you are to criminal activity by Trump. I think we all know why.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

They were very different felonies! Bill Clinton's had nothing to do with national security or any other national interest.

The President said to the Ms.:
"Your mouth is a good place for jizz,
And whether it's moral
For you to give oral
Depends on the meaning of 'is'."

[Nige]

'You won’t admit that you are applying a different standard to criminal activity by Clinton'

What does that even mean? Are you claiming Clinton was investgated? Subjected to hearings and testified under oath? I'm fine with Trump being subject to the same scrutiny, are you?

[Nige]

So you should be glad someone's finally holding an ex-president accountable.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Ask Bill Clinton.

[EscherEnigma]

I'm surprised you didn't put Paxton on that list.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The right has no representation in Washington DC nor any of the institutions with any authority.

It's going to be up to the people to stop the evil tyranny of the Democrats/Federals.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is quite a list of un-American losers.

Here's a list of un-American jerks who -- inexplicably -- have not been indicted, arrested, sanctioned, censured, disbarred, or prosecuted, or incarcerated yet:

John Eastman
Jeffrey Clark
Scott Perry
Sidney Powell
Cleta Mitchell
Mike Lindell
Mark Meadows
Boris Epshteyn

Carry on, clingers . . . until the authorities arrange otherwise, that is.

[M L]

PENNSYLVANIA: Reading Man Arrested for Quoting Bible in Public

https://www.thelancasterpatriot.com/reading-man-arrested-for-quoting-bible/

"A criminal complaint from the Reading Police Department provided to The Lancaster Patriot explains that a violation of the Disorderly Conduct statute entails “the intent to cause substantial public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior” and that Atkins “despite being warned by police just moments prior, yelled derogatory comments at an organization that was holding a permitted event.”

[Editor’s Note: On June 7, the Berks County District Attorney’s Office announced that all charges against Atkins have been dropped.]

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gullible, boorish, superstitious right-wing bigots have rights, too.

Damon Atkins' god is a paltry, illusory, disgusting thing.

[M L]

"If I were in favor of any sort of affirmative action, it might be in favor of those who have been disadvantaged in their own past, through poverty. And if they happen to be black, fair enough — but simply because they’re black? No, that’s the wrong sort of affirmative action. That is racism."

―
@RichardDawkins

https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1666465082954633218

[M L]

Ideological discrimination:

College students are far more liberal than conservative.

But the disparity is far greater at US News & World Report’s top 20 ranked schools (e.g. Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale).

Specifically, libs outnumber cons:
▪️69%-16% at Top 20 schools
▪️55%-23% at lower ranked schools

https://twitter.com/data_depot/status/1666189396314558464?cxt=HHwWgMDQ_bKbv58uAAAA

[EscherEnigma]

I must beg pardon, but isn't this what you want?

After all, when you spend year-after-year, literal decades, arguing that universities are "liberal indoctrination centers" that are turning your kids into queers and atheists, isn't seeing fewer conservatives being tricked into such indoctrination a good thing?

[M L]

Interesting theory, but I doubt many conservatives would agree that being discriminated against by top ranked schools is ackshully a good thing! For one thing, aside from the student body apparently, the top 40 schools aren't any less liberal than the top 20.

But even if it were somehow a good thing, it still seems worthwhile to note evidence that top schools may be discriminating against students with certain political viewpoints in the admissions process.

[Sarcastr0]

Could I be so out of touch?

No, it is the children who are wrong.

[EscherEnigma]

[...] being discriminated against by top ranked schools is ackshully a good thing [...]

That I looked at the same correlation and pointed to a different possible causation (one that would be directly attributable to your own actions) was the point, actually.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But the disparity is far greater at US News & World Report’s top 20 ranked schools

Smarter, more accomplished, less superstitious, less bigoted students are less likely to be Republicans and conservatives?

Students who choose our strongest, reason-based educational institutions are more likely to be liberal mainstream members than are the students who attend fourth-tier, superstition-addled, backwater, conservative-controlled schools?

That's a "wow."

[Theendoftheleft]

Ha!!! What??? Your top law faculties are reason-based? Their work is all empirically grounded, devoid of superstition (including normative prejudices), and doesn’t mostly amount to intuition-pumping, normative twaddle?

You bigoted, ignorant twat. You don’t even CARE that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That might make you a fine American, but it makes you a moron to the rest of the world.

[M L]

Vivek says he would pardon Assange, says "Assange now sits in a foreign prison for doing what the D.C. press corps does every day."

