Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[apedad]

Public Service Announcement!

‘Angels, demons, spirits and souls do exist,’ says exorcist priest who warns against Ouija board use

‘Stay away from all forms of occult practices — and stay close to God,’ says priest

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/angels-demons-spirits-souls-do-exist-exorcist-priest-warns-ouija-board-use

Y’all be safe out there!

Of course God doesn’t prevent any deaths either but . . . whatever.

[Magister]

If angelic beings can’t moderate Ouija boards to block demonic misinformation, how can mundane social media be expected to do so on their platforms?

[SomeGuy 2]

Tried using a ouija board once, but the ghost that responded only spoke Spanish, which sucked because none of us spoke Spanish.

[Bored Lawyer]

Someone needs to figure out how to hook up a Ouija board to Google translate. That would make a mint, I bet.

[loki13]

I also love the movie Verónica!

(Next time, put on the subtitles.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I also love the movie Verónica!

What do you think of the song?

Not their best. Check this one, followed promptly by Junior's Bar (featuring Miami Steve/Little Steven Van Zandt on lead guitar and at the knobs).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEeDStRMVxoJunior's Bar

[Jimmy the Dane]

The ignorance here is almost laughable.

You really don't know anything about the nature of otherworldly beings, do you?

Angels and demons are subservient to God (as is everything) but exist independently. They can exercise free will to a certain extent and that is what occasionally gets them in trouble with God. (See Lucifer for example.)

God mostly leaves humans to their own devices. He can get involved if he likes, presumably though, he just has better things to do. Anyway, the few times he did decide to tinker with human affairs it was usually to engage in destruction because we are horrible at following commands. It is probably better if we don't attract his attention, especially with how much sin is prevalent in the world these days.

There is plenty written and recorded on humans dabbling with contact and even controlling the other side. That also rarely ends well for anybody who does so. Better to avoid it, but you can do it if you want to engage in lengthy, complex rituals that will probably also end poorly for you.

[Martinned]

They can exercise free will to a certain extent and that is what occasionally gets them in trouble with God.

How is that possible if god is omniscient?

[Jimmy the Dane]

You don't understand that word, do you?

[Martinned]

I do. But do you?

If god already knows what all those angels and demons are going to do before they do it, in what sense are they actually free?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Knowing isn't the same as commanding or orchestrating activity.

God might "know" but that does not always compel him to action.

They are "free" to conduct themselves as they wish. That doesn't mean they won't face any kind of repercussion from God or his wrath, but they are free to tempt fate.

[Martinned]

If an angel has a free choice of 100 doors to go through, but god already knows ahead of time that the angel will pick door number 52, then clearly the angel is not free at all. Zero degrees of freedom, to use a bit of statistical jargon.

Wrath has nothing to do with it. Nor does commanding.

[Brett Bellmore]

Standard introductory philosophy here. In "soft determinism", (Now known as "compatibilism".) your actions are dictated by your internal relationships and external stimuli, but you're considered to have "free will" so long as nothing is over-riding that.

So you freely chose what to do, but God knows in advance what choice you will freely make.

Soft determinists don't consider the alternative to determinism to be free will, but instead randomness.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But if god created them and, being omniscient, knew at the time he created the being what that being would choose and, being omnipotent, could have created the being in another way such that it made another choice, the being has no free will in any sense that actually means having an independent ability to make choices.

[Brett Bellmore]

I really wonder about the doctrine that God knows the future, though. I think the Bible is actually consistent with God's omniscience being limited to 'just' knowing all things that are happening or have happened.

[Martinned]

@Brett: Well, god is by definition perfect, and a being that doesn't know the future doesn't seem very perfect to me. So logically god must know the future.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's just a variant of Anselm's Ontological proof. Which is a bad joke, actually.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett: "I really wonder about the doctrine that God knows the future, though. I think the Bible is actually consistent with God’s omniscience being limited to ‘just’ knowing all things that are happening or have happened."

You must have forgotten some pretty clear, unequivocal verses from the Bible. For example, Psalm 139:6 "Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." And Job 14:5 - "You have decided the length of our lives. You know how many months we will live."

And, of course, Revelations is so named because it is a purported revelation of the future, specifically the end of times.

