Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Fall’s favorite spice blend has a violent history"

...“It just happens that the main spices in pumpkin spice are fraught with colonizer histories.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fall-s-favorite-spice-blend-has-a-violent-history/ar-AA1hMz7h

[John F. Carr]

Would it be wrong to mail packets of pumpkin spice powder to liberal influencers?

If a spice does not have a colonizer history, it's an herb.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, brings back memories… which “Spice Girl” was “Pumpkin”?? I remember “Scary”, “Sporty” and “Posh” but “Pumpkin”??

Frank "I wanna really, really, really wanna "zig-a-zig", ah!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, they are LEFTISTS, not "liberals" -- they are way too close minded to ever be considered "liberal."

I like to remind people that one of two telephone linemen died on the job of electrocution a century ago, and just how horrific the on-the-job death toll of railroads in the era of steam actually was.

LOTS of bad things happened in the past.

[David Nieporent]

they are way too close minded to ever be considered “liberal.”

Tell us more about the mass murder you want to commit because you don't like the skin color of Mexicans.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I think he once mentioned using nuclear weapons?

[Moderation4ever]

Wait till they start looking into the history of rubber in your car tires.

[Nige]

Bike tyres, too. Honestly think every one should know that history. Sugar, too. Modern electronics. 'What they don't want you to know' and all that.

[Reallynotbob]

Salt's a good one, too.

[Nelson]

Yup. Pretty much anything that is perceived as valuable leads to people doing horrifying things to other people.

Those things don't even have to actually be valuable. Diamonds are abundant on Earth, yet look how much murder, rape, and pillage have resulted from the perception of their value.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That and the cartel which has controlled it.

[Krayt]

A summary: hey, crappy stuff in Nutmeg's history. Modern nutmeg is clean, which Starbuck's uses. I wonder if they know...?

Someone might wanna get paid. Or drive down stock prices.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Grand juries are under prosecutorial influence and don’t hear the other side of the case against suspects.

Solution: limit the power of prosecutors and let grand juries see more evidence.

Just kidding, the solution is to abolish grand juries and get rid of a key method of citizen participation in the justice system.

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/abolish-grand-juries-cop-city-trump/

Curiously, the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury clause doesn’t mention “probable cause.” The reference to probable cause is in the Fourth Amendment’s warrant clause, and no mention of standard of proof is made in the grand jury clause. Nonetheless, by some kind of “invisible radiation” out of the Fourth Amendment, grand juries are supposedly held to the probable cause standard.

Hobble the grand jury, put it under the domination of a prosecutor, confine it to evidence considered important by that prosecutor, require it to indict under inadequate evidence, then blame the grand jurors!

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is how the grand jury has worked since before the United States existed:

An indictment is a written accusation of one or more persons of a crime or misdemesnor, preferred to, and presented upon oath by, a grand jury. To this end the sheriff of every county is bound to return to every session of the peace, and every commission of oyer and terminer, and of general gaol delivery, twenty four good and lawful men of the county, some out of every hundred, to enquire, present, do, and execute all those things, which on the part of our lord the king shall then and there be commanded them…. This grand jury are previously instructed in the articles of their enquiry, by a charge from the judge who presides upon the bench. They then withdraw, to sit and receive indictments, which are preferred to them in the name of the king, but at the suit of any private prosecutor; and they are only to hear evidence on behalf of the prosecution: for the finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an enquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined; and the grand jury are only to enquire upon their oaths, whether there be sufficient cause to call upon the party to answer it.

How do you think the grand jury system should work?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Blackstone, eh?

“This grand jury are previously instructed in the articles of their enquiry, by a charge from the judge who presides upon the bench.”

Hopefully with a reminder from the judge that grand jurors are a last defense of the innocent suspect against grueling, expensive legal proceedings which may end up in a false conviction or coerced plea-bargain.

“at the suit of any private prosecutor”

Sounds good – dilutes the prosecutor’s monopoly – and a private prosecutor, without the aura of official authority, may get suitable skepticism from the grand jurors.

Blackstone seems to have had some good ideas.

There are also presentments on the grand jury’s own initiative – also mentioned by Blackstone – which I suppose would include presenting witnesses who lied to the grand jurors. Assuming of course there's "sufficient cause" to believe they lied.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Hopefully with a reminder from the judge that grand jurors are a last defense of the innocent suspect against grueling, expensive legal proceedings which may end up in a false conviction or coerced plea-bargain.

That doesn’t seem to have been a particular focus in the 18th century, though it’s certainly ubiquitous today.

https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/8._John_Jay_charge_to_Grand_Jury.pdf

I’d still be interested in a sketch of how you think the system should actually work (regardless of whether it ever actually worked that way). Sounds like your main complaint is that the grand juries don’t indict enough people?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Sounds like your main complaint is that the grand juries don’t indict enough people?"

Wait, what? Are you joking?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No? All of your specific criticisms are about how grand juries should be charging more people.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Bollocks.

Prove it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Grand jurors were selected from the body of the people and their work was not hampered by rigid procedural or evidential rules. In fact, grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and were free to make their presentments or indictments on such information as they deemed satisfactory. Despite its broad power to institute criminal proceedings the grand jury grew in popular favor with the years. It acquired an independence in England free from control by the Crown or judges. Its adoption in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-1-1-1/ALDE_00000854/

That sure sounds better than what we have now.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

John Jay's charge to the grand jury sure seems at variance with what I hear about current federal practice:

"Direct your attention also to the conduct of the national officers, and let not any corruptions, frauds, extortions, or criminal negligences, with which you may find any of them justly chargeable, pass unnoticed."

[Martinned]

Why does there need to be "citizen participation in the justice system"? Or, to be more precise, why is such participation a good thing if it comes at the expense of defendants' right to a speedy (and fair) trial, and society's right to convict the guilty?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What wisdom have we gained since the days of the Founders?

“…[the people] may exercise [self-government] by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved)” etc.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4313

And this is from some training material for judges:

“5. Jury trials provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in the process of governing. Serving on a jury is the most direct and impactful way for citizens to connect to the constitution. It is more active and participatory than voting. Citizens can help perpetuate our system of laws, and stabilize our democracy.

“6. Jury trials educate jurors about the justice system. People who serve on juries have a greater respect for the system when they leave. Serving on a jury gives people insight into the justice system and their own communities, and corrects misapprehensions about what takes place in a courtroom.”

https://www.judges.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Why-Jury-Trials-are-Important-to-a-Democratic-Society.pdf

[Martinned]

What wisdom have we gained since the days of the Founders?

Quite a lot. But specifically in this respect, what we've gained is general education, general franchise, and mass communication.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So...jurors are *more* educated now?

[Martinned]

Yes, but so is everybody else, because they can see on TV and read in the newspaper what the courts have been up to.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, like watching Judge Judy and all of the clones that followed.

[Martinned]

Like watching Trump get perp walked live on TV.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how is that educational?

[Martinned]

It tells you that Trump has been arrested. In ye olden times the news that a former president has been arrested wouldn't have reached the wider population until weeks later.

[Nige]

Shows no-one is above the law. Also shows that there are people who think he should be above the law.

[DaveM]

re:Trump's perp walk, yes, it shows no one is above the law, but only if the law being shown was dispensed without favor. That's a big problem here.

The left has a big blind spot when it comes to the issue of fairness. When there's an accusation, both the process and the accused are on trial. The process must be non-partisan. There must be a presumption of innocence. The accused must be competently represented. The prosecutors must not have anything to gain personally from the process.

When any of these things are absent, it creates a problem. When all of them are absent, the process is corrupted and it stirs up controversy rather than resolves it.

[Nige]

'The left has a big blind spot when it comes to the issue of fairness'

So you say, but if so you haven't identified it.

[DaveM]

1. The process must be non-partisan.
2. There must be a presumption of innocence.
3. The accused must be competently represented.
4. The prosecutors must not have anything to gain personally from the process.

I will grant you #3, that one is Trump’s own fault. (Note to those considering voting for Trump: you can be sure that his choices for Cabinet positions will be every bit as good as his choices of personal representation.)

But the left does indeed have a big blind spot as regards the other requirements. $40 Million, multi-year investigation. Illegal wire taps. Lying to the FISA court. Not one but two impeachment trials. A nearly three-year Congressional investigation. An entire industrial-grade government censorship program to suppress information by news media an social media.

None of which has produced any change to the other side. He is even more popular than ever.

The reason is because the left is not understanding that the lower and more scummy your accused, the higher and more disinterested your prosecution must be.

[Nige]

I'm still not sure what the blind spot is. The wire taps weren;t illegal. One person lied to the court and was punished for it. Investigations cost money. There was no censorship programme. These things have been happening because of things Trump did. 'The left' have no control over Trump doing things that draw legal difficulties on himself. They can only point out that he's not above the law. That his criminality makes him more appealing to the right says more about the right than the left.

[bernard11]

3. The accused must be competently represented.

So you favor improving public defenders' offices, and providing more resources to defendants?

4. The prosecutors must not have anything to gain personally from the process.

Should prosecutors not be allowed to run for higher office, or take more lucrative positions?

[David Welker]

Martinned:

Juries exist to prevent abuse of power by government officials. Hopefully, most of the time, government officials aren’t abusing their power.

In colonial times, juries checked the Crown in the American colonies, which is one reason the expansive use of admiralty courts (which don’t use juries) was condemned in the Declaration of Independence.

[Martinned]

I am aware that that is the theory. Given that juries seem to abuse their power much more than judges do, I'm not sure whether there is any empirical basis for that theory, but I am aware that that's why people like them.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Given that juries seem to abuse their power much more than judges do,.."

In what way?

[David Welker]

I don’t see how juries can abuse power in the relevant sense. They can only stop prosecutions, they can’t unilaterally initiate them.

A jury is a veto point.

Also, there is more risk of abuse from a judge abusing power, because 1) they are a single person, 2) with a long-term office.

Remember the judges in Pennsylvania who were sentencing kids to ridiculous terms of incarceration for minor offenses because they were getting kickbacks from the companies paid to incarcerate the kids?

I think your assumption that judges don’t abuse power may be because they wear black robes and you fail to perceive the imperfect human being underneath those robes. Upon consideration, I hope you will think more deeply about that in the future.

Bribing a temporary jury is much more difficult because there are a lot of them and they hold the position temporarily.

[Martinned]

I think your assumption that judges don’t abuse power

I made no such assumption.

The assumption I did make is that abuses of power by judges are easier to uncover, for example because they have to give reasons for their decisions, and easier to correct on appeal.

[David Welker]

Are they easier to uncover? How long did the scheme in Pennsylvania go on for? I recall that it was years.

It is also harder to “abuse power” on a jury because you have to convince total strangers to go along with it.

I am not sure where you got your negative views of juries from. Abuse of power is much more likely from judges, prosecutors, and lawyers than from jurors. If you are worried about the abuse of power, you should turn your attention to those who exercise power on a regular basis, not people from the community randomly selected to serve on a jury.

Look, I am all for skepticism of juries. But what is strange to me is your lack of skepticism for other players. Like, are you really that impressed with how people dress or something? The judges thrown into prison for sentencing kids wore black robes. Apparently, there is more to doing the right thing than fashion choices.

[Martinned]

The judges thrown into prison for sentencing kids wore black robes.

You realise that this example supports my point rather than yours, right? The judges (I don't know this story, but sure) got found out and prosecuted. Jurors do their service and go home, never to be heard from again.

[David Welker]

These judges were throwing these kids into incarceration for very minor offenses for years to get kickbacks.

And you think it supports your view that we should be skeptical of juries BECAUSE after years they got caught.

Like, you somehow know that juries are as bad or even worse, but it is even more sinister because you can’t prove it?

Ok.

My question stands. Where did your negative view of juries come from??? I mean, besides your deep conviction that they must be doing bad things but never getting caught.

[Martinned]

This blog post by the (reasonably conservative) British lawyer who blogs as Spinning Hugo sets out everything that's wrong with juries much better than I ever could: https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2023/04/07/12-angry-men-the-case-against-the-jury/

[David Welker]

Martinned:

The most interesting thing I found about that guy is that he basically admits to being a bad teacher.

If students aren’t understanding the basic distinctions you are teaching them after a week, the problem is your teaching. You need more and shorter hypotheticals and some multiple choice tests and you need to explicitly tell them what you want them to remember and they will do fine.

In the United States, the socratic method is often used. From my experience, I recall highly ambiguous lectures where the professor would “hide the ball”regarding what they wanted you to learn. This methodology is based on tradition, not pedagogical soundness.

I believe that they are trying to teach you how to think like a lawyer rather than spoon feed you basic knowledge. There is certainly a place for that, but in my view, more after the basics are established.

The practice of learning from court of appeals decisions, which tend to involve “hard” decisions also has the effect of distorting things insofar as giving students the impression that every question is a hard question.

It isn’t surprising that students going through the process of looking at hard question after hard question end up feeling very confused rather than clearly grasping the more basic issues.

Instead of just studying hard questions, it makes sense to study both easy questions (to get a foundation) and hard questions (so you know how to approach such questions and can distinguish them from easy questions).

Anyway, I have read plenty of model jury instructions. These are reasonable questions to ask ordinary juries to decide. The attorneys can ask that the questions be modified as necessary to avoid confusion.

[ducksalad]

"The judges got found out and prosecuted."

Which did not give back the kids their ruined childhood. Perhaps if juries had been used in all those kids' cases, the judges would
have restrained themselves, and neither the kids nor the judges would have wasted their lives in jail.

There's a slight whiff here of two underlying assumptions:

1. Making sure bad people get punished is more important than making sure innocent people don't get convicted.
2. Judges would not behave any worse if there were no juries watching them.

I think both are incorrect, and would have guessed that normally you'd feel the same.

It is possible that last night you suddenly came to the terrifying realization that juries will very likely fail to convict Donald Trump, and there won't be any remedy? Did that cause you to sour on procedural safeguards?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Given that juries seem to abuse their power much more than judges do"

According to judges, anyway...

I'd point out that a lot of the safeguards in a constitution are not there to make things run well in ordinary times, but to limit the worst case if things go bad. Rather like a fuse isn't there to make your toaster more efficient, but instead to prevent it from burning your house down.

You can set things up to maximize the best case, or minimize the worst case, but you can't do both. Ours is a "minimize the worst case" constitution. To the extent those safeguards get circumvented, it remains inefficient, but ceases to be safe.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Let's say that's true. (Juries abuse their power)

Juries represent an alternative power source to that of judges. Even if they can abuse their power, they can simultaneously act as a check on abusive judges.

[Martinned]

Only if the medicine isn't worse than the disease. Why not rely on appeals to set judges straight?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because the appeals are simply to other judges.

If you view the establishment as abusing its power, one judge to another judge doesn't change that.

[Martinned]

If you view "the establishment" as including judges and, presumably, most politicians, you're beyond helping anyway.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Perhaps a better word for "establishment" is "the state."

Juries act as a check on the power of the state.

There's a history of this being necessary, going back to the war of independence.

[Martinned]

In public law judges act as a check on the power of the state. In civil law judges and juries *are* the state. In criminal law judges and juries only act as a check on the power of the state if your counterfactual is a situation where the executive branch can lock people up at will, GITMO-style.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Judges are part of the state. They are long term state employees, appointed by the executive.

Juries tend not to be part of the state, being drawn temporarily from the local community.

This goes back to the war of independence, and why juries were critical and part of the Bill of Rights.

[Martinned]

They are long term state employees, appointed by the executive.

In a properly organised state, they are appointed by the other two branches.

Juries tend not to be part of the state, being drawn temporarily from the local community.

Where they come from doesn't change the fact that, while they are empaneled, they are exercising sovereign power, just like the judge.

This goes back to the war of independence, and why juries were critical and part of the Bill of Rights.

The history of juries goes back much further than that, to a time when they were the critical fact finders because they, unlike the judge, knew the parties to the dispute and all other relevant players.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In a properly organised state, they are appointed by the other two branches.

Which still makes them agents of the state.

[David Welker]

Also, appeals do not resolve disputed issues of fact normally. They defer to the lower court on that, except in some extraordinary instances.

[Martinned]

That's my point. If you take juries out of the equation, you can expand the scope for appeals on facts. Outside the US, appeals on matters of fact are quite frequently possible in cases that are not decided by juries.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Both juries and guns are checks on authority, and both can be abused.

I'd rather have juries than guns.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It acts as a counterbalance to the power of the state.

[David Nieporent]

Curiously, the Fifth Amendment’s grand-jury clause doesn’t mention “probable cause.” The reference to probable cause is in the Fourth Amendment’s warrant clause, and no mention of standard of proof is made in the grand jury clause. Nonetheless, by some kind of “invisible radiation” out of the Fourth Amendment, grand juries are supposedly held to the probable cause standard.

There are many aspects of criminal procedure not spelled out in a specific amendment. Nothing in the constitution says that a criminal jury must be unanimous. Nothing says that a warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. That's because — not curiously at all — the constitution is not a criminal procedure code, and the people who wrote it were writing against background knowledge that people had.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure, but in this particular instance, there was a reference to probable cause, and it was in the *Fourth* Amendment. So they knew how to specify the probable-cause standard, but for some reason they didn’t where the grand jury is concerned.

So how to resolve the ambiguity – in favor of the state, or in favor of the suspect?

I think the Congressional source I cited above has it about right: the grand jury is "free to make their presentments or indictments on such information as they deemed satisfactory."

So if they're in a trusting mood toward the prosecution they can be convinced based on a smattering of evidence, but if they have a cynical (realistic) view of attention-whoring prosecutors and the criminal justice establishment in general, they are entitled to go through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb, on the lookout for prosecutorial tricks, and only indict if they're seriously convinced.

[Reallynotbob]

Remember that time a county DA ran for election on a platform *other* than "I'm tougher on crime than the other guy"?

Yeah, me neither.

But sure, let's blame the citizen grand jury system for giving the public what it votes for.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ73Q4DwrGM

[santamonica811]

My theory about the Trump prosecutions.

1. Almost all liberals and independents think that Trump is the Republican most likely to lose to a weak President Biden in 2024. (Rightly or wrongly think . . . but that seems to be the overwhelming consensus.)
2. Most Republicans who can be measured *also* believe that Trump is weaker against Biden than all or almost all of the reasonable Republican rivals.
3. Everyone on Planet Earth believes that–absent some major event–Trump will indeed get the R. nomination.
4. Some people believe that a criminal conviction will get Trump to get out of the race (part of a plea deal where he trades little/no jail time for the political decision to depart the political theatre; or the reality of a conviction will snap enough R primary voters out of their fever fugue state and back to reality, and R voters will flee Trump in the primaries.) Other people think that R primary voters don’t care about his guilt or innocence, and that he’ll therefore get the nomination anyway, but that it will have some impact in the general election. 5. The best timing for Democrats is for a criminal court verdict a month before the Nov election. Or just 2 weeks before, when early voting has already begun in many crucial states.
6. The best timing for Republicans (writ large) is for an early verdict. If he gets an acquittal, then that launches a revitalized Trump into the general. If he is convicted, then primary voters can make an informed decision as to whether or not a vote for Trump is a vote thrown away. And if Trump does leave the race, then the actual nominee has the maximum amount of time to raise more money, consolidate support, etc..