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1666828655274721282?cxt=HHwWhIC8sZX14aEuAAAA

[Mr. Bumble]

Roberts and Kavanaugh strike again in Alabama redistricting decision.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Apparently, States have to place representatives in Congress based upon the racial the make-up of it's population.

I wonder how many Asian majority and Illegal majority districts California will have to create?

But whatever you do, don't call it gerrymandering!

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of spiking the ball in the end zone over at Election Law Blog.

Except for Kavanaugh making some O'Connerish remarks about Congress's right to mandate racial gerrymandering eventually expiring, they view this as an unexpected and complete win for the cause of racial gerrymandering.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

For the second time, Mr. Racist, it was a win for the Voting Rights Act and making sure that people like you can't just cut unacceptable skin colors out of the political process.

"Racial gerrymandering" is what racists say when they get caught.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you have to gerrymander a district to create a majority for a specific race it's best described as __________.

How would you fill in the blank?

[jdgalt1]

What is “rigging the election,” Alex?

But then, states are also rigging elections when they count illegals in the census to get more seats in the House.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Or when the Democrats at the Census Bureau whoopsie-doodled the Democrats five extra Reps.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You might want to actually read the Constitution once in a while.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

Perhaps you can explain how illegal immigrants are not "persons."

[Brett Bellmore]

Where "cutting unacceptable skin colors out of the political process" just means "not manufacturing racially gerrymandered districts in their favor wherever possible".

It's not like anybody is prevented from voting when a state draws it's districts non-racially. The minorities just have less influence if you assume that they're racists who will only vote for their own race.

[bernard11]

You could also assume that the majority are racists who will only vote for their own race.

[Theendoftheleft]

No other Western country does this, because it's racist and corrupt.

Your country is a banana republic.

YOUR views, furthermore, on whether it's racist, corrupt, and whether yours is a banana republic are no longer salient for the rest of the world's judgments about you and about these matters.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Too bad Trump didn’t pull his nomination…Bush won that battle and got Kavanaugh confirmed.

[Sarcastr0]

When you expect the VRA to be gutted but the status quo of the already pretty gutted VRA is allowed to remain, some take their relief as a win.

I don’t. This Court sucks when it comes to democracy.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Why do we still have geographical districts in the internet age, anyway? I have much stronger community-bonding with my sister who lives on the other side of the city than I have with my next-door neighbor.

We should abolish geographical districts altogether, and let people in each state choose which district to belong to. Let the voters gerrymander themselves.

[Martinned]

Or, and this might sound crazy, we could just count everyone's votes and hand out seats in the legislature in proportion to how many votes each party gets.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Jack Daniels case came out at SCOTUS today. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf

The Court’s decision was narrow: Rogers v. Grimaldi (assuming that is even right, which the Court does not hold) does not apply when the phrase at issue is used as a trademark.

The real problem, which was hinted at but not resolved, is that likelihood of confusion seems unlikely, yet the district court found likelihood of confusion. Sotamayor makes a good point in concurrence about surveys being a problem in these kinds of cases.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Allegedly those Biden FBI docs have evidence of Biden taking two $5M bribes to get that Burisma Prosecutor fired.

When Trump suggested this crime be looked into, the Democrats impeached him.

That's how filthy, vile, and evil Democrats are.

[Nige]

'Allegedly.' This is a rare qualification in the rubbish you post.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hunter conned a billion dollars out of China…I think that is awesome!!

[Armchair Lawyer]

The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C. has confirmed to Congress that it had plainclothes officers at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot and that at least one was captured on video exhorting the crowd, a key House investigator told Just the News.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, said in wide-ranging interview Wednesday night that MPD body cam video that leaked onto the video platform Rumble is authentic and confirms that officers in plainclothes were at the riot.

In a brief filed late by the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., prosecutors wrote: "The specific footage, GoPro video recorded by an MPD Police Officer who was stationed at the Capitol in an evidence-gathering capacity, captures the officer shouting words to the effect of 'Go! Go! Go!' (MPD-005-000035 at time stamp 2:37), 'Go! Go! Go!' (MPD-005-000035 at time stamp 7:23), and 'Keeping going! Keep going!' (MPD-005-000035 at time stamp 8:16) apparently to the individuals in front of him on the balustrade of the U.S. Capitol's northwest staircase around 2:15 p.m.

"At other times in these videos, the officer and the two other plain clothes officers with him appear to join the crowd around them in various chants, to include 'drain the swamp,' 'U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!', and 'Whose house? Our house!'"

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/loudermilk-mpd-had-plain-clothed-officers-capitol-crowd-jan-6-2021

So...the cops were literally telling the crowd to go into the Capitol....