It's simply not plausible, or consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible, that the Christian god described in the Bible does not know the future, that his omniscience is limited to past and current events.

[vidomo1541]

"if god created them and, being omniscient, knew at the time he created the being what that being would choose and, being omnipotent, could have created the being in another way such that it made another choice, the being has no free will"

Non sequitur.

[NOVA Lawyer]

vidimo, the burden is on you to show how it is possible a being could create another, lesser being whose choices are all dictated by the attributes given the lesser being and the world the lesser being inhabits, yet the lesser being has free will for which the lesser being and not the creator is responsible.

The creator is the only one with a real choice in that scenario. Which, given god as the creator of all things, omniscient, and omnipotent, is the scenario posited by traditional Christianity.

You like to say non sequitur, but it sequiturs. The burden is on you, or whoever is asserting this thing called "free will" to show otherwise.

[vidomo1541]

Wrong. The burden is on you to show there's a logical contradiction, since you advanced that claim.

[Martinned]

your actions are dictated by your internal relationships and external stimuli, but you’re considered to have “free will” so long as nothing is over-riding that.

That's how Spinoza ended up concluding that god is the only free cause. I.e. by completely re-defining "god" and "free" and "cause".

[Jimmy the Dane]

You are confusing a divine plan with free will. Not every action is part of the divine plan or part of the script. If it is though, then yes you will ultimately do the thing that is required of you. (Although some doctrines suggest that you can still decline, just someone else will eventually do it so doesn't matter from the perspective of God.)

[Martinned]

It sounds to me like you're denying god's omniscience. How can a perfect deity be anything other than all-knowing about the future location and momentum of every sub-atomic particle in the universe? (Not to mention future door choices of every angel and demon?)

[NOVA Lawyer]

And, presumably, the angel was created by god who, being omniscient, knew that the way he created the angel and the rest of the world would result in that angel choosing door number 52. There is no room for free will there. It's "god did it" all the way down.

[vidomo1541]

"There is no room for free will there."

Non sequitur.

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you create a computer program that contains purportedly autonomous characters, but you program it such that all of the characters will choose particular actions and you know exactly what the output will be and the "choices" of each character will be no matter how long you run the program, by definition the characters do not have free will. You programmed them to do what they do and they have no independent agency.

[vidomo1541]

No one mentioned programming.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No one mentioned programming.

You are determined to provide nothing useful to the conversation. Argument by analogy is a thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

See Boethius, "the Consolation of Philosophy" and St Augustine, "On Free Choice of the Will."

[NOVA Lawyer]

St. Augustine made no real argument to reconcile god having foreknowledge of everything, but still allowing humans/angels to have free will. He just asserted it.

Boethius engages in admirable wordplay, but ultimately avoids the question and the crux of the matter rather than resolving it. He takes as a premise, for instance, that charioteers are free to steer one way or the other. And, yet, that is precisely the conclusion he is attempting to prove. His, ultimately, is a circular argument that is only convincing to those who want to believe the argument.

[vidomo1541]

NOVA Lawyer made no real argument for any claim of his. He just asserted it.

[vidomo1541]

"If an angel has a free choice of 100 doors to go through, but god already knows ahead of time that the angel will pick door number 52, then clearly the angel is not free at all."

Non sequitur.

[NOVA Lawyer]

But god created the angel and created it in such a way that it would choose door number 52. And, given the principle of omnipotence, god could have chosen to create the angel such that it would choose door 69, but didn't. The angel, for its entire existence, was destined to choose door 52, else neither good nor any other being could "know" it.

It's not just the knowledge. Knowledge of the future is only possible if the future is written, if it's written, the author is god. Thus, no free will.

[vidomo1541]

“that it would choose”

So you admit that it chose. QED.

“Knowledge of the future is only possible if the future is written”

Don’t know what exactly you mean by “written” here.

“Thus, no free will.”

Non sequitur.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“that it would choose”

So you admit that it chose. QED.

You're not that dumb. I use the language of everyday, but my point is that the choice isn't a free choice, it is a choice that was directed by god if, in fact, god is the omniscient, omnipotent creator of all things.

“Knowledge of the future is only possible if the future is written”

Don’t know what exactly you mean by “written” here.

Maybe you are that dumb. It's obviously both metaphorical and reference to biblical verses discussing how the future is already written.