Given the above; it seems logical to me that even if one is deluded enough to believe that the many and sundry prosecutions are witch-hunts, it follows that it must be a conspiracy created by Republicans . . . Republicans who want Trump gone for either their own selfish political futures, or because they want to maximize the chance of a 2024 election victory, and they want a stronger candidate. And it's logical for Democrats to want a weak Trump to stay in the race...especially a Trump who is tarred with an indictment, and is without at least one acquittal under his belt to show voters that he's the victim here.

If the above is accurate; then prosecutors pushing for early trial dates are (intentionally or incidentally) doing their best to effect a Republican win in Nov 2024. And Trump (and Trump-friendly judges who bend over backwards to delay trial dates)–by pushing back the timing of these trials--are probably helping Democrats in the general election…and are certainly hurting all the Republican alternatives to Trump in the primaries.

I agree with the pro-Trump supporters with TDS who think that this may be part of a conspiracy. I just think it’s a pro-Trump conspiracy. It’s Pence, Christie, DeSantis, etc. who should be screaming bloody murder about the lengthy pre-trial periods.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought Newsome vetoed legalizing shrooms.

[santamonica811]

Hat-tip: the movie "Airplane."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm8fYf53SMg

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Airplane!" is a parody of the 1957 movie "Zero Hour!" and this is one of the scenes where they left the original 1957 language in -- amphetamines were big in 1957, not so much in 1980.

An even better example is when Stryker is told to shut off the engines with "the four switches over the co-pilot's head." That wouldn't work with jet engines, which (like Diesel engines) don't have spark plugs and hence can only be shut off by shutting off the fuel. But back in 1957, airplanes had gasoline engines with spark plugs which *could* be shut off with ignition switches.

[John F. Carr]

YouTube recently offered me this video with Ronald Reagan narrating as a flight engineer does his job in a B-29, including fiddling with the magneto switches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keZi-lR1QDM

[Krayt]

Well, earlier the left was all TELEVISE THE TRIAL! To embarrass and hurt their political opponent. Trump said he wanted it televised. Taken aback and rethinking, the left changed its mind, do not televise!

“We must have an early trial!”, to hurt their political opponent before the election. If it looks like it will end sooner, with an acquittal, by this theory, look for arguments to start appearing why the trial should take its time, no hurries to finish before the election.

No need to judge it, just see how it plays out. We are men and women of science. We love theories that make successful predictions, especially crazy, counter-intuitive ones. Let’s see!

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

When you consider how hard our forebears fought in order to get a guarantee that trials would be public rather than secret, it seems ungrateful to object to the publicity now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's one thing for the whole trial to be on TV -- another thing for a 15 second sound byte to be. I fear the latter...

[santamonica811]

Krayt,
At first, I thought you were making a joke. But, if you're genuinely being serious; do you have ANY sort of cite? Every single freakin' liberal I've read or heard wants each and every trial televised. And that hasn't changed one iota. I've seen liberals brainstorm about how best to get the federal courts to make an exception to the "No TV" censorship that has always existed in federal courts. I've seen them engage with conservatives about how best to accomplish this. (eg, Show the trial live. Show the trial on a delay of a few hours. Tape the trial, and make it available for viewing in its entirety after the final verdict. Tape the trial and make it available to historians, journalists, scholars, etc, after [x] number of years. But, something, SOMETHING, that creates a real-time record of the witnesses and evidence--things that a trial transcript just can't convey as accurately)

I actually can't remember anyone arguing that keeping the trial hidden from the American public is an actual Good Thing...other than institutionalists, who argue that, "This is the way it's always been done, so it's the way we should do it in this case."

The fact that Trump wants it televised (if you're accurate about this) and the government and the public want this (if I'm accurate about this) really weakens (IMO) the persuasive nature of the "We haven't done it in the past." argument.

[Michael P]

https://truthout.org/articles/donald-trumps-trials-should-not-be-televised/ seems very earnest about not televising Trump's trials on the basis that he would use them to influence public opinion.

[jb]

This is the thing about complaining about how "liberals" keep changing their mind. You just choose one liberal who thinks one thing and another liberal who thinks a different thing and use it to show how it's all just a conspiracy where everyone will do anything they can to get at Trump rather than just different people having different opinions on a particular topic despite sharing a political party.

[Michael P]

The literal question posed was "do you have ANY sort of cite" as a counterexample to "[e]very single freakin’ liberal I’ve read or heard".

Do try to keep up.

[jb]

My response was really more to Krayt, but in the context of your post. I'm sure there's some liberal who thinks any crazy thing you can come up with so finding a random person who believes something and then using it to say "liberals think this" is a pretty silly exercise.

Would be more interesting to look at individuals who flip-flopped their positions and/or trends in polling data.

[Nelson]

"Why does it follow that prosecutions by Democrats and their cronies are “a conspiracy created by Republicans”?"

Why do you assume that a prosecution for criminal behavior is solely a partisan effort, with no other reason?

Oh, because you're a paleoconservative partisan. Carry on.

[Michael P]

Why does it follow that prosecutions by Democrats and their cronies are "a conspiracy created by Republicans"?

[Nige]

'Some people believe that a criminal conviction will get Trump to get out of the race'

I would say a very small percentage of people believe that. This train's going all the way. If there's some mechanism, inducement or revelation that makes Trump step down or lose the nomination, we don't know what it is yet.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I've remarked before, the reason you can't get dictators to retire is that the retirement plan sucks. Democrats have created basically the same incentive structure for Trump now. Either win the Presidency, or be stripped of all his wealth and spend his last days in a prison cell, if they don't Epstein him to avoid a pardon down the line.

He CAN'T back down now. You left him no line of retreat.

[Michael P]

It became necessary to destroy the democracy in order to save it (they said).

[NOVA Lawyer]

And by "they", obviously you mean people who still support Trump despite his trying to stay in office after losing the 2020 election.

When you’re right, you’re right. "They" are some awfully misguided and dangerous people.

[Nige]

What makes you think being President would keep him out of a prison cell if found guilty?

‘You left him no line of retreat.’

All of his current legal troubles are self-inflicted. All. Except for reflexively and brainlessly blaming everyone but Trump for Trump’s actions, you’re probably right though.

[SimonP]

Brett - how are you able to make this argument, and repeat it, without on some level appreciating that you are effectively acknowledging that Trump is a would-be, corrupt dictator?

Trump announced his intention to run for re-election long before any of these criminal investigations got off the ground. Long before he even committed some of these crimes! His intention was always to use the office of the presidency to avoid criminal prosecution and real accountability for his own criminal conduct and corruption. Democrats didn't make him a corrupt wannabe dictator by letting criminal investigations run their course. That is always what he was. And yes, that's why it's good he's being treated the way he is now. That's the only way we can ensure the rule of law, and democracy, survives the cancer of his presidency.

[Krayt]

The investigations started when he was president, if not before, as one side sought to use the government's power of investigation against a political enemy.

Perhaps Donald "Lock her up!" Trump deserves it in some sense. But the nation does not need this cynical abuse of power. Nobody is above the law? Well, that's a subset of everybody is equal before the law, which includes other things like not siccing the governnent on an opponent until you find something to tag him with.

[Nige]

'deserves it in some sense.'

He deserves it in exact proportion to which he is guilty, and the only way to decide that is through the courts.

[grb]

Krayt : “as one side sought to use the government’s power of investigation against a political enemy”

Awhhh ,,,,, You delicate flower, you! Me, I been around over six decades and have seen every president investigated by political enemies. Often for a damn sight less cause than what prompted Trump’s turn in the spotlight.

Also, you really need to quite whining about Trump’s legal problems. I’ve heard a pervasive case from sources across the political spectrum that the Storm Daniels charges are unusual and excessive, but you’ve got no grounds otherwise.

The documents case goes well beyond Trump shooting himself in the foot. It’s as if he sat on an A-bomb and gleefully pulled the trigger. The idiot practically demanded criminal charges, ignoring a good dozen off-ramps to defuse the situation.

And there should be criminal liability when you relentlessly try to steal a fucking election you clearly lost. I’ve seen the Right’s case that Trump is so mentally-ill he can’t distinguish reality from fantasy, but am not buying it. I don’t think a jury will either.

And they looked at Trump’s real estate business and discovered massive fraud. Who could possibly be surprised by that? When people took a close look at his university they found fraud. When they took a close look at his charity they found fraud. This is a man who used his charity to pay little Don Jr’s $7 fee to join the Boy Scouts. Wanna guess why a (alleged) billionaire would do that?

Because criminality is his first impulse. Like many a street thug, he prefers a crooked dollar to one earned straight. Anytime you closely look at anything Trump does, you’ll find sleaze and corruption. It’s just the way he’s wired….

[NOVA Lawyer]

"He CAN’T back down now. You left him no line of retreat."

Yes, but no sentient being thinks Trump is anything but a wealth and power hungry malignant narcissist.

Of course, he's not going to go away on his own.

None of this explains his voters or apologists though. None of these dynamics require Republican or other voters to support the obviously unfit person in his quest to achieve immunity.

That's why so many see this as a personality cult, because his followers seem to have the same psychological reaction as Trump, as if they and Trump were somehow one. It's creepy as fuck.

[Don Nico]

"It’s creepy as fuck."
That is how theses things work. There is nothing new about except the name of the asshole.

[Moderation4ever]

I think that there are people who enjoy tweaking the system. I wonder if Trumps high numbers will really carry through the primaries? It is one thing to tell a poll you support Trump and another to cast an actual vote. If Trump loses an early primary state or just has a poor showing, it will accelerate the process.

[Armchair Lawyer]

A few notes.

2. Trump attracts some voters who otherwise wouldn't vote. This is often overlooked. Because of that, he's not necessarily weaker than some other GOP candidates.
3. Still not clear.
4. A criminal conviction that "gets Trump out of the race" or a "plea deal" for it would be a massive interference in the political system.

[jb]

I don't think it's the case that Trump is weaker than the entire GOP field; similarly, Biden is not the weakest possible Dem candidate (e.g., I expect that Biden would beat Ramaswamay or Hutchinson and that Trump would probably beat Marianne Williamson or RFK).

But yes, if the Democratic goal was to abuse the criminal justice system to maximize the chance of Biden winning you probably wouldn't do it this way unless you started with the belief that indicting Trump would make him more likely to win the Republican primary. Which turns out to be true but I doubt many Democratic strategists would have banked on it since it's pretty bizarre tbh.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's not actually that bizarre, given Trump's history.

Remember, Trump thrives on attention and free media. Good or bad. He did in 2015. If the media hadn't thrown all that attention on him in 2015, it's unlikely he would've won the nomination.

And once again, good or bad, making Trump look "attacked" rallies people to him. You put Trump up there actually having to defend his views against other GOP candidates...he suffers.

But put him up there as a symbol? He does very well.

[Life of Brian]

(e.g., I expect that Biden would beat Ramaswamay or Hutchinson and that Trump would probably beat Marianne Williamson or RFK).

Unless you're thinking that Dems would just stay home instead of holding their noses and voting for RFK, I actually wonder how Trump would do against someone like him who, from what I've seen so far, can think on his feet and actually drill down on a wide variety of substantive issues instead of retreating into political soundbite/attack mode. I think Trump also loses a good deal of the populist edge in that matchup. 'Twould be an interesting one to watch no doubt, but sadly not likely in the cards.

[grb]

Life of Brian : "Twould be an interesting one to watch no doubt, but sadly not likely in the cards"

Yeah. That's all we need. A sleazy huckster buffoon against a conspiracy-mongering freak. Certainly they would both pirouette and flounce for the "populist edge".

But who would normal people vote for?

[Life of Brian]

Thanks for your deep, insightful thinking as always!

Thanks also for going out of your way to reply to me in a discussion you weren't involved in, and thus officially confirming what the hours of crickets were already suggesting: that you're not even going to try to defend that WaPo hot mess you thought you really loved until you actually read it -- sorry, until I actually quoted parts of it to you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Petty squabble redirects here."

[Life of Brian]

It's a fair point. I really do need to cut back on wrestling with pigs around here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd like to know how many viable populist Republicans the deep state has already eliminated with plea deals -- Michelle Bachmann comes to immediate mind.

[grb]

I’d like to know if you take your own bullshit seriously....

[DaveM]

Ooh, we love us a good piece of strategic thinking. Well done! A refreshing departure from the usual.

There’s nothing wrong with your analysis, it’s as good as any. But don’t you think that this kind of strategic voting is something only partisans would care enough to do? Partisans are already in the tank for their respective sides, so wouldn’t the net effect be pretty minimal?

There’s a long-running argument here on the VC between those who believe that voters are rationally ignorant — and therefore can’t really be trusted to vote “properly” (ahem) — and others, like myself, who believe that voters are making a judgment call with their votes, and that is something that goes way beyond merely knowing all the facts.

If I'm right about voters voting their conscience, then such a super-crafty playbook conspiracy stunt as you outlined would be largely ignored come election day. If I'm wrong, then you'd be right, and the guys playing 3D chess in the backrooms are still in charge.

[myself]

Alternate theory.

1) Prosecutors think they have a strong case, but the defendant being Trump makes things politically charged.

2) Prosecutors realize the political atmosphere will only get worse as the 2024 election gets closer, especially if Trump is the GOP candidate.

3) DOJ policy is to avoid making political headlines just before an election, so regardless if Trump is the nominee they want things wrapped up by then.

4) Trump may in fact win the election. DOJ policy seems to be that you don't charge the President, but what if he's already been charged? If the trial hasn't started do you wait 4 years? What what if the trial has started?

Given the above; is seems logical that the prosecutors have good motive to push for as early a trial date as possible regardless of their political beliefs or any partisan conspiracies.

[Reallynotbob]

I'm sorry, you've reached the Volokh Conspiracy blog in error.
The Occam's Parsimony blog is two doors down.

[John F. Carr]

Do Netanyahu's statements about Gaza, in context in the original Hebrew, threaten a war crime or crimes against humanity? All I got in English language media was the paraphrase saying anybody who doesn't leave (they can't leave) will be bombed into rubble.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is your definition of "war crimes"?

[John F. Carr]

My question is about international law. I have my own opinion on right or wrong. This is how I took Netanyahu's statement: "Beatings will continue until morale improves."

[Mr. Bumble]

Right and wrong gets pretty blurred when it comes to war.

[John F. Carr]

There is a blurred line where collateral damage to civilians is concerned, but there is a line.

Imagine if it was a place nobody cared about like northern Ethiopia, instead of a polarizing conflict like Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Palestine. Israel has too many friends in high places to actually get in trouble.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Israel has too many friends in high places to actually get in trouble."
That will come as news to Israel.

[Martinned]

Do you have the impression that Israeli decision makers are worried about being prosecuted in The Hague?

[Mr. Bumble]

Will they be recalling Jack Smith to lead the prosecution?

[Don Nico]

An interesting question to ask given that this war has been started with genocidal war crimes by Hamas.

[Martinned]

Like I said elsewhere in this thread, they should 100% be on trial.

On the Israeli side there is a functioning domestic court system, for now. But in any case the point stands: I don't get the impression that either side in this war is particularly worried about ending up in The Hague.

(For those who have forgotten, the ICC's pre-trial chamber found that the State of Palestine was a state party to the Rome Statute, and that the Court had jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory since 2014. But that still leaves many, many questions open before anyone on the Israeli side might get prosecuted.)

https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine

[grb]

Don Nico : “…. given that this war has been started with genocidal war crimes by Hamas …..”

Four Points :

1. This war was started with massive, brutal and planned war crimes by Hamas. Genocidal is a reach.

2. Netanyahu calls for vengeance doesn’t even move the needle on war crimes. Rhetoric can become criminal if conjoined with systematic action, but not before.

3. A comment search suggests no one has raised the issue of the Saudi-Israeli-U.S. talks. That seems impossible, given it likely caused the timing of this war.

4. I’ve traditionally cursed both sides of this bloody mess, but that’s not possible here. Hamas’ crimes are too barbaric and ugly. Still, what seemed hopeless before is a 100X more hopeless now. There is no magic ending where any good comes from this.

[Don Nico]

grb,
The timing with respect to derailing the Israel-KSA talks seems very plausible and in the interests of both Hamas and Iran. It has been discussed in articles in the NYT

[Don Nico]

Not at all.

[Krayt]

Imagine if it was a place nobody cared about like northern Ethiopia, ... Israel has too many friends in high places to actually get in trouble.

Many such places around the world, Isralie defenders regularly point out, which are curiously ignored by Europeans living safely well away, easily having their attentions directed to hate against one.

But it’s a pure and clean hate, a memetic evolution that, their echo chamber affirms to them, has nothing to do with being Jewish and relies purely on disinterested governmental behaviors. Uhh, for this one, not all those others.

No doubt you believe. Like a teen boy jerking off to his aunt, assuaging himself she’s not a blood relative. I’m free to have at her!

Just…don’t look whose chucking that crap into the top of your echo chamber.

[Martinned]

The Yugoslavia Tribunal's case on Operation Storm (aka Gotovina et al.) is quite a good illustration of that.

https://www.icty.org/en/case/gotovina/

You end up with discussions like this (from the summary of the Appellate judgment).

The Trial Chamber’s finding that the artillery attacks on the Four Towns were unlawful was heavily premised on its analysis of individual impact sites within the Four Towns, which I will refer to as the “Impact Analysis”. This Impact Analysis was in turn based on the Trial Chamber’s finding a 200 metre range of error for artillery projectiles fired at the Four Towns, which I will refer to as the “200 Metre Standard”. Based on this range of error, the Trial Chamber found that all impact sites located more than 200 metres from a target it deemed legitimate served as evidence of an unlawful artillery attack. In identifying legitimate targets, the Trial Chamber took into account, in part, its finding that the HV could not identify targets of opportunity, such as moving police or military vehicles, in the Four Towns.

The Appeals Chamber unanimously holds that the Trial Chamber erred in deriving the 200 Metre Standard. The Trial Judgement contains no indication that any evidence considered by the Trial Chamber suggested a 200 metre margin of error, and it is devoid of any specific reasoning as to how the Trial Chamber derived this margin of error. The Trial Chamber considered evidence from expert witnesses who testified as to factors, such as wind speed and air temperature, that could cause variations in the accuracy of the weapons used by the HV against the Four Towns, and the Trial Chamber explicitly noted that it had not received sufficient evidence to make findings about these factors with respect to each of the Four Towns. In its Impact Analysis, however, the Trial Chamber applied the 200 Metre Standard uniformly to all impact sites in each of the Four Towns.

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, the record of the IDF is quite good, when it comes to rules of engagement, collateral damage, acting to preserve life. They have a moral code. That is what it comes down to.

[Krayt]

260 bodies at the music festival alone.

You have to deal with your cognitive dissonance, not me.

[John F. Carr]

Reprisals are not considered a legitimate part of modern war.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you implying that the IDF is seeking out and killing civilians?