[Sarcastr0]

join the crowd around them? That's some shitty provoking, if that's what you're trying to argue.

[Michael P]

Clearly, if all of S_0's friends are doing drugs / storming the Capitol / driving off a cliff, that means it must be cool for S_0 to do it too.

[Nige]

So which is it, they were telling people to do it or they were going along with it?

[MoreCurious]

Trump has been indicted in Miami.

[not guilty]

I wonder what district judge the case will be assigned to.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I hear that Aileen Cannon is itching to make an even bigger fool of herself.

Maybe she'll get the chance.

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon´s duty station is Fort Pierce. (Although the case could be assigned to any judge in the district.)

The active service judges sitting in Miami include five appointed by Republican presidents (two of those by Trump) and four appointed by Obama. Four seats are vacant -- that may make for some interesting confirmation hearings.

[not guilty]

The courthouse at West Palm Beach includes one Clinton appointee and one Obama appointee.

[John F. Carr]

Is there any custom that would call for a Trump appointee to recuse? I recall when Janklow appealed his manslaughter conviction the South Dakota Supreme Court justices recused en masse because he had appointed them.

[not guilty]

Not necessarily. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), William Rehnquist recused, but Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell did not. In Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer did not recuse.

On the merits, each of the above non-recusing justices ruled against the president who appointed him/her.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump says he has been indicted.

Let's hope he's telling the truth this time.

[Frank Drackman]

"Reverend" Coach Jerry Sandusky, well experienced in Indictments

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

General Kelly predicted all of this…Trump hired a lackey instead of a real Chief of Staff.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One of Trump’s lawyers — one of the legitimate ones, with a good practice at a reputable firm — predicted Trump would be sentenced to a prison term in this context.

[Theendoftheleft]

Did the lawyer specify whether it would be due to Trump's having actually committed a crime, or whether it's because your banana republic intends to run a kangaroo court show trial?

Carry on, clinger, till your own side sends you to gulag for betraying the revolution. (I'm kidding, of course. The American right is going to murder you long before that.)

[Krychek_2]

And you know what his defense is going to be. “BUT WHAT ABOUT ….,”

[Frank Drackman]

Well he hasn't left an innocent young woman to asphyxiate (Not drowned, there's a difference) like a certain former Senator from MA who's name rhymes with Schmega Schmennedy.

Frank

[not guilty]

Arraignment will be on Tuesday before Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. I don´t expect that Trump will be denied bail pending trial, but it will be interesting to see whether the court imposes conditions upon his pretrial release.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump´s attorney Jim Trusty has given an interview on CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OUlElGQDU0 He indicates (beginning at 1:33) that the indictment includes charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 1512 and 1519, including a conspiracy count.

Charges under those statutes could be exceedingly difficult to defend. Section 793(d) provides in relevant part that ¨Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document . . . relating to the national defense . . . willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it¨ shall be fined or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Section 1512(c)(1) provides that ¨Whoever corruptly . . . conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding¨ shall be or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Section 1512(k) states that ¨Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.¨

Section 1519 states that ¨Whoever knowingly . . . conceals . . . any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.¨

Team Trump has a long row to hoe. But ho they will.

[John F. Carr]

The Mar-a-Lago gang collectively concealed, obstructed, and failed to deliver. The challenge for the prosecution is proving culpable mental state of individual defendants. I expect the federal indictment to be much more instructive about the evidence than the empty New York indictment.

I have seen no reports yet about who else might be charged.

[not guilty]

Trump may be chargeable for the conduct of other persons under 18 U.S.C. § 2:

(a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b)Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Trump´s culpable mental state would of course need to be proven.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Donald Trump´s attorney Jim Trusty

It is being reported that Trusty is no longer one of Trump's attorneys.

By Trusty.

Is Trusty departing Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force because he is about to be indicted or disbarred, or instead because he wants to try to avoid being indicted or disbarred? For his sake, I hope it is the latter.

[Jerry B.]

Now that SCOTUS has decided that Alabama’s redistricting is unconstitutional, maybe they should check out Maryland, where the previous governor was a Republican, but seven of the eight Congressional districts elected Democrats. Look at the district map.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_congressional_districts

[not guilty]

SCOTUS did not decide that Alabama’s redistricting is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the district court correctly found violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As for Maryland, SCOTUS has ruled that partisan gerrymandering presents a non-justiciable question for federal courts. Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).

[Martinned]

Which, for the record, I think was a mistake as a policy matter and quite possibly as a legal matter as well.