“Thus, no free will.”

Non sequitur.

You apparently don't know what non sequitur means.

[vidomo1541]

“the choice isn’t a free choice”

What’s the difference? And how so?

“it is a choice that was directed by god”

It is a choice that was made by the angel, as you stated.

“Maybe you are that dumb.”

Taking out the insults because you know you’ve lost the argument.

“You apparently don’t know what non sequitur means.”

I do. It seems you don’t.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Taking out the insults because you know you’ve lost the argument.

If insults indicate concession, you do realize you were the first to insult.

[vidomo1541]

"I do."

It seems you don't.

"If god already knows what all those angels and demons are going to do before they do it, in what sense are they actually free?"

In what sense are they not? You're the one advancing the claim. Argue for it.

[Martinned]

I did, and so did others. You keep responding "non sequitur", which is like a child stamping its foot. It doesn't advance the conversation at all.

[ReaderY]

How do you square it with materialistic determinism? If scientists’ every action can be explained by biomechanical mechanism, what do you make of this nonsense of their “discovering” “laws” of “nature”? They did what they were determined to do.

[NOVA Lawyer]

First, materialistic determinism hit a major snag with quantum physics which, so far as we can tell, introduces fundamental randomness into the universe. The multiverse theory is one way to maintain full determinism, I suppose, but only for the multiverse as a whole. Each universe within the multiverse contains randomness.

Second, regardless of whether quantum physics has as yet undiscovered deterministic rules, then that has implications for free will. But people still "discover" things, even if they were inevitably, due to physics, destined to think what they think and discover what they discover. I'm not sure what you're complaint is. Yes, free will is definitely an open question which, arguably, has a current best answer of nope.

Here's one take on the no free will side: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2023-10-17/stanford-scientist-robert-sapolskys-decades-of-study-led-him-to-conclude-we-dont-have-free-will-determined-book#:~:text=Robert%20Sapolsky%27s%20latest%20book%20is,of%20Life%20Without%20Free%20Will.”&text=“Determined”%20goes%20a%20step%20further,logical%20room%20for%20free%20will.

Of course, that's not a popular view, but it doesn't undermine science. Science has no skin in the free will game. It's just our ingenious means of expanding our knowledge of the world (which may confirm, refute, or leave unanswered the free will question, all results which would be equally compatible with a scientific world view).

However, a lack of free will eviscerates Judeo-Christian religion. And, as has been discussed, free will is just another area where Christianity is internally contradictory unless you retreat to something like: "yes, it seems contradictory, but God made everyone knowing everything everyone will do before he even made them, but they still have free will at any given moment to choose their lives, because.....[mumble,mumble,mumble] the ways of the Lord are mysterious."

[vidomo1541]

"free will is just another area where Christianity is internally contradictory"

False. You have done nothing to demonstrate your claim but repeat it ad nauseam.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Those claiming free will bear the burden. But here’s an outline of what has to be refuted to show free will.

1. Free will requires that a person might have chosen otherwise than they do.

2. According to Christianity, God knows what every person who ever lived and will live will choose.

3. It is only possible to know with perfect certainty what will a person will “choose” if that “choice” is the end product of an inevitable chain of cause and effect.

4. From 2 and 3, every person’s “choice” is the end product of an inevitable chain of cause and effect.

5. According to Christianity, God is the first cause and created everything in the universe.

6. Therefore, God created every external factor that could influence any person’s “choice.”

7. God also created each person with the internal attributes they have which contribute to them making a “choice.”

8. God created, intentionally given his foreknowledge, every step in the cause and effect chain that leads to each person’s “choice.”

9. Because the person’s “choice” was inevitable due to God’s design, people cannot have “chosen” (or in the future cannot choose) other than they have (or in the future will).

10. Free will presupposes that a person may choose any of several options (or none at all).

11. Via 10, if a choice is inevitable due to factors beyond the control of the person, that choice cannot be an exercise of free will.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The arguments for free will generally, and in these threads exclusively, rely on the "feeling" that we make genuine choices and so, surely we must. (That's basically all Augustine and Boethius managed as well.) The argument from incredulity is unconvincing to anyone but those who want to be convinced.

[vidomo1541]

“The arguments for free will generally, and in these threads exclusively, rely on the “feeling””

No one brought up “feelings” but you. Are you projecting?