[Martinned]

I think no accusations like that have ever been (plausibly) made. But the IDF does act with reckless disregard for civilian casualties, which is also illegal, and it targets civilians for other kinds of reprisals, like destroying their homes and appropriating their land.

[Frank Drackman]

Good! I mean,
sort of like the US did/does (See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hanoi, Baghdad, Atlanta)
and I'm curious, those land mines You-Crane uses, how do they tell if it's a Civillian stepping on them?
Idiots! (HT N. Dynamite)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Is Hamas guilty of war crimes? Should their leadership be prosecuted at the Hague?

[Martinned]

100%. Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute, and the leadership of the military wing of Hamas definitely belongs there if there is no other place willing to try them. (Principle of complementarity.)

[Tom for equal rights]

Mr. Bumble 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Are you implying that the IDF is seeking out and killing civilians?

Martinned 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
I think no accusations like that have ever been (plausibly) made. But the IDF does act with reckless disregard for civilian casualties, which is also illegal, "

martinned - you have Accused the IDF war crimes numerous time in this thread, > you comments come across as the typical hamas apologists

[Martinned]

If you can't tell the difference between me saying that Hamas and the IDF both commit war crimes and being a "hamas apologist", that's your problem, not mine.

[Davedave]

There isn't any difference. You are so consumed by Jew-hatred that you are letting the veil slip, and repeating antisemitic canards about Israel and blaming Jews for being attacked, instead of condemning atrocities.

[Michael P]

Typical Hamas apologists try to make it a "both sides" issue by false moral equivalences.

[Tom for equal rights]

Martinned - If you cant tell the difference between an actual war crime and defensive measures, then you need some serious education. That or you are the typical hamas apologists.

you started the conversation with accusing the IDF of war crimes

[Martinned]

you started the conversation with accusing the IDF of war crimes

If I did - there is no convenient way to check - that would have been on the assumption that we're all agreed Hamas are evil and need to be locked up. When everyone agrees that's not much of a conversation. But various people in this comment section have been excusing or proposing an extraordinary wide range of war crimes on the Israeli side, which is why that is where the conversation went.

[Joe_dallas]

The number of actual war crimes committed by the IDF is a tiny fraction of what is claimed by the pro hamas apologists

You know that yet , you continue to parrot those false claims for partisan and pro hamas apologist purposes.

[Martinned]

The number of actual war crimes committed by the IDF is a tiny fraction of what is claimed by the pro hamas apologists

I would like to see your evidence for that. The IDF (and the Israeli state more generally) has been committing war crimes on a daily basis for decades.

[Davedave]

“If I did – there is no convenient way to check”

You did: scroll up. Your part in this conversation has been to attack Israel for things that didn’t happen, while avoiding any word of condemnation or sympathy for the victims of the actual atrocities that have taken place. Why? Because you hate Jews and want them killed by whoever will do the job for you so you don’t have to bloody your own hands.

Utterly transparent. Utterly disgusting. You have shown your nasty antisemitic streak before, but this time you’ve gone far enough to leave absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind just how viciously, genocidally antisemitic you truly are. Wannabe camp-guard scum.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 16 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
The number of actual war crimes committed by the IDF is a tiny fraction of what is claimed by the pro hamas apologists

"I would like to see your evidence for that. The IDF (and the Israeli state more generally) has been committing war crimes on a daily basis for decades."

Martinned - you know your statement is BS - yet you continue to parrot pro-hamas talking points.

[Life of Brian]

Reprisals are not considered a legitimate part of modern war.

I presume the word "legitimate" is doing a good deal of work there. What's the reasonable alternative that doesn't boil down to turning the other cheek and bracing yourself (or, more correctly, asking your populace to brace themselves and somehow feel good about the next wave of innocent civilian butchering)?

In a situation like this there are no realistic economic sanctions to be had, and that sort of intervention has a very high latency even if it was on the table. Nor do I suspect they really care if Israel or anyone else in particular stands in front of big microphones on the world stage and gently (or otherwise) chastises them. Peace talks have been repeatedly tried and failed over our lifetimes and then some. What would "modern war" counsel -- besides surrender -- that might actually bring an end to this?

[Martinned]

You can call it "turning the other cheek" if you want to, but a core tenet of modern civilisation is that we obey the law even if others don't.

For example, contra Duterte and Bukele, we don't gun people down or lock them up simply because they look like they might be in a gang.

[Life of Brian]

a core tenet of modern civilisation is that we obey the law even if others don’t

Ah, so there's a "law" now that one can't fight back when attacked? I certainly missed that one in pipe-dream school.

we don’t gun people down or lock them up simply because they look like they might be in a gang

I'd be a bit surprised if you actually believe something like this is remotely on the same plane as retribution for the atrocities that actually just happened in Israel.

[Martinned]

Ah, so there’s a “law” now that one can’t fight back when attacked? I certainly missed that one in pipe-dream school.

No one ever said there was. But there's a set of laws that apply to everyone, attacker and attacked alike. Knock it off with the straw men.

I’d be a bit surprised if you actually believe something like this is remotely on the same plane as retribution for the atrocities that actually just happened in Israel.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/analogy

[Life of Brian]

Knock it off with the straw men.

I addressed your response as one of apparent disagreement with my point that just turning the other cheek--the only logical alternative to reprisal in this situation--is not a viable response. If you're now saying that some reprisals are actually ok (itself not particularly clear but I'm not sure what else would give you cover for such indignation), that's fine. But that would mean we're now in agreement, so I presume since you're still in rebuttal mode you're maintaining that reprisals indeed aren't ok. So what exactly is the straw man?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/analogy

I simply cannot imagine you making a more persuasive argument.

[Joe_dallas]

concur peace talks have failed.

The only long term solution is to destroy the culture that breeds the hamas hate and zeal for killing.
Thats what worked in WW2 , the allies destroyed the war culture of both germany and japan. What emerged were two productive and peacefull countries on the world scene. Doing what needs to be done is hindered by the apologists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ann Coulter put it best 20 years ago -- "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

[Nige]

That worked out great.

[Bob from Ohio]

The third part was never tried.

[Nige]

Oh yeah that was the missing ingredient in the shit sandwich.

[not guilty]

"The third part was never tried."

I wonder why not. Religious conversion is not something governments do well. I wish that the "Christians" like Coulter who think that their deity needs help from Caesar would realize that that He is not such a weenie.

[Don Nico]

No, but elimination of war criminals who you an urban population as human shields (another war crime) is.

[myself]

Hamas is completely overpowered when it comes to an open conflict so they use guerrilla tactics. Small loose formations, hide out among civilians, etc.

So Israel, given that they're fighting an enemy that blends into the civilian population (which is fairly supportive of the enemy), doesn't have great options. They can send in troops, which is a massive operation, leads to a fairly high body count among their soldiers, and still makes it difficult to find enemy soldiers. They can pair surveillance with artillery/air power to kill enemy soldiers, which isn't that effective and has collateral damage. Or they can blow up buildings they deem to be enemy structures, but to not kills lots of civilians they need to give warnings, which also means they don't kill many soldiers.

I don't think Israel has many good military options, but blowing up buildings doesn't seem like one of the better ones and is closest to "reprisals" against the civilian population as opposed to the military. However, it doesn't necessarily kill a lot of civilians if you give a proper warning first.

My own suggestion to Israel would be to stop and potentially reverse settlement expansion and to negotiate with Gaza about opening the blockade, but the aftermath of a major attack isn't really the time for such concessions.

I think the actual policy of Israel is to grow settlements and push the Palestinians into ever smaller territories until they either move to other countries or are in a contained area that Israel doesn't really want (ie, Gaza). At that point they freeze the borders and wait a few generations for things to cool down and proclaim peace. But that policy isn't easily defensible and means that you're at constant risk of attacks.

[Don Nico]

Reprisals?
Maybe in some minds. But the right description is "never again."

[Martinned]

How about the Rome Statute?

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf

[Michael P]

That's one of the reasons that international law prohibits most of what the Palestinians do every time they attack Israel: their tactics invite reprisals against the civilian population they hide themselves among.

[Martinned]

International law also prohibits a lot of what the Israelis do. The question is how you can enforce those rules.

[Mr. Bumble]

Law, international or otherwise, prohibits lots of thing which has never stopped it from being ignored.

[Martinned]

Indeed. But that doesn't make it OK.

[Michael P]

Maybe try to be better than saying "both sides" just after Palestinians killed hundreds of people at an event intended to benefit them.

[Martinned]

Why? Am I supposed to ignore IDF crimes for a period? If so, could you give me an indication of how long this free pass is going to last?

[Michael P]

Until you're willing to go there yourself and stop war crimes.

Your attitude is a large part of why Palestinians keep getting away with targeting civilians. Your attitude, plus the people who thought we should give $6 billion to Hamas's terror-state backers. Donald Trump was right about the obvious consequences of funding terror.

[Martinned]

Maybe try to be better than playing the blame game. Focus on the crimes that are being committed without playing favourites with either side.

[Michael P]

The way we got to the point of mourning hundreds of dead at a peace festival was by dishonest, antisemitic shits whining about exaggerated slanders against Israel while ignoring Palestinian atrocities.

If you don't want to be blamed, be less guilty.

[Nige]

Palestine 'gets away' with targeting civilians? When has criticism from anyone prevented even one retaliatory attack by Israel?

'Donald Trump was right about the obvious consequences of funding terror.'

This is more like the obvious consequences of a complete failure of policy to deal with the chaos of a failed state occupied by a military power. Another gift from right-wing tough-guy hardline bullshit.

No-one wants to hear that, of course, the same way no-one wanted to hear about anything that wasn't military retaliation after 9-11.

[Drewski]

"When has criticism from anyone prevented even one retaliatory attack by Israel?"

Tell you what: You list every attack that hasn't happened and I'll tell you which of those were the result of criticism. What a dishonest argument.

[Nige]

You could always list the attacks that happened despite criticism, see how that worked.

[Tom for equal rights]

MP - good reminder of the stupidity of Biden funding Irans war operation (and Obama's prior funding of Irans war operation)

As previously stated, chamberlin was naive in dealing with Hitler, but he was so stupid as funding Hitlers war machine. The defenders of the $6b deal are oblivious to history and oblivious to the obvious.

[Tom for equal rights]

correction of a typo -
As previously stated, chamberlin was naive in dealing with Hitler, but he wasnt so stupid as funding Hitlers war machine. The defenders of the $6b deal are oblivious to history and oblivious to the obvious.

[Davedave]

Why does it matter to you whether you're 'supposed' to do that or not? Either way it won't stop you being a hater of Jewish people, a virulent little antisemitic bell-end, and you're not 'supposed' to be that either.

The reality is that your antisemitic conspiracy theories about the IDF only reveal your nasty side, and say nothing about what happens in reality. That you'd trot them out rather than condemn the actual war crimes and atrocities perpetrated by Hamas since Saturday says even more.

You are not pro-Palestinian, or anti-Israel. You're just plain old antisemitic.

[Nige]

Remember when voices of moderation after 9-11 were 'anti-American?' That.

[Davedave]

No, I don't. I remember when apologists for terrorism and atrocities were apologists for terrorism and atrocities.

You can lie to yourself about being an antisemite if you wish, but you aren't fooling anyone else.

If your response to dreadful atrocities committed by Hamas is to come here and talk about antisemitic fictions used to attack Israel - and other Jewish people, you antisemites only make the faintest pretence - then you have completely blown your cover.

Why not just be honest and admit to yourself that you believe all Jewish people anywhere in the world need to be killed? We can see it's what you believe, and that you're vile. The reason you lie to yourself about not meaning that is because you know it's vile too. So, just admit to yourself you've been making excuses to believe something vile because it makes you feel good, and then try to make amends.

[Nige]

‘I remember when apologists for terrorism and atrocities were apologists for terrorism and atrocities.’

Yeah, that was it. Don’t forget ‘objectively pro-Saddam and ‘one tree one rope one journalist some assembly required.’ How quickly it all comes back. You just jumped right in.

[Davedave]

Whut are you blathering about, you nut? You hate Jews. You support anyone who kills them. The pretence isn't working.

[Nige]

You really do like carrying on both sides of conversations in your head regardless of what the other person is actually saying, don't you?

[Davedave]

You are now denying your own statements? At least go back and delete them, then!

You're utterly consumed by Jew-hatred, and it leads to the kind of frothy-mouthed nonsense you're perpetrating by denying your own words directly below where they are still showing up.

[Nige]

Which statements? All the anti-semitic statements here were written by you. Have you convinced yourself that I actually wrote them?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I figure Davedave supports Israel for its current right-wing nuttery and superstition-laced government, not because of any genuine concern about Israelis. His method of support for Israel is destined to be very counterproductive, but right-wingers have never genuinely cared about Israelis, whom they view as role players in a fantasy world to be "befriended" and aided -- until the moment at which they are to be cast aside into enternal damnation and hellfire after advancing the Christian script.

If Israel continues to align with right-wing politics in America, it seems headed toward sharing the fate of gun nuts, racists, anti-abortion absolutists, gay-bashers, religious zealots, and other losers who have hitched their political wagons to the losing side of America's culture war. I hope Israel changes course, in several ways.

[Frank Drackman]

So Israeli's are "Bitter Klingers" too???
Coach Jerry, like that other Jerry, Jerry Ford, you played too much football without your helmet.

Frank "Is it Armageddon yet?"

[Joe_dallas]

Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and the only country in the middle east that is a positive influence in geopolitical arena.

Palestine would likewise be a positive influence to the world and to its own people if it wasnt run by a bunch of shit holes.
But you defend a terrorist organization

[Davedave]

I haven't expressed any 'support for Israel', Artie. I'm just calling out the obvious antisemitism you and your chums here are expressing.

You may not like to admit it to yourselves, but you basically share Hitler's views on Jewish people: they're not human, and should be exterminated. That is the only possible conclusion to draw from the things you feel it necessary to say rather than condemn the atrocities committed by Hamas over the last couple of days.

[Martinned]

Israel is the only democracy in the middle east

Not for much longer, the way they've been going.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Davedave, describing Hitler's views concerning Jews:

they’re not human, and should be exterminated

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant:

no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel [would be allowed into Gaza by Israel]

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant

We are fighting animals, and we will act accordingly

[Nige]

You know the reason being democratic is good is because that makes you more accountable for your actions not less, right? A rabble like Hamas is an evil group but who do they represent other than themselves? When Israel acts it represents the entire nation.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When Israel acts it represents the entire nation.

Israel also operates behind political, economic, and military skirts provided by the United States of America, at varied and enormous cost to Americans.

[Krayt]

99 other topics:
Don't whattabout, it's bad form
Don't whattabout, it's bad form
Don't whattabout, it's bad form
...
Don't whattabout, it's bad form

You get the picture.

[Don Nico]

So you think Hamas grievances are an excuse for genocidal war crimes?
But then the EU has said that aid payments for Palestinians will not be suspended.
Some great moral posture you have there across the sea.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No it doesn't -- you can hit legitimate military targets even if they are Mosques.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think the law prohibits (for example) shooting up a music festival because of the fear of retaliation. The world, or the subset of the world that signs treaties and makes speeches at the UN, decided that targeting civilians with violence was an illegitimate way to influence state policy.

I didn't bring up the music festival in my initial question because the situation is both legally and practically straightforward. The attack was one or more of a war crime, murder, and terrorism. If the attackers survive to be taken into custody by Israel or a friend of Israel they will be tried as war criminals, murderers, or terrorists.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and what about the leaders who ordered or authorized these crimes? Should a warrant be issued to the head of Hamas hiding out in Qatar?

[John F. Carr]

A warrant is appropriate for anybody in Qatar who ordered attacks on civilians. "Authorized" could go either way. If Hamas in Gaza would not have acted without approval, then authorization is more like an order.

[Michael P]

International law of war almost always includes some element of trying to prevent the behavior from becoming normalized, but I was thinking more about surprise attacks by non-uniformed combatants who store their weapons in schools and hospitals and who fire artillery from residential buildings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The best part about that music festival is that it was a "peace" music festival...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Best for whom?

[Kazinski]

Gaza delenda est.

[Bob from Ohio]

Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

[Martinned]

That's the spirit! Literally go medieval on their asses!

[Bob from Ohio]

12th century attacks demand 12th century responses.

[Nige]

The red mist descends.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody cares what you think

[Nige]

I don't care what nobody thinks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This will end like King Phillip's War ended in the 17th Century.
(That was the end of the Indians in Southern New England.)

[John F. Carr]

It strikes me as a bad move by Hamas, i.e. it's likely to leave the Palestinians worse off. Two possibilities.

1. They felt like the WTC jumpers. Might as well die doing something rather than nothing.

2. They hoped to inspire a wave of support from Hezbollah, Iran, Jordan, etc., but miscalculated. If so, Prigozhin's rebellion is a good comparison.

[Nelson]

I was out of cell range for most of the weekend so I haven’t been able to follow things, but didn’t Hezbollah attack northern Israel over the weekend?

[Mr. Bumble]

Supposedly it was a Quds force that attacked in the north, not Hezbollah.

[Nelson]

So Iran in Iran's clothing, not Iran in Hezbollah's clothing. I'm surprised they are being that open about attacking Israel.

[John F. Carr]

The activity on the nothern border looks like the routine light shelling that has been going on for many years.

[Don Nico]

Yes, in what was reported as a minor confrontation that quickly subsided.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

More like Manson's Helter Skelter...

[ReaderY]

Of course they are! Absolutely!

Rounding Jews up in their homes and slaughtering them, taking them as hostages, none of that’s a war crime. It says right in the Geneva Convention that only human beings — human beings, no Jews — can be victims of war crimes.

But if a Jew even talks about fighting back, that’s a war crime in and of itself! Jews have no right to have a country, let alome defend themselves or fight with their betters. When in turf Moslems consider theirs, they have to accept their role as foreigners and scapegoats for everything those settler-colonialist Christians ever did, just as they had to accept their role as foreigners and scapegoats when living in Christian countries.

[Martinned]

Wow, that's quite a set of straw men you've got there.

[ReaderY]

You’re the one saying the deaths of hundreds of Jewish civilians intentionally killed as civilians isn’t sufficiently “proportional” to make any act of self-defense that risks the life of a Palestinian civilian not a war crime.

[Martinned]

That's not what the proportionality is assessed against. It's war, not revenge. The proportionality is between the target and the other people you blow up at the same time.

[Don Nico]

That is what you are sounding like Martin.

[myself]

What Hamas did is 100% a war crime or terrorism, depending how you classify them.

But the west bank occupation, the Gaza blockade, the annexations, kicking Palestinians off their land to make way for more settlers. There's some definite violations of international law that may also qualify as war crimes.

That doesn't mean what Hamas did is justified, it's more the opposite. You can't justify your war crimes by pointing to the other side's crimes, especially when the types of crime are very different and hard to compare. It's far to easy for a cycle of escalation where each side to see their actions as justified and proportionate.

That doesn't mean Israel isn't allowed to respond to this attack/declaration of war, but it doesn't give them carte blanche to do act with pure revenge in mind.

[David Nieporent]

In what way was the Gaza "blockade" a "war crime," exactly?