[not guilty]

Justice Robert Jackson said of his brethren on SCOTUS, ¨We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.¨ Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

[bernard11]

That's the case where Roberts threw up his hands in horror at the thought of having to do arithmetic.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Interesting that you bring up Maryland, and not North Carolina, where about 30% of the total voters are registered as Republican, but Republicans have veto-proof supermajorities in both houses. Even Democrats in Maryland haven't gerrymandered that successfully.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts voter registration is 32% Democrat and Democrats have supermajorities in both houses.

[jdgalt1]

I would like to see the VC comment on this case:

https://reason.com/2023/06/07/police-almost-beat-him-to-death-after-his-conviction-was-dismissed-prosecutors-are-recharging-him/

Isn't that open-and-shut double jeopardy?

[not guilty]

Where a conviction has been reversed based upon trial error -- that is, grounds other than insufficiency of evidence to support a reasonable jury finding that every element of the offense had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. The reversal and vacating of Mr. Zamora´s conviction was for prosecutorial misconduct during jury selection, so a second trial would not offend double jeopardy guaranties.

OTOH, if prosecutors restore the case to the trial docket in retaliation for the defendant´s exercise of First Amendment rights, due process could require dismissal based on prosecutorial vindictiveness. See, Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 2001). The defendant would need to show that the facts and circumstances show a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness in the decision to reinstate the prosecution, and the state would have an opportunity to rebut such a showing by offering non-vindictive reasons for the prosecutiorial decision.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, the prosecutor's internal memo explaining why he's re-prosecuting was accidentally released, and we know that it's vindictive: he's re-prosecuting because the victim wants the cop prosecuted and wants to sue the cop.

[Noscitur a sociis]

No. When a criminal conviction is reversed due to errors during jury selection, double jeopardy does not typically preclude a retrial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but that's not to say that it isn't open and shut double jeopardy. It's just that the courts have manufactured multiple exceptions to allow double jeopardy under circumstances they approve of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What (besides your own intuition) would you point me to that shows this procedural posture has ever been considered double jeopardy (open and shut or otherwise)?

[not guilty]

Brett has a loathsome habit of conflating what he believes the law should be with what the law actually is.

The Dunning-Kruger effect can be a bitch.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't confuse what I think the law is, with what I know the courts say it is, that's all: I'm not a legal positivist. Doesn't mean I don't know the courts wouldn't rule contrary to my opinion.

But I can well understand the attraction of legal positivism for people who spend a lot of time in court; It WOULD be a real bitch to lose a case because you forgot the courts were upholding some goofy precedent instead of the law.

[Sarcastr0]

It is the height of pride to declare that your opinion is the only one that's valid.

Which is what you are doing re: the law.

[not guilty]

Brett, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed and vacated Mr. Zamora´s conviction because the prosecutor committed race based misconduct during jury selection. https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/999597.pdf The Court opined at page 5 of the slip opinion:

For reasons detailed below, we conclude that during voir dire the prosecutor apparently intentionally appealed to the jurors’ potential racial bias in a way that undermined Zamora’s presumption of innocence. Therefore, Zamora was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury because of the prosecutor’s race-based misconduct.

Do you have any authority whatsoever that a retrial before a second, impartial jury is barred by double jeopardy? Or are you once again making shit up?

[Frank Drackman]

Not really an Over/Under, but a "What happens first "Teaser" (I only bet on events that have already happened or I know are "rigged", so I may have this wrong, but I think with a "Teaser" bet you have to get both options right)
Both Senescent Joe and Addict Hunter Die (don't call the FBI, Natural causes! Natural Causes!)
BEFORE
Trump does any Club Fed time

Looks like a No Brainer to me

Frank

[not guilty]

Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department was expected to make public an indictment ahead of Trump´s court appearance next week. https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3

[John F. Carr]

Quoting the AP:

The assignment of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, confirmed Friday by a person familiar with the development, is a rare bit of positive news for Trump in the face of an indictment with several criminal charges that carries the prospect of a years-long prison sentence.

This is the most entertaining news I have seen all day. (The fish jumping into the BMP to be eaten by Ukrainian soldiers was from yesterday.) Great way to add more chaos to our chaotic world.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I predict that this time she will dumbjudge her way right off the federal bench.

[John F. Carr]

She could blatantly sabotage the case and there wouldn't be 67 votes in the Senate to remove her. If she does something worthy of discipline 28 USC 354 allows the judicial council to offer early retirement.

[M L]

Question about the Trump classified documents brouhaha. My understanding is that ex-Presidents are allowed to "obtain" classified information from during their tenure.

So whatever Trump had in his possession at Mar-a-Lago, he would have generally been entitled to access it as an ex-President, and even obtain copies and so on, provided of course that he followed all the requirements and procedures for the handling and use of classified information. Is this statement correct?