“That’s basically all Augustine and Boethius managed as well.”

An assertion you’ve made twice without any evidence.

“The argument from incredulity is unconvincing”

Right. Ponder that and what it means for your “argument” that divine foreknowledge and free will are logically contradictory.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“The argument from incredulity is unconvincing”

Right. Ponder that and what it means for your “argument” that divine foreknowledge and free will are logically contradictory.

Nothing. Mine has been a logical argument, it’s an internet comment section, not a treatise, so obviously sketched rather than rigorously complete.

The only argument for free will presented here is that it seems like we make free choices, so we must. No one, especially not you, have made any substantive argument in favor of free will. Nor has anyone, including you, provided even the sketch of an argument for how an omnipotent creator could make another being that will necessarily take certain courses of action, but that other being nonetheless has free will.

It can only be achieved by defining free will to mean something other than the freedom to take any of several options.

[vidomo1541]

"1. Free will requires that a person might have chosen otherwise than they do."

Justification needed. No consensus exists in philosophy on defining "free will" this way.

"3. It is only possible to know with perfect certainty what will a person will “choose” if that “choice” is the end product of an inevitable chain of cause and effect."

Justification needed.

"8. God created, intentionally given his foreknowledge, every step in the cause and effect chain that leads to each person’s “choice.”"

Justification needed.

"10. Free will presupposes that a person may choose any of several options (or none at all)."

Are you restating premise 1? Justification needed.

"if a choice is inevitable due to factors beyond the control of the person, that choice cannot be an exercise of free will."

This is the first time you used the term "factors beyond the control of the person" in the argument. So this is either a lemma that is a non-sequitur, or an unjustified premise.

Your "argument" is a jumbled mess. I suggest familiarizing yourself with basic logical syntax for clarity before embarrassing yourself further.

[Martinned]

Feel free to do some reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#FreeDoOthe

For most newcomers to the problem of free will, it will seem obvious that an action is up to an agent only if she had the freedom to do otherwise.

The article then does some work to be more precise about this statement, but doesn't rebut it even a little bit.

[Martinned]

1a. Free will requires that a person has a choice between more than one option to choose between.

2. According to Christianity, God knows what every person who ever lived and will live will choose.

Conclusion: If god is never wrong, and god knows what every person will choose before they choose it, the choice must be illusory. In fact, there is only one option to choose from. It's like a force in magic, where the subject believes that they are free to choose, when in fact they're not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcing_(magic)

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'm not omniscient, but I know my son pretty well. If you give him a choice of whether or not to have pickles on his hamburger, he will, so far as I can tell, 100% of the time reject them.

Does my knowledge of his preferences mean that he isn't free to have pickles on his hamburger? Would he be more free if I were ignorant of his preferences?

If he wouldn't be more free if I were ignorant, how does knowledge deprive him of freedom?

[Martinned]

There's a difference between rarely being wrong and never being wrong.

But you could say that someone is less free if they almost always do the same thing. It's like in mathematical information theory, where information is the inverse of entropy. But that makes free will a matter of degree, rather than a yes/no question.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, there's a difference between rarely and never being wrong, but it's a difference in the being making the predictions, not in the entity whose choices are being predicted.

Now, you might say that it being possible to 100% accurately predict somebody's choices implies that their choices aren't free.

I'd say it implies their choices aren't random. The alternative to causation isn't freedom, it's randomness.

[Martinned]

@Brett: That's the more fundamental question, indeed. Where does freedom fit in a world of determinism and randomness? That's why I tend to think free will isn't a very useful concept anyway. In situations such as criminal law we've simply decided to treat people as if they could have done differently, and it's not practically useful to interrogate this assumption too closely.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’m not omniscient, but I know my son pretty well. If you give him a choice of whether or not to have pickles on his hamburger, he will, so far as I can tell, 100% of the time reject them.

1. You’re not omniscient, even in a limited sense with respect to your son’s present and future hamburger condiment/toppings preferences. (I used to not like pickles on my burgers, now sometimes I do. Your son’s tastes may change too.) That makes the analogy inapt.