[myself]

I never said the blockade was a war crime, I included it among several items that were violations of international law that many include war crimes.

And there's a lot of groups who do think it's a violation of international law.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No, they don't represent a war crime.

Hamas represents a military target. If Hamas chooses to hide beneath a hospital or apartment building, that's a legitimate military target, regardless of the use of human civilian shields above it.

Netanyahu is telling the people in that hospital and apartment building...get out now.

[Martinned]

If Hamas chooses to hide beneath a hospital or apartment building, that’s a legitimate military target, regardless of the use of human civilian shields above it.

That's not how the laws of war work. You don't get to shoot on anything that has a Hamas fighter in it. The risk of civilian casualties has to be proportionate to the target you're aiming for.

[ReaderY]

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and countless other more recent examples (just look at Ukraine) illustrate that either “proportionality” is a very loose concept, or there is special set of racist rules people like you attempt to apply to Israel and nobody else, rules that work just like the rules (literacy tests, dress codes, much else) that people in this country used to (and sometimes still do) apply to black people and no one else.

[Martinned]

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki all pre-date the current laws of war (i.e. the Geneva Conventions) and would be very, very illegal today. (And arguably were at the time.)

[grb]

Martinned : Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki all pre-date the current laws of war (i.e. the Geneva Conventions) and would be very, very illegal today. (And arguably were at the time.)

There have been multiple versions of the Geneva Conventions with some pre-dating WWII. When the Nazis first targeted civilian populations from the air, people did consider that a war crime. But somewhere on the road to 60-million dead such distinctions were lost on both sides. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes by any standard before or since. But in the ocean of blood that was that war, all trace of standards were abandoned.

[Martinned]

Indeed. See Count 3 of the main Nuremberg indictment: https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/indictment_presented_to_the_international_military_tribunal_nuremberg_18_october_1945-en-6b56300d-27a5-4550-8b07-f71e303ba2b1.html

[jb]

The Geneva Conventions were developed after World War II, precisely because of the civilian tolls during the war so I'm not sure why you think WWII era acts are relevant here. And people have been calling out Russia for committing war crimes against civilians in Ukraine throughout that conflict, so it's definitely not the case that these rules are only applied to Israel.

None of this is to excuse Hamas's actions this weekend, but I'm not sure that it follows that just because you're fighting terrorists you don't have to be careful about limiting civilian casualties yourself. I honestly don't know enough about how Israel chooses targets to comment on whether they are being reasonable here or not, but it's entirely possible for two sides in a conflict to both act with disregard for civilians and human life generally.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The Geneva Conventions were developed after World War II

"The Geneva Conventions" refers to a collection of treaties that were developed and adopted over a time span from 1864 until 1949. The first three were created in 1864, 1906 and 1929.

precisely because of the civilian tolls during the war

Only the one of the four 1949 conventions was about protection of civilians.

[jb]

Cool pedantry, bro.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That you regard pointing out that the vast majority of what you said is factually false as pedantry explains a great deal of the stupidity you spout here.

[jb]

It's pedantry because as you yourself acknowledged in your initial response, the Fourth Convention (the one about civilians) was developed in 1949. Admittedly, it had some basis in the Hague Conventions (although you can tell by the name that the Hague Conventions were not Geneva Conventions), but the Fourth Convention was added precisely because it was thought that protections for civilians were inadequate after seeing the massive civilian toll in WWII.

The fact that there were some earlier things called Geneva Conventions about, e.g., the treatment of wounded soldiers isn't really germane to the topic at hand. Hence the pedantry.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You're not even bright enough to spot your own hypocrisy here.

You're also still full of shit, because even the majority of what you're confining "Geneva conventions" to include had nothing to do with protecting civilians, in spite of your claim those conventions (plural) were adopted "precisely because of the civilian tolls during the war".

[myself]

It's true that Israel is held to a higher standard than countries in Africa, Asia, or even other countries in the Middle East.

But that's not them being discriminated against because they're Jewish, it's them being held to a higher standard because they're white and culturally part of the west.

It's the same reason why the condemnation of Russia is so strong over their invasion of Ukraine. It's not because Russia has nukes, it's because they're both considered white Europeans and part of the "civilized world" where you're not supposed to launch wars of conquest anymore.

Perhaps it is unfair, but it's not from people in the west discriminating against Israelis, it's from them identifying with Israelis.

[ReaderY]

Ukraine has been doing things with Russia comaprable to what Israel does in its wars - the use of cluster munitions, attacks in Russian cities, etc. - and nobody complains about it. When it retakes cities, it also shoots into them and bombs them, and nobody complains about that either.

I disagree with idea that Israel is being compared to a Western society. In fact the reason people don’t complain about what Ukraine does is because it is regarded as a Western society, and it is recognized that in Western societies, shit like this happens in war.

[myself]

Ukraine is almost the clearest victim of unprovoked aggression since WWII that you can imagine. They are obviously allowed some leeway in removing an occupying power with a history of horrendous war crimes from their cities. They're even allowed to take the fight to the invaders territory since there's an obvious strategic benefit in forcing them to deploy some anti-aircraft assets away from the front line (notice how Ukraine has to spend troops defending its border with Belarus and Russia, but Belarus and Russia don't need to do the same?).

Israel by contrast is consistently claiming new territories through conquest. If I'm to be honest, one of the things that can make it complicated to criticize Russia is the west has allowed largely unprovoked invasions in the form of the US starting the second Iraq war, and it has allowed the forceful annexation of territory in Israel's expansion through the West Bank. Yes we criticize Israel more because we relate to them, but we also support an expansionist military power to a shocking degree.

[David Nieporent]

Israel by contrast is consistently claiming new territories through conquest.

Cool story, bro. In fact, of course, Israel is consistently giving back territories it occupied as the result of war. The last time Israel could be said to have "claimed new territories through conquest" would be 1981, though the conquest there actually happened back in 1967.

Israel gave back the Sinai. It gave back Gaza. It gave back southern Lebanon.

[myself]

So Israel isn't currently expanding settlements in the West Bank?

I'm not sure how else to view that process except a slow but steady conquest of the West Bank.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The same rules apply to Russia as apply to Israel. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

(Unless you think they don't apply to Russia, either, of course...)

[Armchair Lawyer]

That is how it works...

"Let’s come back to the initial question. What if a target that is usually protected is being used for military purposes, e.g. a sniper in the tower of a church or the minaret of a mosque? What if a school playground is being used as a landing point for a military helicopter? By virtue of the use made of them, they have forfeited their protection"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't there some famous Italian monastery that had to be destroyed in WWII because of Nazi snipers in it?

[Magister]

The Battle of Monte Cassino destroyed the Monte Cassino monastery, but the Germans in fact were not using it; from Wikipedia:

Lying in a protected historic zone, it had been left unoccupied by the Germans, although they manned some positions set into the slopes below the abbey's walls.

Repeated artillery attacks on assaulting allied troops caused their leaders to incorrectly conclude that the abbey was being used by the Germans as an observation post, at the very least. Fears escalated, along with casualties, and despite evidence, it was marked for destruction. On 15 February 1944, Allied bombers dropped 1,400 tonnes of high explosives, causing widespread damage.

[Don Nico]

Martin, how many missiles have to be hidden in the school for it to be a legitimate target?

[Martinned]

That depends on how many civilians are in it. (Or, to be more precise, how many civilians the person ordering the shelling should reasonably understand are in it.)

[Nige]

No, still a war crime. Hamas hiding in such places is a war-crime too.

'get out now.'

Yeah, and then hitting the refugee camps they go to. It’s all predictably awful.

[Davedave]

It's predictably awful that you make up this vile antisemitic fiction so you can avoid admitting that you just hate Jews and want to see them killed en masse.

Stop the ludicrous 'both sides' nonsense and condemn the atrocities that have actually happened. Or, admit what you really are. At the moment, you're making it quite plain what you are, and that's a Jew-hater, filled with blood-lust.

[Nige]

'this vile antisemitic fiction'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/palestinian-refugee-camp-hit-amid-israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza/vi-AA1hUpWo

[Davedave]

The vile antisemitic fiction is that this was a targeted attack. And the rest of it, too. One rule for Jews, another for people you see as human.

It's just too obvious to deny. The Trump nuts have nothing on you when it comes to self-delusion. You will believe what you want to believe, and damn the facts: you know the Jews need exterminating, and anything that gets in the way of that is all part of the Zionist plot.

[Nige]

You're still making up things that I haven't said to make me say what you want me to have said. It's mesmerising.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, still a war crime. "

Not necessarily. It's only a war crime of the incidental damage to civilians is excessive in relation to the military advantage sought by destroying the target.

And whether or not the civilians are acting as voluntary human shields factors into the calculation.

[ReaderY]

“Proportionality” is simply a codeword for saying you think the life of a Jew has no value. That’s why deaths of non-Jews can never satisfy “proportionality,” and why every act of self-defense always fails “proportionality” and is always a war crime whenever done by Jews.

[Martinned]

WTF are you talking about???

https://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/files/proportionalityandnecessityinjusinbellopdf

[Don Nico]

Hear, hear!

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY.....

And the UN does have schools that are being used as evacuation centers.

[Commenter_XY]

The rules change a bit when there is a formal declaration of war, John F. Carr. That is what we now have: war.

[Martinned]

Israel has been at war since it was founded, and legally it is not more at war now than it was last week.

[Davedave]

More lies. Where does it stop? Is there anything, anything at all, you won't say when it might contribute to just one more dead Jew? "Truth be damned, those Jews must die!"

[Don Nico]

"legally it is not more at war now than it was last week."
ipse dixit.

[Martinned]

Israel has been in a state of war with (some of) its neighbours since it was founded. That's what justifies the continued occupation of the West Bank, for example. You can't be more "at war" than "at war". I'm not sure why you think that's ipse dixit.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Israel has been in a state of war with (some of) its neighbours since it was founded. That’s what justifies the continued occupation of the West Bank, for example.

Uh...Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan (in the Six-Day War). Are you asserting that Israel is still at war with Jordan? Oh, and about 11% of the WB is under PA control, with another 28% under joint Israeli/Palestinian control.

[Martinned]

No, I'm asserting that Israel and Jordan made a peace treaty. But Israel and Syria did not, for example. Nor did Israel and the Palestinians.

And for the avoidance of doubt, this is not some weird view I hold. This is the official view of the Israeli government. They are occupying (parts of) the West Bank, no one in the Israeli government is claiming that any part of the West Bank is part of Israel except East Jerusalem, and the occupation will last until there is a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Which is why Israel has been trying, on and off, to agree such a peace treaty for the last 50 years or so.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, I’m asserting that Israel and Jordan made a peace treaty. But Israel and Syria did not, for example. Nor did Israel and the Palestinians.

Why do you keep referring to the Palestinians with regard to the 1973 war when there was no state of Palestine to declare war on Israel?

And for the avoidance of doubt, this is not some weird view I hold. This is the official view of the Israeli government.

The view of the Israeli government that they're occupying the West Bank does not mean that they're officially at war with any of the belligerents from the 1973 war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, it is -- this is the first declared war since 1973.

[Martinned]

And who do you think declared war on whom? And when, exactly, did the Palestinians end the war of 1973?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And who do you think declared war on whom?

War was effectively declared on Israel by a coalition of states that included Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco...and even Cuba and N. Korea...when the launched their surprise attack on Yom Kippur.

And when, exactly, did the Palestinians end the war of 1973?

What? The only "Palestinians" in the war were non-state participants (a brigade that had been in Egypt prior to the attack). The war was brought to an end by a series of ceasefire agreements. The coalition that initiated the war no longer exists.

[Martinned]

War was effectively declared on Israel by a coalition of states (...)

Well yes, but Ed claimed that someone had declared war this weekend.

The war was brought to an end by a series of ceasefire agreements.

A ceasefire does not end a war. The clue is in the name. The Korean War, for example, is still ongoing.

[Don Nico]

The war in 1973 was with internationally recognized nation states.

I hate to say it Martin, but you sound the same as Trumpists defending DJT role in J6.

[Martinned]

It was. That's not where Ed's confusion was.

(For the avoidance of doubt, "armed conflicts" - as international law terms them - can be of an international and of a non-international nature. There is no requirement for more than one recognised state to be involved.)

[Don Nico]

"legally it is not more at war now than it was last week."
Would you care to explain that very carefully citing whose laws and which laws

[Martinned]

See above. After 1973 Israel made peace with some of the states that attacked it (e.g. Jordan) but not others (e.g. Syria).

See also the, slightly separate, issue of Israel's state of emergency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_state_of_emergency

[John F. Carr]

I was asking about acts that would be formally illegal regardless of any state of war. If Israel takes out the Hamas leadership using one of those Hellfire missiles armed with big knives, that's the way the war game is played. Is Israel nukes Gaza and bounces the rubble, that's not. Netanyahu threatened something in between.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, I don't think 'taking mighty vengeance' qualifies as a statement to commit a war crime, do you?

Civilians in Gaza (who BTW, voted for Hamas multiple times in elections, and therefore made their choice) have been told to leave. That is good advice and I hope they take it. They should leave now so that they do not die.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How reasonable of you.

Are you therefore inviting them to settle in the United States, or would you prefer they settle into the Mediterranean seabed?

[Commenter_XY]

For Hamas....the seabed is fine. So is burial beneath rubble.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I considered it similar to the leaflets that Curtis LeMay dropped on Hiroshima before it was nuked.

With no water, no food, and no electricity, I think there will be tremendous pressure on Egypt to let people in, and that will be interesting.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "I think there will be tremendous pressure on Egypt to let people in, and that will be interesting"

No there won't. The Egyptian government has never cared about suffering in Gaza and won't begin now. They'll be no fantasy end to this ugly brutal bloodbath.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking more like the LeMay bombing leaflets dropped on Hiroshima, etc.

[John F. Carr]

In the UK, the legal fight continues over sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. The policy should be an effective way to separate refugees from migrants. If you're going to be tortured to death at home, you'll take just about anywhere. But it is alleged that Rwanda is unsafe.

UK Supreme Court weighs if it’s lawful for Britain to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda

I don't know if Rwanda is safe these days. Surely there is somewhere less inconvenient to dump the boat people?

[Martinned]

Not at the price the UK is willing to pay.

Remember, the deal they made with Rwanda isn't "please look after these people and figure out who are entitled to asylum" but "please look after these people indefinitely and we don't care what asylum process you apply to them".

[Kazinski]

Well it is interesting that Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, and the foremost proponent of using Rwanda as an asylum dumping ground, is the child of two immigrants from Africa. Her mother was from Mauritius and her Father from Kenya, but both of Indian extraction.

[Martinned]

More hypocritically, the other day she was complaining that there are too many children of foreign-born parents in the UK.

[Nige]

'The policy should be an effective way to separate refugees from migrants.'

Have you tried saying that out loud? It's complete nonsense. The UK is spending billons on utterly useless performative stuff like this while underfunding the actual asylum system that would so that exact thing. There's an empty barge and an empty hotel owned by conservative cronies getting millions because they keep having stupid ideas that are clearly about paying money to their friends rather than about sorting the problem out.

[Davedave]

Nige: a man so consumed with antisemitic conspiracy theories he believes the Tories are secret Jews rather than just utterly incompetent bastards.

[Nige]

Yes, this made-up stuff you are saying he said is so bad.

[Davedave]

Ah, there goes Nige the loon again, lying about his own words without bothering to go back and edit them.

The antisemitic brainworms are leading you to ever-greater heights of idiocy today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your frothing and flailing, Davedave, is counterproductive . . . but not entirely out of character at this right-wing blog.

[Nige]

You're genuinely having some sort of hysterical breakdown.

[Frank Drackman]

Can't wait for all of the "Political Refugees" from Palestine! and Amurican Hostages?? get Jimmuh Cartuh on the job Stat! (really, hurry it up, he's had "Terminal Cancer" for the last 20 years)

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The government of Israel should raze the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount, and build a synchrotron radiation light source in its place. Every nation which aspires to be a member of the top-tier of science and tech-innovation needs its own synchrotron radiation light source on its own territory, and the site has almost exactly the right dimensions.

[Martinned]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/apii-1977/article-16?activeTab=undefined

Article 16 - Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship
Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to use them in support of the military effort.

[Mr. Bumble]

Reply to Intelligent Mr Toad:
Thank you Dr. Demento.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The dome over the electron storage ring would resemble the dome it has now, and the gold would be useful in the electronics. (Gold is very useful in high-performance electronics because of its high conductivity and its exceptional resistance to corrosion.)

[Don Nico]

And the right shape.
However, Israel and Iran are both members of the Sesame Light Source management collaboration for the machine in Jordan.
One on the Temple Mount would be redundant.

[Michael P]

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union has filed for bankruptcy after a jury's $94 million verdict against them (for an illegal secondary boycott over a whopping two jobs) was reduced to $19 million by a judge.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/10/union-busted.html

[John F. Carr]

Bankruptcy here means they hand over their free cash and go on with business as usual.

[Martinned]

Capitalism requires a healthy distribution of bargaining power to function. This Union definitely seems to have more bargaining power than is healthy for anything.

[David Welker]

With reference to the power of juries versus judges, note how the $94 million verdict from the jury was reduced by about 80% a much smaller $19 million by the judiciary.

Who has more potential to abuse power here?

Look, I am a little sympathetic to your argument, in that surely juries have weaknesses. I am just not sure I would frame those weaknesses as an “abuse of power” usually. Probably sometimes, but probably not my go to.

[Martinned]

In this particular instance $94 million still seemed low, but you know as well as I do that juries regularly impose truly insane punitive damages awards. If it wasn't for the judges intervening, that would be an excellent example of abuse of power.

[David Welker]

Do I know that Martinned? Do I really?

Here is a challenge for you. Please find the specific cases of “insane” punitive damage awards that concern you and get back to me.

Also, have you heard of remittur?

[Martinned]

How about $137m for a single case of racial harassment? https://calemploymentlawupdate.proskauer.com/2023/04/137-million-racial-harassment-verdict-against-tesla-slashed-by-new-jury/

[David Welker]

Your example is an award that was reduced to a few million as a result of the remittitur procedure.

Like, this is the sort of case I should be citing against your argument.

In general, procedures are already in place to limit high awards. Also, if limiting damages is what you want, that can be done without limiting the role of juries.

[Martinned]

That's my point: the harm that juries can do is currently already limited by intervention from the bench. But you're the one who wants to give juries more power.

[David Welker]

I think juries are good. As mentioned, damage awards can and are limited without eliminating juries.

You also fail to take into account how groups have a tendency to make good decisions compared to a single individual. Biases cancel each other out, etc.

You also fail to recognize that if you have a single judge, you have a single point of failure and a single object for bribery attacks and influence operations.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Apparently, Trump has praised the "actor Hannibal Lecter".

Huffpo:

“Hannibal Lecter, how great an actor was he?” said Trump in a mix-up between the fictional character’s name and Anthony Hopkins, the actor who played the cannibal in the 1991 film.

“You know why I like him? Because he said on television on one of the – ‘I love Donald Trump.’ So I love him. I love him. I love him."