Of course, this does not excuse any mishandling, concealing, refusal to cooperate, or whatever Trump may have done with respect to classified information in this case. I only want to know if this is accurate in order to better understand the context and stakes and aims of the laws involved.

[Voize]

A former president is exempted from some restrictions on access to presidential records created during his administration. Presidential records can be classified, but excludes "official records of an agency" as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). I think that means reports and memoranda he received from Defense or the CIA are not presidential records so he doesn't have any special access to them.

[John F. Carr]

The indictment has been unsealed (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf). Trump and Walt(ine) Nauta are the defendants. Trump’s attorneys 1, 2, and 3 (Christina Bobb) have not been charged in this indictment and are presented as innocent victims of Trump and Nauta.

The government’s theory of the classified documents part of the case is that possession of classified documents became illegal immediately upon the end of Trump’s term as president. He is charged under 18 USC 793(e), which begins “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…” The offense is said to have begun on January 20, 2021, based on the fact that he had the documents. He also revealed some of the documents to unauthorized people, which is the same offense as having them in the first place and depends on possession being unauthorized in a legal sense. Leaking legally possessed classified documents has to be charged under subsection (d) or (f). (It is my opinion that his possession should be considered legal until the government asked for the documents back. This would narrow the relevant time frame.)

Each of 31 documents is charged as a separate count. The government will need to prove that he acted “willfully” with respect to each document.

Obstruction and false statements are charged in six more counts, apparently redundant but the way federal law is written it’s hard to commit just one felony. The facts in the indictment are not especially illuminating after all as to intent to obstruct. I need to think about it a while to figure out where the smoke is and where the fire is.

[not guilty]

Causing a fraudulent declaration to be made in response to the grand jury subpoena is a powerful indication of intent to obstruct the grand jury investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 states:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The issuance of the grand jury subpoena, following unsuccessful attempts by the National Archives to retrieve documents, is plainly ¨in relation to or contemplation of¨ a federal criminal investigation.

[Randal]

It is my opinion that his possession should be considered legal until the government asked for the documents back. This would narrow the relevant time frame.

No, that's not right. It's always illegal. Biden and Pence's possessions were illegal too. The question is whether you can prove intent. Giving the documents back when asked is evidence against intent. Keeping them is evidence that you intended to take them in the first place. It would take a strange fellow to accidentally purloin some documents and then decide, once notified of their illegal presence, to keep them anyway.

[Frank Drackman]

Not so much scared as aware of their potential dangerousness, like with venomous snakes, hard to get killed by the Eastern Diamondback you never get close to, ditto with the Black Peoples.
The LGTBQ are just sort of disturbing, like the bearded woman or Pinhead from "Freaks"

Frank

[Gandydancer]

I recall getting into the wrong part of Oakland by mistake and got approached and threatened by some of the denizens, but not much quaking happens because I don't make that mistake very often. And neither do you or you wouldn't be posting here, since it would be hard to do that if you were dead.

[Frank Drackman]

"Soccer"? I thought you were supposed to call it "Football"
Golf? never saw the attraction, used to hit at Driving Ranges when I was younger until I couldn't find lefthanded drivers, almost like they were trying to make me go away (Nice thing about Baseball Bats, Tennis Rackets, Ping Pong Paddles, no handedness discrimination)
Haven't watched the Knee-Grow Basketball Association since before Magic J caught the Hiv-ie, got the short attention span I do, that 24 second clock is just too long!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"Messi to Miami-what does this mean for American soccer?"

Same as Pele and Beckham doing their retirement here.

[Bored Lawyer]

I thought it was the Jews. Don't they have space lasers?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.tiktok.com/@dogasseduglyman2/video/7241175258638650667

Like Ruby on Election night and Michael's Swingin Schlong on Ellen, this will be another video you pretend you don't grok.

[Frank Drackman]

this show's better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Blocks

[Bob from Ohio]

"Louisiana and Georgia say hello."

Yes, as I said "Southern states used them to stop the GOP in the Jim Crow era."

[not guilty]

Bob, what southern state(s) employed a jungle primary during the Jim Crow era?

[Frank Drackman]

sort of race-ist insinuating that having sex with Black men is degrading. It's like a Fag calling other people "Fags"

[Bob from Ohio]

I thought it was earlier.

An attempt to maintain Dem dominance after GOP started to rise.

[Nige]

Can you see the lizard people in the video?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No, you can only see the plumes of smoke start rising from a dozen different locations at the same time.

[Nige]

I wonder if an expert in forest fires could explain the phenomenon for you.