Brings to mind the "Scoodlers" in The Road to Oz (L. Frank Baum, 1909), who "love" visitors - in soup.

"What have we here?" asked the Queen, sharply, as our friends were made to stand before her.

"Soup!" cried the guard of Scoodlers, speaking together.

"We're not!" said Dorothy, indignantly; "we're nothing of the sort."

"Ah, but you will be soon," retorted the Queen, a grim smile making her look more dreadful than before.

"Pardon me, most beautiful vision," said the shaggy man, bowing before the queen politely. "I must request your Serene Highness to let us go our way without being made into soup. For I own the Love Magnet, and whoever meets me must love me and all my friends."

"True," replied the Queen. "We love you very much; so much that we intend to eat your broth with real pleasure. But tell me, do you think I am so beautiful?"

"You won't be at all beautiful if you eat me," he said, shaking his head sadly. "Handsome is as handsome does, you know."

The Queen turned to Button-Bright.

"Do you think I'm beautiful?" she asked.

"No," said the boy; "you're ugly."

"I think you're a fright," said Dorothy.

"If you could see yourself you'd be terribly scared," added Polly.

The Queen scowled at them and flopped from her red side to her yellow side.

"Take them away," she commanded the guard, "and at six o'clock run them through the meat chopper and start the soup kettle boiling. And put plenty of salt in the broth this time, or I'll punish the cooks severely."

"Any onions, your Majesty?" asked one of the guard.

"Plenty of onions and garlic and a dash of red pepper. Now, go!"

[Frank Drackman]

So what’s the problem? Does anyone really remember Tony Gandolfini?? Was it “Bob Denver’s Island”?? “Get Don Adams”?? "Jim Nabors USMC" Let me know when he claims to have been the inspiration for the dude in “Love Story” like AlGore did (“Senator, I knew Ryan Oneal, I was friends with Ryan Oneal, Senator, you’re no Ryan Oneal)

Frank

[Nige]

Maybe he means Mads Mikkelson? But I doubt either Lecter, Hopkins, Brian Cox or Mikkelsen would say they love Trump.

[Martinned]

I very much doubt that he meant anyone other than Sir Anthony Hopkins.

[Nige]

I was hoping if he got re-elected he'd get them to make another season.

[Martinned]

I found Hannibal a very disappointing TV show. (I binged it last year.) All serial killer shows are basically alike, this one is just prettier.

[DaveM]

Today: Trump says something mad. Tomorrow: Biden says something weird.

There are 396 days until Election Day. We should prepare ourselves for 198 mad statements by the Bad Man and 198 by Grandpa.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Donald Trump and Leonard Carboni could have a fascinating conversation.

Those two could begin by reminiscing about their shared path to success.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

TDS isn't a syndrome; it's a fact.

[Mr. Bumble]

Today, Oct 9 is the day of RFK jr's big announcement. What will it be?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm guessing not that he's getting his Covid-19 vaccine

[DaveM]

+1

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He reminds me of Connor Roy for some reason...

[Michael P]

Losing 100 pounds in six months through lifestyle changes is quite a feat: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/dad-loses-100-pounds-6-months-after-photo/story?id=103719516

I lost 35 pounds in four months last year (and have kept it off so far), so I am really impressed that this guy did twice that rate. A 1000 Calorie/day deficit should only lead to about two pounds of weight loss per week, half of what he achieved. However, his early 3300 Cal/day maintenance level implies a pretty high activity level on top of high weight; it would be even more impressive if he stepped that up a lot.

[Life of Brian]

I lost 35 pounds in four months last year (and have kept it off so far)

Nice! That's a super-aggressive clip in and of itself, so kudos for not rebounding. Did you/do you lift to keep lean mass up?

[Michael P]

Thanks! I do not lift, but I changed my diet significantly (cutting out most red meat, including all fatty red meat, and upping whole grains, vegetables and other high-fiber foods) and I run. This evening was 5 miles at an easy 6.5 mph pace. Yesterday was 6.5 miles at a slightly faster pace.

I should do strength training regularly, but it's really time-consuming to get 10,000 steps in a day AND 30 minutes of strength training with a desk job. Spending time with my kids takes priority over that.

[Nelson]

Congrats, MichaelP. Losing weight is the easy part. Keeping it off is the challenge. Nicely done.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why do they always put "dad" or "mom" in the headline/spam these days?

[apedad]

(from Reddit)

God invented war so Americans could learn geography.

[Frank Drackman]

Good one, now tell us why he made black people smell bad

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do any Volokh Conspiracy fans still want to try to contend this blog isn't soaked in bigotry?

Any Volokh Conspirators have the courage to say anything about this blog's incessant bigotry? A single one? Just this once?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Carry on, clingers.

[Michael P]

If only somebody would invent history so moronic American oikophobes could realize that war predates this country.

[Moderation4ever]

Several weeks ago, I commented on the book Sapiens by the author Yuval Noah Harari. The book chronicals the rise of Homo Sapiens over other Homo species and its rise to dominate the world. One of the respondents recommended Mr. Harari follow-up book Homo Deus which I have just finished.

Homo Deus is again well written and insightful. The book explores humankind's future in a world where we can control biology through genetic manipulation and the consequences of the volume of data we have access to today.

Reason and VC have both expressed concern about censorship, but Yuval Noah Harari points out that while censorship in the past has meant blocking access to data, censorship today and in the future may rely on simply flooding us with irrelevant and useless data. Power once meant access to data and in future power will mean knowing the right data in a sea of useless data.

Finally, to those that may have read the book I ask; were you as disturbed as I was with the thought that a non-sentient AI program could accumulate enough information to model each of us into an algorithm. And the question of having "free will" when almost all your decisions can be correctly predicted?

[Krayt]

They already do a rurimentary version of that. Google, Amazon, et al., have a little avatar of you with advertising preferences. This is added to by their own scraping of web sites you visit (not spying on you, but backdoor through the web site, which gets paid, ISPs, etc.) And make predictions based on similar people. Companies will pay more for better-targeted advertising.

You are your IP address. Your name is an anachronism. Your phone number is your globally unique ID. This is what drives asking for your phone number for “two factor authentication”. If you read the fine print, that’s not all they do with it.

The ads fed to you on web sites (and streaming sites) are usually negotiated by computer, auctioned in real time.

I'm gonna try an experiment. I wonder how much Lego Batman is?

[DaveM]

You are your IP address.

Well, only partly. Your actual digital fingerprint is far more targeted than that, and is derived from:

– IP address
– HTTP request headers
– User agent string
– Installed plugins
– Client time zone
– Screen resolution
– Touch support
– Operating system
– Language
– List of installed fonts
– List of mime-types
– Timestamp

This identifier is then cross-tabbed with every web site you visit, every tracking image those pages contain, every button and link you click, the amount of time you spend, and which keystrokes you enter. The services capturing and processing all this information sometimes coordinate and synchronize their data, when it benefits them, not you.

I’m unconvinced that generative AI has a whole lot left to do. The prediction algorithms are already written.

One thing to note, viz censorship: the same data set used to predict ads for you also feeds a system that promotes and demotes information to you. For example, Google has definite opinions about news stories from certain organizations. Where a more fair search engine such as Duck Duck Go might list a search result at #1, Google will list it at #48 -- but only for you.

Google believes it is on a mission to change the world's political opinions. They are very upfront about it.

[Life of Brian]

This identifier is then cross-tabbed with every web site you visit, every tracking image those pages contain, every button and link you click, the amount of time you spend, and which keystrokes you enter. The services capturing and processing all this information sometimes coordinate and synchronize their data, when it benefits them, not you.

Just to build on this spot-on point, this is not an abstract, who-cares sort of issue. The algorithms these days are in the upper-upper-90% accuracy range in being able to identify your computer as uniquely yours -- in fact, running this fingerprinting test my computer was reported as unique among over 2 million that site had ever analyzed.

Now, I don't really care about this vis-a-vis targeted ads since I block all of those anyway -- they can fine-tune those to their heart's content. But at a higher level, the degree to which it's becoming harder and harder to actually be anonymous on the internet should give us all pause.

[John F. Carr]

I often share an IP address and the extra information is necessary to disambiguate.

One of Apple's contributions to privacy was reducing the amount of useful information in the User-Agent header.

[Life of Brian]

One of Apple’s contributions to privacy was reducing the amount of useful information in the User-Agent header.

While that's absolutely true, the user agent string is a very small piece of the puzzle these days. Check out the site I linked above, in which the user agent is one of several dozen attributes they use to disambiguate a particular user.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Moderation4ever, I'm glad another person has read the book and liked it. As for your last paragraph's question, I don't think I'm qualified to opine on CS!
For what it's worth I think I've found an excellent seque into a third book, of a trilogy, if you will, called The End of the World is just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization by Peter Zeihan.
Harper Business 2022
Just in time for Halloween!

[Ed Grinberg]

from the last open-thread:

Bob from Ohio:
“Masterpiece Cakeshop.”
Maybe one day Colorado will get a second cake baker.

Martinned:
You’re right, the Robert Bork theory of how competition will drive out discrimination has worked so well to drive out racism, I’m sure it will work just as well against homophobia and transphobia.
(He provided a link to Bork's 1963 essay “Civil Rights—A Challenge.”)

1. Martinned, I think you are factually wrong. I do not think that, today, a black / gay / trans / whatever person who's willing to pay for a service (food, lodging, whatever) will be turned away by most businesses in an area, regardless of which U.S. region he / she / "they" is in. Maybe if you actually lived here in the U.S., you wouldn't have such a dark view of us.
2. Let's say Martinned is right and I'm wrong and -- that our hypothetical black / gay / trans / whatever person would be turned away by most businesses. Yes, it's sad, unfortunate, unfair. But I still say that his / her / "their" sad / unfortunate / unfair situation does not justify the government's imposition upon the rights of the "bigoted" business-owner. I know this is hard for "liberals" / "progressives" to grasp, but it is not the government's job to make things "fair."
3. The legality of the "anti-discrimination" laws aimed at private business-owners (such as the "public accommodations" provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) is highly dubious (pace various Supreme Court decisions to the contrary).

[not guilty]

Jack Phillips is a bigot who deserves his comeuppance, but if I were LGBT, I would hesitate to ask someone who loathes my very existence to prepare a food product for me.

[Frank Drackman]

Exactly!
Frank "That's not Frosting!"

[Idihax]

Exactly. Anti-discrimination laws should have been temporary in nature and only for a very limited purpose. Not to merely "make things fair."

[BrotherMovesOn]

Mr. Grinberg, apologies for accidentally 'flagging' your comment.
"Maybe if you actually lived here in the U.S., you wouldn’t have such a dark view of us."
Maybe he has this view because he encounters people who think Heart of Atlanta Motel was wrongly decided?

[Ed Grinberg]

If so, he's a moron. It is moronic to deduce from my saying "A has a right to ***" that I, myself, would engage in ***.

[Moderation4ever]

Listen to the coverage of the war in Israel I was appalled by the carnage and atrocities. This war will be short as Hamas is no match for the Israel army, but the effects will be long. Hamas has killed any hope for the Palestinians to make any more progress in my lifetime. Palestinians' supporters in the US need to condemn this outright and skip trying to slip in any "but Israel" into those condemnations. As for those involved in this attack, I suggest they will be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. This is Munich, Entebbe, and Achille Lauro level stuff. There will be no forgiveness for those involved, just a death sentence hanging over their heads.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Palestinians’ supporters in the US need to condemn this outright and skip trying to slip in any “but Israel” into those condemnations."

I'm seeing a lot of coverage of Palestinian supporters cheering Hamas on, actually. This is NOT going to help Muslims' reputation in America, or really anywhere outside the Muslim world.

[Michael P]

I'm reminded a bit of the Disney movie Zombies, which for some reason my younger son likes. It's a painfully ham-handed allegory in which white people (representing white people) oppress zombies (representing whichever aggrieved minority one chooses). The zombies were created in a freak nuclear accident 50 years earlier, but can be lived with because government-issued "Z-bands" tame their cannibalistic urges. The movie is about ending the policy of apartheid and how bigotry doesn't die easily.

The primary lesson of the movie is that white people need to be more tolerant and accepting, even when faced with demihumans trying to literally eat their brains. But one of the main secondary lessons is that white saviors in the government are needed to fix the atavistic flaws of the oppressed minority that cannot control their violent tendencies, a lesson that leftists apply in many cases.

[Moderation4ever]

One image that struck me hard was of a group of men in the middle east cheering the attack. What struck me most was the image of a man holding his daughter and she holding an automatic rifle up. I am appalled at the idea of Congress persons sending out x-mas cards with the family members holding firearms and this is the same. Young children should not be holding real firearms, in this country or in the middle east. I am also struck by the fact that as that young girl becomes a young adult, she will be expected to cover her head and body. She will risk being beaten by the morality police if she fails to do this. Supporting the Palestinians is not supporting this attack. Rather we should support people so this child has a future and is not the pawn of some terrorist group.

[Commenter_XY]

I will simply say this, Brett. This attack showed the folly of a policy in believing that Hamas, a Judeocidal terror group influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and financed by Iran, can coexist side-by-side with Israel. That experiment is over; Oslo is dead. The covenant of Hamas calls for the extinction of Jews. Their actions (and savageries) on Simchat Torah align with their stated beliefs. There will be no peace. Only war and death.

Nothing less than the physical obliteration of Hamas can be an acceptable outcome for Israel. Israel has declared war; different rules apply. Time to fight it out with Hamas and kill them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, I can see US Muslims being viewed as Communists were in the 1950s, with major purges in academia.

[Ed Grinberg]

???
In the U.S., academia (both faculty & administration) is dominated by "liberals" / "progressives." You can expect 100% support for this most recent "uprising" by the "oppressed" Palestinians. If anyone is purged, it'll be for criticism of Palestinians (or, God forbid, Muslims in general).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at Harvard. Grrrr....

But Higher Ed is totally dependent on Federal funding.
And that is where a populist Congress could have great influence.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This is where the US Congress demands "purges" of Muslims in academia... Is that somewhere on this planet?

[Nige]

You're probably right, but the idea that there should be no analysis of Israel's failures in all this will certainly perpetuate the conflict. However the only people who can do that effectively are the Israelis themselves.

[Nige]

Just to be clear, the Palestinians are probably fucked, and it's primarily Hamas that has fucked them for all that Israel will do most of the killing.

[DaveM]

Israel will wage total war on Hamas and Hezbollah, both. They won't show any mercy, now.

[Martinned]

As opposed to before this war?

[Frank Drackman]

They've been "Merciful" for 50+ years, giving them their own fucked up country, no other A-rab country wants them (Ear-Ron isn't A-rab, but would be funny to see how long the Palestinians would survive a Babylonian Captivity in Ear-Ron. Even if Gaza's reduced to rubble (how would they tell?) nothing's going to change until Ear-ron gets the Nagasaki/Hiroshima treatment.

Frank

[Davedave]

Vile. Just shout 'sieg heil' and be done with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a country of 9M, which Israel is, this is like the US losing 30,000 people on Sept 11th. They've closed schools & day care centers -- indefinitely -- and now have 5% of their population activated into the IDF.

They're not fooling around, the whole country is now on a war footing and Gaza is on a very limited time schedule as water has now been shut off, along with electricity and food.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Just what the world needs...more war refugees.

[Martinned]

I agree. What I disagree with is the idea that Israel was somehow "fooling around" with respect to Hamas last week or last year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The interesting question is what Israel does to Iran -- which clearly was behind this -- and what price the Biden/Obama administration pays for ITS involvement in this.

As to Hamas, this will be their Tet Offensive -- and TET was a major defeat for the VC because of their massive losses. This will be the end of Hamas as a functional entity -- and I don't think people are going to want to be associated with it.

The other thing no one is mentioning is that -- under International law -- several other countries (e.g. US, Germany, etc.) have a legitimate right to attack Gaza in retaliation for *their* nationals who were murdered.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Attack what in Gaza, and how?

[Nelson]

The Ninth Amendment, legally

The Ninth Amendment was included, specifically and intentionally, to prevent anyone from saying "That right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, so it isn't a right". Unfortunately, that has failed to stop those who wish to constrain as many rights as possible, often for political reasons.

Part of the problem is that, while the reason for its inclusion is clearly documented, it is intentionally open-ended. This is due to the central premise of the Constitution: that rights are held by individuals and the government cannot constrain those rights without due process.

This is the legal-oriented version of this post, so my questions are these:

1) What establishes an unenumerated Constitutional right? Is it precedent? Is it the scrutiny level required to legally remove that right from an individual?

2) Is there a point at which it is specifically acknowledged as a right under the Ninth Amendment, or does it just slowly aquire a similar status to an enumerated right?

3) Can something treated as a Ninth Amendment right "lose" that status through subsequent legal rulings?

My second post will deal with philosophical arguments about the Ninth Amendment. I'm hoping that responses to this post will be a legal debate only. Please, please, please respond to philosophical objections in the next post.

[Nelson]

The Ninth Amendment, philosophically

The Ninth Amendment was included, specifically and intentionally, to prevent anyone from saying "That right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, so it isn't a right". Unfortunately, that has failed to stop those who wish to constrain as many rights as possible, often for political reasons.

Part of the problem is that, while the reason for its inclusion is clearly documented, it is intentionally open-ended. This is due to the central premise of the Constitution: that rights are held by individuals and the government cannot constrain those rights without due process.

This is the philosophy-oriented version of this post, so my questions are these:

1) Do you believe that the Ninth Amendment requires the acceptance of rights not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights?

2) If so, do you agree that there are unenumerated Constitutional rights that should be acknowledged by everyday Americans?

3) If so, what are some of those rights and why do you think they should be treated as Constitutional rights?

4) Because every Constitutional right has constraints and exceptions, what would those be for the rights mentioned in #3?

[Nelson]

Apparently now all you have to do to get your book banned in Alabama is have the last name "Gay". Can we just acknowledge that cultural conservatives aren't serious or honest people?

They are searching for the keyword "gay" and automatically putting any hits on the list of books to prevent kids from reading due to "sexually explicit" content. Literally the only reason is that the word "gay" appears in it.

https://www.al.com/news/2023/10/childrens-picture-book-was-on-library-list-to-be-moved-to-adult-section-because-authors-last-name-is-gay.html

[Moderation4ever]

Will we have to ban the Christmas song "Deck the Halls" because we don't want children donning their "gay apparel"?

[Michael P]

The intro paragraph of that article seems like it was written to be misunderstood. "a list of potentially 'sexually explicit' books to be moved from the children’s section" implies that the books would be moved, not that they would be reviewed and considered on their own merits.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, reading further, "“Read Me a Story, Stella” was one of 233 titles slated to be reviewed and potentially moved."

It wasn't censored. It was just put on a list to be reviewed as a result of a key word search.

I'd say that first paragraph WAS written to be misunderstood. Intentionally so, because the reality of what was going on wasn't bad enough for them.

[apedad]

"It was just put on a list to be reviewed as a result of a key word search."

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. . . .

[Michael P]

Exactly so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, there IS nothing wrong with that.

[I Callahan]

Yeah, let’s just let 10 year olds read porno in the school library, lest we get accused of banning books.

Are you serious, apedad?

[Nige]

Let's just say that kids are reading porn in the library then we can ban what we like!

[Nelson]

"Right, reading further, ““Read Me a Story, Stella” was one of 233 titles slated to be reviewed and potentially moved.”"

Correct. Why should a book be put on a list to be removed merely because the word "gay" is in it?

[Nelson]

"they would be reviewed and considered on their own merits"

Why would the mere presence of the word "gay" require it to be reviewed? The point is that Alabama is searching for specific topics that aren't acceptable and they believe that "gay" is unacceptable. Why would they do that?

[ReaderY]

In fairness, this is a side effect of using computer algorithms to search for objectionable things, an effect that’s independent of what things people find objectionable. That’s the real reason things like this happen. There have been plenty of stupid decisions by software scouring for various things people on the left find objectionable. So its not surprising there would be people on the right who’ve used a computer search to look for things they object to and come up with a stupid outcome. Whether they’re from the right or left isn’t really the point here.

Whether people should be scouring for these things in the first place is a separate issue. Computer algorithms will be stupid regardless.

[Nelson]

That's my point. Why is the word "gay" falsely equated with "sexually explicit" in Alabama?

Perhaps it's because cultural conservatives deem anything gay to be perverse and sexual?

[DaveM]

Stop misrepresenting this as a ban on these books. They are being moved into an age-appropriate location, that's all.

The left has to just stop misrepresenting this topic, it is a complete 100% loser position. When you are dealing with other people's children, you are entering the most protected zone there is. NONE of your opponents will give even an inch on protecting the innocence of children. It's non-negotiable. Stop it.

[I Callahan]

Agreed, but somehow the left (and yes, it’s the left) isn’t letting that set of rules stop them at this point. Find me a left leaning commenter in these boards that has an issue with children changing their gender, or letting them watch drag shows.

[Nige]

'The left has to just stop misrepresenting this topic'

Please stop treating the pretext as a pretext!

[Nelson]

"They are being moved into an age-appropriate location, that’s all."

A children's picture book written by a woman whose last name is Gay isn't in an age-appropriate place?

My point is that just because the word "gay" is in a book doesn't make it inappropriate for children.

[Nelson]

"NONE of your opponents will give even an inch on protecting the innocence of children. It’s non-negotiable. Stop it."

You aren't protecting anyone. You are trying to legalize bigotry. That is a harmful thong to teach your kids, but you can choose to make them hateful if you want. You have no right, however, to make that choice for anyone else.

The jumping-off point for cultural conservatives is that gay is bad. That is objectively (and obviously) untrue.

[SRG2]

I am reminded of this story: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/sport-olympics/london-2012-olympics-sprinter-referred-to-as-tyson-homosexual-because-of-website-s-ban-on-word-gay-8015664.html

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hamas's attack on Israel was sudden and deadly, killing over 700 Israelis, wounding more than 2000, kidnapping hundreds. In a country that only has a population of 9 million, this is massive. This would be like over 23,000 deaths in the US. Civilians were deliberately, individually targeted by gunmen for death kidnappings, and apparent sexual assault. There can be no justification for these crimes.

Israel's initial response is clear. Hamas, as the government of the Gaza Strip, needs to go. It's been tolerated for years, through the sporadic rocket attacks. But now, it's become more dangerous. Gaza will be invaded, and Hamas eliminated. What happens next is a bigger question.... There is also the Iranian question. Here are a few options.

A. Gaza has the first 500 meters of its land in all directions turned into a DMZ, heavily mined, in order to prevent anything like this from happening again.

B. Gaza is forcibly evacuated, with the Palestinian population being shipped to another country. Potentially Iran. Israel doesn't want Gaza, but can't have a hostile population there.

C. Iran is directly attacked by Israel for its role in supporting a terrorist organization.

[Nige]

Wow. All those options are completely evil. Hope someone thinks of some non-evil options.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What's evil about a DMZ?

[Nige]

I expect such a thing would have a severely deleterious effect on the already precarious standard of living inside it and would pretty much freeze the conflict in an ongoing state for as long as it exists. It would be an escalation of existing policies, and existing policies did not prevent the recent attack.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Clearly existing policies did not stop the current attack, and an escalation of defense measures may stop any future attacks. A 500 M DMZ would be more effective than the lack of one.

[Nige]

Sure, more escalation and miltarisation and inflict more suffering on a captive population, all that's sure to work, given the way it's working so well so far.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Then go with option B.
Remove the "Captive population" to somewhere else.

If the "Captive population" keeps attacking your population, something needs to be done.

[Nige]

Sure, fantasise about displacing millions of people as an act of collective punishment. I mean, the possibility that the hard-line approach being used all along is in fact catastrophicaly wrong and only helped perpetuat the cycle of violence seems as off the table as ever.

[Mr. Bumble]

The real problem is that no Arab country would welcome (in the sense of allow) the Palestinians.

[Nige]

I expect massive resistance would be the main problem.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure that that's "the real problem", but it certainly is *a* problem if you want to engage in a spot of collective punishment/ethnic cleansing. The Palestinians already have a country, why would they need to live in someone else's.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It is one of the bigger problems.

After the 1948 Arab Israeli war, the rest of the Arab countries essentially evicted the Jewish population from their countries. Most of those went to Israel.

But those same Arab countries didn't want the Palestinian population.

[Nige]

The Middle East was never one big homogenous blob of people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to Martinned:
"The Palestinians already have a country,..."

Which country is that and where is it located? Gaza? The West Bank? All of current Israel?

[Commenter_XY]

Incentivized, voluntary immigration could work. Nobody dies in a voluntary transaction. Arab countries will welcome emigrants with some money.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This isn't "punishment". It's removing the source of the danger.

If you have a few powder kegs of gunpowder next to your bedroom, and they keep going off injuring you when you're asleep...it's prudent to move the gunpowder somewhere further away.

[Nige]

If you treat people as if they're gunpowder and not people, you can do anything to them and think it's okay.

[Martinned]

That's what Azerbaijan did in Nagorno-Karabakh too. The only difference is that last month everyone looked the other way, and the US didn't send navy ships to keep an eye on the situation.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If the people don't act like rational, peaceful, people, and instead act violently seeking to strike out and kill...

And they keep doing it...what you going to do?

We typically put people like this in asylums and prisons.

[Nige]

'The people' - you want to punish everybody regardless of whether they acted violently and reached out to kill.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Again, you keep using the word "punish"

I don't seek to "punish" anyone. I seek to remove the threat.

[Nige]

You seek to impose a collective punishment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fantasise [sic] about displacing millions of people"

The Sudeten, Silesian and East Prussian German populations were relocated after WW2.

[Nige]

Wow, fantastic.

[Martinned]

Yes, and then we all got together and decided that that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed anymore.

https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions

[Bob from Ohio]

"we all got together"

Not me!

"shouldn’t be allowed anymore"

I don't care.

[Nige]

Noody's asking you.

[Martinned]

@Bob: I'm afraid the US Senate spoke for you.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/03/15/senateexecrept-9-1955.pdf

[I Callahan]

AL - it’s time to stop appeasing the lefties like Nige. We tried it their way, and it obviously doesn’t work. You have nothing to apologize for for any of your scenarios.

[Nige]

The Israeli government - famous for appeasing lefties.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hoping for peace, Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005.

[Nige]

Pity they didn't sustain it.

[Ed Grinberg]

Pity they didn’t sustain it.

???
They stayed out — until the crazed barbarians killed hundreds of their citizens in a cross-border incursion.

[Nige]

There are illegal Israeli settlemtns all over the place, that's not 'staying out.'

[Bob from Ohio]

Not in Gaza, you dope.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A 500 yard DMZ will not stop rockets or people who fly over it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, he did say "500m"...

[Armchair Lawyer]

What's evil about attacking Iran for supporting a terrorist organization?

[Nige]

Starting another war in the Middle East? That’s always a Good Thing to do! What sort of casualty count are we talking about, a million civilians alone? What sort of treasure should we funnel to corrupt Iranian con-men and slimey US corporations? Billions of billions? How long for the occupation, a decade or so? How many US military lives lost or ruined? How disastrous should the eventual withdrawal be, leaving the place even more of a cradle for terrorism and violence than before?

Some people really are unteachable.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The war has already been started by Hamas and Iran.

[Martinned]

I don't suppose you have any evidence for Iran being involved? (Unless you're one of those people who believe that the US is currently at war with Russia in Ukraine.)

[Michael P]

Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad said that the terror group “had direct backing for the attack from Iran.”

https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/363627/hamas-says-iran-supported-surprise-attack-against-israel/

[Nige]

Hamas say - fair enough, but I wonder how true it is.

[Martinned]

And the Ukrainians have "backing" from the US and Europe. That doesn't make all of us parties to the war.

[Nige]

Iran can hardly be allowed to get away with it though, if confirmed, short of military retaliation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, I think it does make us parties to the war, but we're parties to the side that got attacked and is defending, while Iran is party to the side that attacked.

[Martinned]

That's not really relevant for the ius in bello. The consequence of your view is that it would be fair game for the Russians to drop bombs on US military installations.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fair game "

What does this even mean? The Russians could certainly drop bombs on our bases if they wanted to, its not Latin phrases or international "law" that stops them, its our power.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And I think you mean ius ad bellum.

[Brett Bellmore]

As the aggressors in an unjust war of aggression, NOBODY is fair game for Russia. Zellenskyy could walk up to Putin and stick a gun in his mouth and not be 'fair game'.

The concept is inapplicable to the aggressor in an unjust war.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Fair game" in an illegal war? Interesting.

[Martinned]

@bob: "Fair game" was may shorthand for a lawful target, as you well know.

@TwelveInchPianist: No, I definitely don't mean ius ad bellum. There is a war now, the question is what is and isn't a legal target.

@Brett: Who is the aggressor, and whether the war was legal or not (it essentially never is, under current international law) is irrelevant for the laws that govern how the war is subsequently pursued.

@ObviouslyNotSpam: Yes. That's the distinction that the law makes between ius ad bellum and ius in bello.

[Don Nico]

But the US certainly is. That is what pushing NATO to the Russian frontier, overthrowing a pro-Russian government, supplying $100B of weapons including the outlawed cluster bombs plus tactical intelligence support to target ships, bridges and military commanders makes the US.

[David Nieporent]

Not sure why you're still pushing this Russian propaganda. NATO did not "push" to the Russian frontier. Rather, countries close to Russia asked to join so they'd be protected from Russia.

The people of Ukraine — not the U.S. — overthrew their government in 2014. And they've since had elections in the parts of Ukraine not then occupied by Russia to ratify this.

Cluster munitions are not "outlawed."

[Martinned]

Cluster munitions are outlawed, just not in the US. (Who are therefore welcome to drop them on themselves.)

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

[David Nieporent]

Cluster munitions are outlawed, just not in the US. (Who are therefore welcome to drop them on themselves.)

“We agree we won’t use them” != outlawed. Also, not “just not in the U.S.” Neither Russia nor Ukraine ratified the treaty either. If Lichtenstein and Palau agree they won’t use cluster munitions on each other, bully for them, but it has no relationship to anything about whether the U.S. is supplying them to Ukraine or Ukraine is using them against Russia.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Iran Helped Plot Attack on Israel Over Several Weeks
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gave the final go-ahead last Monday in Beirut"

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25

[Martinned]

Now do Ukraine.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If the US directly gave Ukraine the funds and weapons to engage in a massive unprovoked attack on the Russian mainland, with all the planning, yes, Russia might view it as an attack by the US.

But that's not what happened.

[Nige]

That’s because Ukraine has international backing in its self-defence. The same can’t be said for Iran, but only idiots and arms manufacturers would want an actual military invasion.

[Michael P]

The true analogy would be whether we not only provided the training and equipment for such an initial attack, but if Ukraine also waited for US approval to attack.

That's why your first statement -- which triggered Martinned so badly -- is true. Hamas waited for Iran's approval, so the war was started by those two parties.

[Martinned]

You're confusing the ius ad bellum with the ius in bello. If we're parties to the Ukraine/Russia war, that means that the other side (i.e. Russia) can attack our military targets without violating the ius in bello.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I believe you do need to differentiate here, between two different situations.

In the first situation, a major power funds, arms, and plans out an major attack on the homeland of a second major power, using a minor power as a proxy. This is akin to the current situation in Israel, or for example, if during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Cuba launched a nuclear attack on Miami.

In the second situation, a major power funds and arms a defense of a minor power, against a direct attack by a second major power. This is a proxy war, the war itself is largely limited to the minor power. This is akin to Vietnam or Ukraine.

The difference is the major attack on the soil of the major power.

[Martinned]

@AL: The concept of a "proxy war" is a political one, not a legal one. (Or at least the law has not yet developed to incorporate it.)

- If country A gives/sells weapons to country X, which uses them for its war with country B, that does not create a state of war between A and B.
- If country A gives/sells weapons to country X, and exercises material (though distant) control on how/when X uses them against B, that still probably does not create a state of war between A and B.
- If country A sends soldiers and weapons to country X, and has those soldiers engage in armed combat with country B, that creates a state of war between A and B.

In Vietnam, the US had boots on the ground. (But, at the relevant time, the Soviets and the Chinese did not.) In your Cuban Missile Crisis hypo, that would not have constituted an act of war by Russia against the US. More likely, however, is that the Soviets would have sent their soldiers with their nukes, and kept those nukes under the control of Soviet military personnel. If the Red Army had attacked the US from Cuba, that would have been an act of war from the Soviet Union against the US.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Martinned,

The "laws" of war are not legal laws, in any real sense. "Laws" require enforcement, and there is no real enforcement by any third party of any of these laws. If they were enforced, Hamas would have been imprisoned long ago, for its multitude of crimes.

Rather, the "Laws of war" are political conventions. War itself being the continuation of "politics" by other means. Dancing around the concept of "well, I didn't really attack your country, this other guy who we gave the money and weapons to, oh and we helped plan the attack, and gave the final approval to do so but didn't actually push the button." That doesn't work. It doesn't work in criminal law in a country. And it doesn't work internationally. Politically it's clear what's going on.

Ignoring that is folly.

[Martinned]

The “laws” of war are not legal laws, in any real sense.

That would be news to the drafters of the US constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So...you view the US has a responsibility to enforce the laws of war against Hamas for their clear violations thereof?

Is that your view? The US should be the enforcer here, and arrest Hamas for its violations?

[Martinned]

@AL: I'm not sure how you got that from my previous comments, but sure. If a Hamas leader comes to the US they should be arrested and extradited to The Hague.

[Nige]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise Hamas and Iran are writing a script, or you think there's a script they're writing, that everybody is somehow obliged to follow helplessly and stupidly.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think attacking Iran would be evil. It might be unwise. The lesson of Iraq is you can find a country or leader that has it coming, find a casus belli, assemble overwhelming force, and end up regretting winning the war.

Much better to interdict supplies somewhere outside of Iranian territory.

[Nige]

So unwise that to actually do it would be tantamount to evil, would be my point.

[Martinned]

A. Gaza has the first 500 meters of its land in all directions turned into a DMZ, heavily mined, in order to prevent anything like this from happening again.

How is that different from what they already have?

B. Gaza is forcibly evacuated, with the Palestinian population being shipped to another country. Potentially Iran. Israel doesn’t want Gaza, but can’t have a hostile population there.

In addition to ethnic cleansing being a war crime, shipping Palestinians to Iran is also complete nonsense.

C. Iran is directly attacked by Israel for its role in supporting a terrorist organization.

Sure, why wouldn't Israel start World War III?

[Armchair Lawyer]

A. They do not have a heavily armed DMZ in that amount of depth around Gaza.

B. It may be a crime. But there's been an endless stream of attacks from Gaza. For decades. If the Gaza population keeps attacking and killing Israeli...it's got to go.

C. The war has already been started. If Iran's going to support terrorism, then it's going to need to pay the cost of doing so. Otherwise, it'll just keep doing it.

[Martinned]

A. They do not have a heavily armed DMZ in that amount of depth around Gaza.

True. Then again, since the Gaza strip is only 6 km wide in some places, what you're proposing knocks a substantial amount of territory off an already over-populated strip of land. (I don't get the impression that you're imagining your DMZ on the Israeli side of the border.) It also doesn't do a lot against rockets.

B. It may be a crime. But there’s been an endless stream of attacks from Gaza. For decades. If the Gaza population keeps attacking and killing Israeli…it’s got to go.

Ah, so you're proposing collective punishment. That alright then...

C. The war has already been started. If Iran’s going to support terrorism, then it’s going to need to pay the cost of doing so. Otherwise, it’ll just keep doing it.

Make up your mind, are you angry about terrorism or a war? Also, could you sound any more like Putin?

[Armchair Lawyer]

A. Yes. Sad, but needs to happen. And the majority of the deaths here weren't due to Rockets

B. Not collective "punishment". Removing the source of the problem somewhere farther away. It's not punishment anymore than moving a barrel of gunpowder away from your bedroom is punishing the gunpowder.

C. I'm sorry, what? Do you mean to imply that Ukraine invaded Russia, abducting and raping Russian civilians, and the US ordered all that?

[Harvey Mosley]

What if we changed
"A. Gaza has the first 500 meters of its land in all directions turned into a DMZ, heavily mined, in order to prevent anything like this from happening again."
to "Israel creates a DMZ of at least 500 meters on its own territory, heavily mined, in order to prevent anything like this from happening again?"

Would it be okay then?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I suppose if 500m isn't enough, 1,000m might work? (At some point, it would definitely work...)

[Frank Drackman]

Apparently you're not aware of 1: this invention called "The Airplane" 2: this invention called "Missiles" 3: Geography: Gaza's not landlocked, idiot.

Frank

[Aunt Teefah]

Neocons have somehow managed to get even stupider. Amazing.

[I Callahan]

No, we’re going with what works. Assuaging the “feelz” of all correct thinking lefties got Israel into the mess it’s in now. It’s time to face reality: until Palestinian can come into modern 21st century thought, treat them like the 6th century barbarians that they are.

Stop virtue signaling.

[Nige]

'No, we’re going with what works. Assuaging the “feelz” of all correct thinking lefties got Israel into the mess it’s in now.'

Netanyahu is woke now.

[Aunt Teefah]

"we’re going with what works"

No, they're going to bomb Gaza, kill a bunch of civilians, and further oppress the Palestinians. Just like they do every couple years or so, like clockwork. But hey, maybe the 17th time's the charm, right? Maybe this will be the time Israel will be able to kill its way to peace.

Lmao, you morons will never learn.

[Ed Grinberg]

they’re going to bomb Gaza, kill a bunch of civilians, and further oppress the Palestinians. Just like they do every couple years or so, like clockwork. But hey, maybe the 17th time’s the charm, right? Maybe this will be the time Israel will be able to kill its way to peace.

I'm pretty sure you're making this up out of whole cloth. AFAIK, Israel has not been interfering with Gaza in any way. In fact, they've been granting work-permits for Gazans to cross into Israel, only shutting down the crossings in response to terrorist acts.

[Aunt Teefah]

You are badly mistaken, I'm afraid. Israel not only interferes with Gaza, it attacks and bombs it every few years or so. See https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-attacks-on-gaza-since-2005. And while some Palestinians in the *West Bank* are permitted to work in Israel, those in Gaza are under a blockade, and are not allowed into Israel for any reason.

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad you’re not over there. They’d shoot a (redacted) like you just as easy as an Israeli.

[Aunt Teefah]

Coherent and persuasive as usual, Francis.

[David Nieporent]

those in Gaza are under a blockade, and are not allowed into Israel for any reason.

Wrong as usual.

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-ap-top-news-israel-blockades-0bbd46d074739dbb8b4a7083f6cd63fb

[Commenter_XY]

D. Israel isolates Gaza from the world, and conducts a war with Hamas until they are physically obliterated. Fight it out.

There will be no peace. Only war and death for Hamas.

[Martinned]

That's what Israel has been trying to do since Ariel Sharon withdrew Israeli presence from the Gaza strip. How has that been working out so far?

[Commenter_XY]

You are profoundly ignorant, Martinned. The experiment with disengagement is over, and Oslo is dead. It is a failed policy. The attack on Simchat Torah (and Shabbat), it's medieval savagery, is everything you need to know Hamas. There is no co-existing.

The answer to a Judeocidal enemy is death. Obliterate them.

[Martinned]

O wow...

You're not even pretending not to be a genocidal maniac.

[Don Nico]

No he isn't but you keep defending the genocidal war criminals that run Gaza and who were chosen by Gazans to rule them.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Dr. Ed 3 is that you?

Bloodlust isn't a great look.

[Bob from Ohio]

oh stop lying. Until yesterday Israel was supplying electricity and water. Once in a while hamas would launch rockets and there would be a brief response.

It was proportionate and limited like you want. And useless.

[Nige]

It was certainly useless for ending the overall conflict.

[Martinned]

Are you telling me that Israel hasn't been trying to kill or arrest every member of Hamas they could get their hands on until yesterday?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they haven't. They have been very limited in what they've done going after Hamas.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, they have to exchange someone for the hostages, don't they?

[Don Nico]

If you mean assassinations, I'll give you that. And what is your objection to killing those who launch rockets at civilians?

[Aunt Teefah]

What exactly do you think they've been trying to do for the last 20+ years?

[Gasman]

Well, there's the 'final solution' option.
Israel could exercise that option on Gaza, and declare things square with history.

[Mr. Bumble]

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY to all my Guido friends.

[Ben_]

And Happy Indigenous Peoples Day to America-haters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The insurrections celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day?

[Frank Drackman]

Like Senator Poke-a-Hontas, I celebrate 1/1024th of it

[Idihax]

The latest intifada is Israel incurring the wrath of God for permitting abortion and homosexuality in its midst. A modern day flood.

[Mr. Bumble]

Idihax, the anti-Nige.

[Life of Brian]

OK, my fine feathered friend -- I really don't block much, but you're truly zero signal 100% noise. Probably RabbiHarveyWeinstein's latest incarnation. Bye now.

[apedad]

C'mon man, that's so Westboro Baptist Church-ish circa 2006.

You gotta come up with fresh material.

[Idihax]

God's wrath is eternal.

[Martinned]

I guess that Michelle Donelan was right last week to say that science is woke. The Nobel committee just gave the Nobel Prize in Economics to Claudia Goldin “for having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes.”

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I know economics is the dismal science, but making a market out of women's labour sounds rather barbaric.

[apedad]

‘Can you be extradited for treason?’: Feds say former Army sergeant with spy background tried to pass U.S. secrets to China

Former U.S. Army Sgt. Daniel Schmidt’s futile attempts at dispersing classified information showed his background training in spycraft was missing in action after prosecutors in Seattle announced this week he was taken into custody and charged with trying to pass American secrets to China.

“I have a current top secret clearance and would like to talk to someone from the government to share this information with you if that is possible,” Schmidt allegedly wrote before running down a list of his skills, including being a “spy handler” and in a stroke of seeming irony, “surveillance detection.”

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/can-you-be-extradited-for-treason-feds-say-former-army-sergeant-with-spy-background-tried-to-pass-u-s-secrets-to-china/

something something Military Intelligence and oxymoron.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Today in Supreme Court History

Piton v. Bordenkircher, 444 U.S. 1 (decided October 9, 1979): Court, relying on its own recent precedent, reverses the denial of habeas and remands back to District Court; after state court conviction for manslaughter, lower court applied former standard for violation of Due Process (reversing only if there is “no evidence in support of conviction”); new, more defendant-friendly standard is whether if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”

Agoston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 340 U.S. 844 (decided October 9, 1950): denying cert in murder case; Frankfurter in support writes to emphasize that denying cert does not mean the Court is affirming the decision below; Douglas and Black dissent, pointing out that this case is similar to a recent case where the Court had overturned conviction on Due Process grounds (Turner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62) (in that pre-Miranda case, appearance before magistrate was delayed until confession had been obtained by police after “prolonged questioning”)

[grb]

Two additional works of architecture (linked below) :

Xeros Residence by Blank Studio Catalina House by Studio RickJoy

The Phoenix region has a rich history of modern architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright built his winter estate and fellowship school nearby, and that has functioned in some capacity to this day. Likewise Paolo Soleri, whose utopian desert city, Arcosanti, is outside of town, (albeit a tiny fraction of its imaged size). Lastly, there is the long-term presence of Will Bruder, an exceptional architect who spent decades in Phoenix, mentoring many architects who later formed practices of their own. So forget about all those EIFS faux-Spanish Colonial facades; a lot is happening in the background. Thus these two houses:

Xeros is a small house by Matthew Trzebiatowski of Blank Studio, occupying a long narrow site in the crook of a dead-end street at city’s edge. The building has a partially finished studio space at grade level, but all living spaces are raised one story up. That floor is like a shotgun house, long and narrow with a suite of spaces along its length. There’s a balcony & view to North Mountain on the public side, and the bedroom looks over a low desert hill line.

The exterior materials are Corten corrugated siding and glass – the former unfinished steel that naturally oxidizes to a luscious rust-red. But the house also has a scrim of metal mesh hung across its façade in long vertical sheets, providing privacy and protection against the harsh Arizona sun. Plus there are sections of polycarbonate panels in rich hues of green and blue providing color contrast inside and out. The interior floors and cabinets are done in a brown so dark as to read black and its walls are plastered creamy white. These limited colors are augmented by neon blues, greens and yellows from accent lighting and plastic glazing.

It’s an idiosyncratic house, designed for a single person or couple (in this case, the architect himself). He would later sell as his family grew and it’s interesting to see realtor pictures from subsequent owners, its spaces crammed with heavy clumsy furniture. A delicate creation to be sure, but nice regardless.

The Catalina House is further south, close to Tucson. It has a wider palate, with steel, concrete, wood, glass, and heavy exterior walls of rammed earth. These give the building the substance of the ground it inhabits, plus wavy compression layering like the geologic striations in surrounding rock. The house is ordered as a group of pavilions, two just connected at one corner and a third set apart. Per Joy, these three forms camp around a fragile natural world of cacti and mesquite trees, along with the site’s other desert flora and burrowing fauna. It’s accessible only by narrow path and four-wheel drive vehicle. As of recently, its owner had been in the house over two decades and was 95yrs old.

https://amazingarchitecture.com/houses/xeros-residence-in-phoenix-arizona-built-by-180-degrees-design-buildhttps://studiorickjoy.com/work/catalina-house/

[Mr. Bumble]

Wonder what you think of cable stayed bridges, which seem to be the dominant type of bridge construct today?

[grb]

A lot of bridges today have single masts with cable stays and are beautifully spare and elegant. Of course I'm someone who tries to work-in a walk across the Brooklyn Bridge whenever spending a day in NYC, so am partial to the genre.

[SRG2]

My father, who was a civil engineer, was a big fan of cable stayed bridges. In his view, the rise in cable-stayed bridges was due not just to their aesthetic appeal but to more advanced engineering software programs allowing their slender designs to be constructed with confidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

This example, not far from here, would tend to validate that view. Working everything out with pencil and paper would be possible, to be sure, but it would take a team of mathematicians a year to solve the equations.

We frequently take the walk from Cleveland park (Where the parking is free.) into Falls park. It's quite scenic, and it's been years since you had to walk across a sewer pipe to get over the river at one point.

The Grand Bohemian lodge that overlooks the park does not detract one bit from it, either. Possibly not to your taste, but it is to mine.

[grb]

SRG2 : "In his view, the rise in cable-stayed bridges was due not just to their aesthetic appeal but to more advanced engineering software programs"

I dunno guys. Take the bridge across Tampa Bay (which I occasionally crossed in my Florida days). Does that create a special problem for structural calculations beyond the traditional one in NYC? I could see modern materials and construction techniques being more impactful in moving from the latter to the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge

[Brett Bellmore]

It being straight does simplify the calculations enormously.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Strange looking houses. Were they practical?

Some years ago I passed through Arizona and the man I was staying with got angry at me for leaving the front door open. This let in the hot air; the house was stone, blessedly cool (it was about 110° outside) and it was important that sun and air be kept out. The Xeros house, at least, looks like the occupants would be boiling by day and freezing by night.

[grb]

Both houses have a lot of glass which challenges the mechanical systems – though the Xeros mesh scrim helps a little. The real question is how Catalina’s mass walls work, because it’s not easy insulating walls made of dirt. In theory they’re ideal for climates with hot days and cool nights, absorbing and radiating heat over 12hr cycles.

Xeros also has a few layout issues, but is so damn clever a piece of work. I don’t know where I’d shelve my books if I inherited either home.

[grb]

(Of course the extensive glass in either house is oriented away from the sun. In Xeros, the side of the house getting the harshest sunlight has no glass at all. Below is a YouTube clip of architect, bless his heart, and family (apparently they did raise a toddler in the house, though I’m not sure how). Also: bonus Rick Joy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBfRIbYcJPghttps://amazingarchitecture.com/houses/desert-nomad-house-in-tucson-arizona-by-studio-rick-joy

[SRG2]

boiling by day and freezing by night.

I am reminded of that observation that the desert is a very cold place that is very hot in daytime.

[Brett Bellmore]

The one in Phoenix strikes me as the sort of thing that ought to be off by itself, not in a suburban neighborhood.

[grb]

Even if I don’t agree, that’s certainly a valid objection. It’s right on the edge of the city, where Phoenix stops and a nature preserve begins, but I think still a half-block away from the line.

That said, I bet there are a dozen house styles within a hundred-yard radius. I don’t see why this house alone needs to be segregated.

Also, I found another set of pics!

https://azarchitecture.com/listing/xeros-residence-aia-award-winning-record-home/

[not guilty]

Donald Trump’s lawyers have dusted off the Richard Nixon trope, “If the president does it, it’s not illegal,” asking Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss the D.C. indictment. Joyce Vance has suggested that, if/when the District Court denies the motion to dismiss, Trump can take an interlocutory appeal. https://joycevance.substack.com/p/not-a-quiet-thursday

I’m not so sure. In a civil case, a District Court interlocutory order denying a defendant’s claim of immunity from suit is regarded as a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742 (1982). In a criminal case, however, the final judgment rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984).

The Supreme Court has found only three types of pretrial orders in criminal prosecutions to meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine. Flanagan, at 265-66; United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982). An order denying a motion to reduce bail may be reviewed before trial. Orders denying motions to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy or speech or debate grounds for members of Congress are likewise immediately appealable. Flanagan, at 266.

No doubt Team Trump hopes that SCOTUS will make an additional exception to the final judgment requirement by granting review in this case, but he does not presently have a right to appellate review of an interlocutory order denying his motion to dismiss.

[apedad]

Do you think Trump’s strategy is simply to delay the (three?) federal proceedings as long as possible and hope he wins the election?

Then pardon himself?

[not guilty]

Yes, I do think that is Trump's strategy (but it is only two federal proceedings). If he succeeds in getting the D.C. trial continued, however, the Fulton County trial could begin in March 2024. No delay, no pretrial appeal, no pardon, and confinement pending appeal is discretionary.

[apedad]

Is this correct?

Federal
Classified Documents Case (Criminal)
Insurrection Case (Criminal)

State Level
Georgia Election (Criminal)
Hush Money (Criminal)
NY Fraud (Civil)

[not guilty]

Yes, it is correct. There is also a federal civil suit (applying New York substantive law) brought by E. Jean Carroll.

[Jerry B.]

So, sort of a rerun of when Eugene Debs ran for president from the Atlanta penitentiary?

[apedad]

And James Curley (Boston Mayor and Mass. Gov.).

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

[grb]

The WaPo did a rough tally of Trump’s attacks on judges, prosecutors and witnesses:

Calls them ‘racist’ : 4
Makes-up lies about their romantic lives : 2
Attacks their family members : 6
Calls them ‘Marxist’ and ‘Fascist’ : 5
Says they’re subhuman : 3
Says they’re ‘biased’ and anti-Trump : 6
Accuses them of election interference : 4
Says they’re crazy : 7
Says they’re criminal : 3
Threatens them : 6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/05/catalogue-trumps-attacks-judges-prosecutors-witnesses/

[Frank Drackman]

Well he's right so there's that.

[Idihax]

Sometimes the truth hurts. Erganon and Chutkan are the biggest pieces of shit the world has ever seen.

[grb]

Gee. What luck. My comment draws-in all the wack-jobs, loons and crackpots.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't be so hard on yourself. The world needs wack-jobs, loons, and crackpots.
But I think the "Jerk Store" is calling

Frank

[grb]

Frank Drackman : "The world needs wack-jobs, loons, and crackpots."

I guess it helps for you to tell yourself that....

[Dan Schiavetta]

Any other defendant who did all that would be cited for contempt, either fined or jailed.

[Life of Brian]

Out of court? Citation badly needed. I know you don't expect us to believe that Trump is the first person in the United States to mouth off about being railroaded.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Defendants are placed under gag orders frequently. Trump himself was placed under one, only to the limited extent of not talking trash about the judge's clerk.

[Life of Brian]

Trump himself was placed under one, only to the limited extent of not talking trash about the judge’s clerk.

I presume you would have mentioned it if he had done so again afterward. Since he apparently didn't, I'm still waiting for your long list of citations of all the other people who have been "cited for contempt, either fined or jailed" for saying such things out of court without being under a gag order.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many fat-assed losers whine and whimper about failing to make the Forbes list after their financial frauds have been revealed?

Wait until he learns the warden won’t approve hair dye and spray-on tan.

[Idihax]

Any other person wouldn't be a defendant in the first place.

[Ben_]

Trump should tone it down and focus. Too much of that stuff and it loses impact.

He’s probably mostly correct, but he should save it for the ones who deserve it most.

[grb]

Ben_ : "Trump should tone it down and focus."

You do realize we're not talking about an adult here? Two-years-olds bloated to big person size have a problem with focus.

[Nige]

'He’s probably mostly correct'

You're all off your rockers.

[Life of Brian]

1. The fact that WaPo has tasked people with painstakingly keeping score on this stuff is just this week's clear-cut sign that TDS lives.

2. To get their shock-value count, they're really having to stretch on a number of them. For example, they counted this as a "veiled threat": “Why does FoxNews constantly put on slow thinking and lethargic Bill Barr, who didn’t have the courage or stamina to fight the Radical Left lunatics while he was A.G., and who, even more importantly, refused to fight Election Fraud.” A second so-called "veiled threat": "Falsely claimed Raffensperger told Trump that Trump 'didn’t do anything wrong.'" I'll hold for the NewSpeak definition of "veiled threat" that makes stuff like this even remotely count.

3. Re the "anti-Trump bias" bucket, building on what I said in another comment below, if the implication in this article really is that we now have a special, Trump-only rule that a defendant can't say the people prosecuting him have an agenda and are railroading him, that's just another layer of the TDS cake.

4. The article itself thus seems to consume its own fainting-couch category of calling TDS-steeped people "deranged" &c., by demonstrating it's nothing more than blissfully factual.

[Frank Drackman]

Suddenly my proposal for a
"Dr. Baruch Goldstein Kosher Deli/Shootin' Range"
doesn't sound like such a crazy idea.

Frank

[Martinned]

Free tip: On Wednesday Chatham House is organising an event about the Israel-Hamas war. Looks like a good one, and it's available to view remotely.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/research-event/israel-hamas-war-and-its-fallout

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This blog has operated for

TEN (10)

days without publishing
a vile racial slur; it has
published racial slurs
on at least

TWENTY-EIGHT (28)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
28 different discussions,
not 28 racial slurs; many
of those discussions
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, antisemitic,
Islamophobic, racist, and immigrant-hating
slurs and other bigoted content
published daily at this conservative
blog, which is presented from the
right-wing fringe of modern legal
academia by members of the
Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale and ugly thinking, here is something worthwhile.

Related: This is a good one, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Two more from Philadelphia, Gamble, and Huff.

[Frank Drackman]

What about Josh Kruger??
Oh yeah, he was "Replaced" (with extreme prejudice) by one of your "Bettors"

[Armchair Lawyer]

Hillary Clinton made an interesting comment in an interview.

She said those people who support Donald Trump need "formal deprogramming".

That's.... disturbing. What exactly is "formal deprogramming?" Is a government run camp involved?

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4241678-hillary-clinton-maga-cult-members-need-deprogramming/

[Nige]

She made a joke. Trump says worse ten times a day, and he's actually running for president.

[Jerry B.]

That assumes that Ms. Clinton has a sense of humor. I’ve seen no evidence of that.

[Nige]

Huge if true.

[Ben_]

Yeah, totalitarians like reeducation camps. There was never any doubt Hillary is a terrible person. Maybe it’s a surprise to some that she is dumb enough to say it. Remember she was too dumb to campaign in Wisconsin.

[Nige]

The sheer grim humourlessness of the perpetually offended who have slim pickings to get offended by.

[grb]

Today’s Right is so addicted to conspiracies and victimhood hysteria they have to pretend drivel like this is real. Kevin Drum noticed one of their latest fake-controversies: “The War on Cars™” Over at the National Review, some guy excreted a long breathless piece about how Libs were trying to steal peoples cars. And why? His quote:

“Their policy prescriptions are about control, not the climate. And the car, with its promise of freedom and autonomy, is, both symbolically and in reality, the opposite of that.”

Only an imbecile could believe that bullshit, but all the little NR commenters lined-up like obedient sheep to bleat indignation about this evil plot to steal away “freedom and autonomy”. Of course it’s all theatrics and Righties accept that. These days they're all about WWE-style entertainment from their politics. Why else do you think they built a cult around a reality-TV star huckster buffoon?

And it’s way, way easier to get their pro-wrestling-grade drama out of pretend issues, pretend controversies, and pretend conspiracies. When consumer-friendly entertainment is the sole end, reality just gets in the way.

https://jabberwocking.com/the-war-on-cars-is-going-very-badly-indeed/

[Brett Bellmore]

She's getting up there in years, too. 75. And she suffered a serious concussion in 2014 that took half a year at least to recover from.

Just the aging would be enough to explain her losing her "filter", the brain injury doubtless didn't help. I've seen it in several elderly people, with and without head injuries.

And, of course, Hillary knows her political career is over at this point, so he doesn't have a lot of reason to pretend to be a nicer person than she really is. So, why not admit she thinks the political opposition should be sent to reeducation camps? It's not going to cost her anything to say it.

[grb]

Hilarious! Taking a break from diagnosing Biden, I see. Hillary makes a joke and Brett sees brain damage. Don’t you ever tire of playing the clown?

PS : If Biden and Trump end up sharing a debate stage, who do you think will win?

[Don Nico]

" If Biden and Trump end up sharing a debate stage"
I don't see that happening

[grb]

Because Trump doesn't show, or due to alternate candidates?

[Don Nico]

I don't think that Biden should honor the Orange Clown with his presence

[Jmaie]

"There's no winners in the fart game."

[David Nieporent]

Not only that, but he gets his facts wrong; it was 2012, not 2014.

[Nige]

She made a joke, snowflake.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's what people on the left always claim when they get caught saying something really awful. "It was a joke."

[Martinned]

Sure, "the left"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLp0un_FHk

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How do you think the autism affects your statements and perceptions, Mr. Bellmore?

[Ed Grinberg]

Whenever normal people forget how "liberals" really feel about them, along comes Hillary and helpfully reminds them.

[Nige]

When you have to wait eight years for someone to say something that people supposedly all feel, and they're joking, you may have a head full of straw.

[Martinned]

This seems 100% right.

Open letter from Israeli international law experts

In the early morning hours of October 7, 2023, Hamas militants entered Israel. They intentionally killed hundreds of civilians. They also took dozens of hostages to the Gaza strip, including women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities.

These actions constitute gross violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. We stress that all parties to an armed conflict must comply with norms of international law in general and the law of armed conflict in particular, including the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks and measures targeting civilians.

The taking of hostages is a blatant violation of international law. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Pending their release, they are all entitled to be treated with humanity and respect. This includes the receipt of proper medical care and supply of essential medication for those who need it, and the provision of information regarding the hostages and means of communication with them.

We call upon the international community, including all states and relevant international organizations to pressure those holding the hostages to release them all immediately.

https://verfassungsblog.de/open-letter-from-israeli-international-law-experts/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense nothing is 100% right in a context such as this, but maybe 99%,

[Frank Drackman]

May a Hamas Terrorist give you a 7.62 x 39mm lobotomy!

[Jerry B.]

I often wondered if the Rev wasn’t post-lobotomy.

[Commenter_XY]

I am sure that Hamas will get right on that... = they are all entitled to be treated with humanity and respect. This includes the receipt of proper medical care and supply of essential medication for those who need it, and the provision of information regarding the hostages and means of communication with them

[Bob from Ohio]

So, so naive.

Bunch of Israeli international "law" experts [most if not all Jews] write an open letter and 12th century savages are going just comply.

[Commenter_XY]

I was being sarcastic = I am sure that Hamas will get right on that…

[Bob from Ohio]

Sorry, I was commenting that the experts were naive. I know you know better.

unclear writing.

[Martinned]

I think the point is that sometimes you have to say what is right even if there's little chance of anyone listening.

[John F. Carr]

The Red Cross has some notes on hostage taking. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule96

See also the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Israel is a participant. Palestine is not.

[Martinned]

Exactly.

(And, for the record, Israel would presumably say that Palestine is not a state and therefore not capable of ratifying that Convention.)

[Don Nico]

And yet the EU will continue to send aid to Palestinians with no need of an investigation.

[Martinned]

Since you mentioned it: Yesterday the EU Commissioner for Neighbourhood and Enlargement, who is responsible for dealings with Israel and Palestine, tweeted that:

•All payments immediately suspended.
•All projects put under review.
•All new budget proposals, incl. for 2023 postponed until further notice.
•Comprehensive assessment of the whole portfolio.

But apparently he did that without (sufficient) backing from the rest of the College, so later the Commission issued a press release walking that back at least a little bit. But there's still no money going to the Palestinians any time soon.

The Commission unequivocally condemns the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel over the weekend. Following these events, the Commission is announcing today that it is launching an urgent review of the EU's assistance for Palestine.

In addition to the existing safeguards, the objective of this review is to ensure that no EU funding indirectly enables any terrorist organization to carry out attacks against Israel.

The Commission will equally review if, in light of the changed circumstances on the ground, its support programmes to the Palestinian population and to the Palestinian Authority need to be adjusted.

The Commission will carry out this review as soon as possible and coordinate with Member States and partners any follow up action necessary.

In the meantime, as there were no payments foreseen, there will be no suspension of payments.

This review does not concern humanitarian assistance provided under European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO).

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4850

Such incompetence...

[Michael P]

Harvard fosters an extremely hostile educational environment, in violation of civil rights laws. I look forward to the Biden administration cutting off federal funds until the university remedies this assault on students' security.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/09/thirty-one-harvard-organizations-blame-israel-for-hamas-attack/

[Ed Grinberg]

Today, [the Ivy League and their near competitors] are utterly bankrupt — not financially, of course. No, in a good old greedy capitalist sense, they are filthy, stinking rich. It is only in an intellectual and moral sense that they are bankrupt. They are, all of them, totally in thrall to what we have come to call “woke” ideology, which has poisoned the well of their intellectual pretensions by subordinating the life of the mind to identity politics.
…the educational establishment in its highest reaches is today a cesspool, contaminating the society it had been, at great expense, created to nurture.
…cauldron of iniquity…

source: https://spectatorworld.com/topic/ivy-league-scolds-amy-wax-penn-culture/

A 2019 article by Liel Leibovitz, titled “Get Out,” argued that the increasingly open hostility of American universities toward Jews is inseparable from the universities’ increasingly brazen rejection of two values that, during the 20th century, made them into places where Jews specifically, and ambitious and open-minded people generally, could thrive: meritocracy and free debate. In 2019, I thought that Leibovitz was exaggerating and rather overwrought. Everything that’s happened since has shown that he was spot on.
…I can’t bear to spend one more moment in a place that’s morally and intellectually bankrupt.

source: https://www.commonsense.news/p/why-im-giving-up-tenure-at-ucla

[not guilty]

"Harvard fosters an extremely hostile educational environment, in violation of civil rights laws."

How do you claim to know the environment at Harvard? When were you there?

[Michael P]

Why is your response always denialism and ad hominem argument? Don't you have any non-fallacious modes of thinking?

[not guilty]

Ad hominem doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. When you make a polemical claim, you should be prepared to support it. Asking for the factual basis for your claim is not ad hominem. If you are talking through your hat, what you say is unworthy of belief.

And where do you get that there is any violation of civil rights laws? Which civil rights laws? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Ben_]

Obamacare didn’t save any money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/02/obamacare-money-health-care-save/

"Preventive care turned out to cost more than it saved, in part because doctors may need to treat a lot of minor conditions to prevent one serious health crisis. Expanding the number of insured turns out to make emergency room visits rise, not fall, because newly insured people worry less about the cost. A program to reduce hospital readmissions among Medicare patients may have killed thousands, as hospitals tried to avoid admitting patients who might trigger a readmission penalty. A plan to promote new insurance co-ops, a kind of voluntary public option, saw almost all of them fail within six years."

See the article for links to sources for facts.

They meddled with everyone’s health care and didn’t achieve their primary (stated) goal.

[Magister]

Saving money was not the primary (stated) goal of the Affordable Care Act. It was making affordable health insurance available to more people, and the percentage of uninsured is much lower -- blocking Medicaid in some states and removing the mandate have hurt that, but it's still way lower (and the insurance is more likely to be useful).

It is true that not treating minor conditions and using financial ruin to scare people away from emergency room visits would reduce healthcare expenditures; those are savings that we lost with the Affordable Care Act. Putting all seniors out on ice floes would also achieve significant savings. But despite health insurance being better, overall health expenditures rose more slowly in the last ten years than in previous decades (with an obvious outlier in 2020 because of the pandemic).

[grb]

Obamacare had two goals: Lower the cost of healthcare and reduce the number of uninsured. If it didn't achieve the former that's regrettable but not unexpected. People have been trying to do that forever with almost no gains. However you'll be happy to learn it had spectacular success with it's second objective:

"The number of uninsured individuals remains well below levels prior to enactment of the ACA. The number of uninsured nonelderly individuals dropped from more than 46.5 million in 2010 to fewer than 26.7 million in 2016, climbed to 28.9 million individuals in 2019 before dropping again to 27.5 million in 2021"

(You are happy, right?)

[Krayt]

It's a reasonable solution, as it's light on command and control cost central planning.

New drugs and treatments and surgeries are what saves lives in the long run. You can't give it out for free until it is invented first. Any policy which detracts from this, from taxation to regulation to business-unfriendly policies murders. Like continuously-compounded interest, it is what saves the lion's share of lives.

Imagine idiots in 1900 adding feel good laws to help people in that day. You wake up this morning with 1990 level medicine. Ya. You saved a ton of lives giving out 1990 medicine in 2023.

"But that implies things would be even better if more countries were like the US, or the US had different policies."

Yes. And?

[Brett Bellmore]

“It’s a reasonable solution, as it’s light on command and control cost central planning.”

If you ignore that command and control central planning was the whole thing. Tell the insurance companies who they must insure, for how much, what the insurance must cover… That’s not command and control?

It was an entitlement program run off budget by mandating that a regulated industry do it. Like instead of having food stamps, mandate that grocery stores sell food below cost to poor people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wow, 13 years and 27.5 million still uninsured.

Meanwhile for most people it meant higher cost for less coverage.

[Magister]

Down from 48.2 million, of course, and you should also direct your ire at Republican states that refused Medicaid expansion.

Higher cost for less coverage is completely false, so of course Bumble has to say it. At least Dr. Ed 2 has fabricated anecdotes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Insurance is not health care.

[Magister]

The health care that people get at the emergency room but wouldn't have gotten before ACA, as described in the linked opinion piece, is health care which people got because they had insurance. The insurance allows people to get health care they need but wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford.

[David Nieporent]

Reducing the number of uninsured is a weird goal, and it accomplished that goal — despite the complex structure with exchanges and all that crap — primarily by expanding Medicaid. So basically it was a big trick to expand the welfare state, wrapped up in the illusion of a middle class benefit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What kind of antisocial, disaffected assholes want to see more uninsured Americans?

The kind who are right-wing fans of a white, male, disaffected fringe blog.

[David Nieporent]

You wouldn't understand, because it has to do with libertarianism, and you're a left-wing troll.

[Magister]

Libertarians want more people to be uninsured? All men, women and children for themselves? Freedom to suffer and die from untreated health issues? Freedom to become homeless and malnourished because of catastrophic medical bills? Why didn't they think of that before they decided to be poor? Sucks to be them, but also sucks to be someone who wants to sacrifice human beings on the altar of their political belief.

[David Nieporent]

"Wait, libertarians believe in limited government?"

[Magister]

"Limited government" being code words for "enacting Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" or "they had better die and decrease the surplus population" or "screw the lucky-ducky poor" or "let's sacrifice some more human beings at our altar of freedom".

That this appeals to so few of the 50% above the median income suggests reassuringly that we are not overly afflicted with disaffected, antisocial assholes, something to be grateful for in a frequently bleak world.

[Ed Grinberg]

“[Man] seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates.” (John Locke)
“All men…are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” (Thomas Jefferson)
What antisocial assholes, right Reverend?

[Magister]

Those don't seem like people who want to cause suffering just to impede and damage the government they've instituted.

[Longtobefree]

Links to facts? In a WaPo article? Surely you jest.

[Magister]

Well, yes, in a Megan McArdle opinion piece, it's probably cherry picked at best.

[ScottK]

There is bipartisan legislation in both the House and Senate to revamp the requirements for supervision by the Office of Probation and Parole. It's way overdue, we are urinating away tax money on babysitting offenders from decades ago who pose no threat to the public. Chris Coons' page has quotes from most of the sponsors.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Has parole been abolished by now? If so, then the President could pardon the remaining parolees from the predecessor statutory scheme and bring the whole system to an end.

[not guilty]

Federal parole was abolished in 1984. There may be a few persons paroled from sentences imposed before then, but their number is likely insignificant.

[ScottK]

"Supervised release" is what replaced parole, and it's not very different. In particular, low level Tier 1 sex offenders are often given lifetime supervision, which is nuts.

[Frank Drackman]

You're right. They should be executed or at least castrated.

[not guilty]

No, supervised release follows confinement. Unlike parole, it does not shorten the period of confinement.

[Aunt Teefah]

"BREAKING — Egyptian Intelligence Minister called Netanyahu ten days before Hamas attack and warned him of "something unusual, a terrible operation" that was about to take place from Gaza.

Egyptians were "surprised by the indifference shown by Netanyahu"."

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1711460416356765764

Looks like the right-wingers were right about one thing - this really was Israel's 9/11!

[Dr. Ed 2]

We had warnings of Pearl Harbor, even had the incoming Japanese planes on radar, and the case can be made that FDR intentionally let Pearl Harbor happen.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezus, do you spooks spread more bullshit lies, nothing about the Salt Peter they put in Malt Liquor?

[John F. Carr]

Military writer Tom Cooper thinks Gazans kept acting threatening until the Israelis got used to it.

I’ve got no doubt that the Israelis – foremost the AMAN, the Israeli military intelligence – has ‘seen/observed’ all of these exercises. Indeed: that it was closely monitoring them. However, because of the tight security – i.e. because they lack informants within the top ranks of Hamas – AMAN and other of Israeli security services seem to have concluded something like that the exercises were a part of ongoing and psychological warfare. Perhaps aiming to intimidate Israel, perhaps to obtain additional support from Qatar? I do not know: this is on the responsible Israeli officials to explain.

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/israelpalestine-8-october-2023

If the other guys run for the fence and shout insults for 40 days and 40 nights, you will not be as alert on the 41st day when they blow up the fence instead of shouting insults.

[I Callahan]

First response to that tweet: “Where’s the proof?”. How quick lefties are to avoid questioning anything that fits their narrative.

[Martinned]

Are you somehow under the impression that "lefties" are fans of the Egyptian dictator?

[Ed Grinberg]

They're certainly fans of the Palestinian murderers (sorry, "freedom fighters")!

[Krayt]

I regularly say some day there may very well be a proper Palestinian state. On that day, millions around the world will cheer...the creation of another kleotocracy dictatorship?

Just who the hell do you think will take power, and why? Hint: the tears of joy you experience in your imaginations are not likely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at South Africa....

[ScottK]

Or look at Northern Ireland.

The most difficult and protracted hatred can only be overcome where at least one side (the dominant one), or preferably both, choose to be magnanimous and look forward and not backward. Sadat and Rabin were both killed for their efforts at just that.

Netanyahoo will respond to a massacre with a bigger massacre, and outside of a few pointy headed readers of Haaretz, few will care. Sucks to be you, Israelis. (And Gazans, but it has always sucked to be a Gazan.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Being magnanimous only works if the other side is open to it. Hamas isn't.

Massacres work so long as the other side is mortal, they don't require cooperation.

I mean, the first route IS desirable if it's possible, but if it's not possible, it just gets you killed.

[Mr. Bumble]

My question, which I have never seen addressed, is how was Hamas able to secure all of the weaponry it has used in their continued attacks, given that it is surrounded on three side by Israel? Is all of this material coming in by sea?

[Frank Drackman]

There is this invention called the “Ship”
And Gaza borders Egypt, so there's that.

[Longtobefree]

I mean, it's not like some major power just up and left a gazillion tons of weapons lying around an abandoned airport or anything is it?

[jb]

Was it an airport in Gaza? If not, that doesn't really answer the question.

[apedad]

He means Afghanistan but it doesn't answer the original question of how did the weapons get into Gaza without detection.

And that's part of the "intelligence failure" topic floating around.

[Martinned]

Suddenly no longer a fan of capitalism? And of everyone's sacred right to own as many guns as they please?

You realise that all those crazies who dream about a new US civil war here in the comments section are imagining pretty much what Hamas did, right?

[Idihax]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/us/new-mexico-police-officer-charged-presley-eze/index.html

This shooting was 100% justified. Also, I thought Nigerians were the "model immigrants?" You can take the African out of Africa, but...

[Ed Grinberg]

You're a cop. You respond to a report of shoplifting. You locate the suspect; he refuses to cooperate and attacks you. You shoot him; he dies. And you're criminally charged?! For doing your fucking job?! WTF?! What sort of society are we creating by prosecuting cops who do their job?!

[David Nieporent]

You’re a cop. You respond to a report of shoplifting. You locate the suspect; he refuses to cooperate and attacks you. You shoot him; he dies. And you’re criminally charged?! For doing your fucking job?! WTF?! What sort of society are we creating by prosecuting cops who do their job?!

The link doesn't say the suspect attacked the cop; it says that a "scuffle ensued." And the cop responded by shooting the suspect in the back of the head. It turns out that death is not the prescribed penalty for either shoplifting or scuffling, and therefore a cop who deals out such death is not "doing his job."

[Idihax]

Scuffling against an armed cop absolutely is the threatened use of deadly force, for which responding with deadly force is appropriate. In any case, no sane society prosecutes a white man for killing a black man. Ever. There's a totem pole of humanity, and one of those races is clearly on top, and one is clearly on bottom.

[Frank Drackman]

Most of you chuckleheads will need to use AlGores Google machine to know who I'm talking about, but Meir Kahane (OK, personal idol) was right!

Frank

[Martinned]

Here's an interesting question posed by someone I follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jasonomahony/status/1711676953168580966

Would a majority of the people of Gaza vote for Hamas in free and fair elections, knowing their priority is to use Gaza as a base to attack Israel?

Regardless of how democratic you think the Hamas regime is (not very), I think Hamas would win an election. And they'd win for pretty much the same reason that Putin would probably win an election in Russia. Propaganda. (In Hamas's case that propaganda also comes in the form of food etc.)

[Mr. Bumble]

" (In Hamas’s case that propaganda also comes in the form of food etc.)"

Or the threat of violence.

[Martinned]

Yes, but that's not different from Putin.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's not different than in any dictatorship.

[Martinned]

Indeed, except that Hamas also has a "social services wing" (as Wikipedia calls it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Social_services_wing

[Mr. Bumble]

All of the references in the article are 15-20 years old and not much since 2013.

"After the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état deposed the elected Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohamed Morsi in 2013, Hamas found itself in a financial straitjacket and has since endeavoured to throw the burden of responsibility for public works infrastructure in the Gaza Strip back onto the Palestinian National Authority, but without success.[127]"

[Martinned]

I noticed that too. I suspect that the money Hamas spends on that stuff has fallen significantly since 2013, but my understanding is that it's still where the majority of its resources goes, and an important part of its legitimacy among the people in Gaza. (The other contributing factor to its legitimacy being, of course, that it shoots at Israel.)

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but my understanding is that it’s still where the majority of its resources goes, ..."
Sure it does, by putting people to work building tunnels under the border and paying the families of "martyrs".