2. You didn’t, in the sense that god is said to create beings, create your son. He shares your DNA, but you didn’t create him or even choose which parts of your DNA he got (to say nothing of the parts of DNA his mother contributed). Therefore, you didn’t, as god is said to, create him as part of a perfect plan for your future family and you had the choice to create a son who likes pickles on his burger and one who doesn’t and you chose to create a son who you knew would never “choose” pickles on his burger. So your knowledge of his proclivities and your input into his creation does not, as you point out, hamper his alleged free will at all.

However, because the Christian god allegedly knew what “choices” your son would make, and He intentionally made him so that he would make those “choices”, and He intentionally made him so that he would not make other “choices” so as to complete His allegedly perfect plan, god's omniscience, omnipotence, and status as creator does interfere with your son’s free will. The god of Christianity created beings that seem like and feel like they have free will, but in fact they don’t.

As consolation, the most likely scientific explanation is also that we don’t have free will. We have the illusion of free will, but it’s really all genes, past environment, current environment, etc., that could theoretically be put in a simulation and, at best, there is some quantum randomness to prevent it simply being a clockwork universe. But the Christian god’s world is a clockwork universe, an allegedly perfectly planned universe.

[vidomo1541]

"How is that possible if god is omniscient?"

How is it not?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Anyway, the few times he did decide to tinker with human affairs it was usually to engage in destruction because we are horrible at following commands. It is probably better if we don’t attract his attention, especially with how much sin is prevalent in the world these days.

Sounds like a hell of a guy!

The ignorance here is almost laughable.

…

There is plenty written and recorded on humans dabbling with contact and even controlling the other side. That also rarely ends well for anybody who does so. Better to avoid it, but you can do it if you want to engage in lengthy, complex rituals that will probably also end poorly for you.

I will concede that I did laugh.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone condescendingly describing matters of faith as though they are established matters of science has a pretty brittle and shallow faith, in my opinion.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not really. That is if you understand the doctrines of faith. But you clearly don't.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstition. Fairy tales.

Nonsense.

If it makes you feel better, that's fine. But don't humiliate yourself by contending it's anything more than superstition and a crutch.

[vidomo1541]

“Superstition. Fairy tales. Nonsense.”

What is? Atheism?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Agnostics have the answer.

[hobie]

Jimmy, last month I found a fossil in Wyoming. All evidence pegs it at 100M years old. But it cannot be more than 6,000 years. What am I supposed to think?

[vidomo1541]

"it cannot be more than 6,000 years"

False.

[Nelson]

"Anyway, the few times he did decide to tinker with human affairs it was usually to engage in destruction because we are horrible at following commands. It is probably better if we don’t attract his attention, especially with how much sin is prevalent in the world these days."

This is a textbook definition of an abusive father. You may want to re-think the way you advocate for things.

[vidomo1541]

"Muh fee-fees!"

Not an argument. Job 38. Isaiah 55:8-9.

Imagine thinking you're wiser than the Creator of the world.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many fairy tales can your fairy tale beat up?

[Nige]

PAY ATTENTION! Actual gaslighting here.

[Nelson]

"Imagine thinking you’re wiser than the Creator of the world."

You mean physics? It isn't wise at all because it's a force, not a mythological character. So yes, I am wise than the Creator of the world. Everyone is.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I saw this post and I thought "Kirklandbate," I mean "Kirkland bait."

Does he have any remarks he wants to make - for instance, something original on the subject of religion?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And here he comes!

[vidomo1541]

"God doesn’t prevent any deaths"

Wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

Better late than never.

[Moderation4ever]

Last when asked about his views Speaker Johnson replied, "I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview. That’s what I believe and so I make no apologies for it.”

I am near the end of Bart D. Ehrman book Misquoting Jesus and found the Speaker's response a bit humorous. As the book explains, the New Testament is a document created from copies made by scribes, until the invention of the printing press. It had changed from its origin by copying errors, deliberate changes to achieve clarity and deliberate changes to conform with the scribes world view. It may be a person guide, but it has not more authority than other book. One could just as well say their world view is encompassed by Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, or any other book.

BTW - Mr. Ehrman book is very good well written and easy to understand. I am amazed how well the author can make a subject as dry as the study of old document interesting to the reader.

[Bob from Ohio]

"As the book explains"

Well, if Bart D. Ehrman writes something!

[bernard11]

So you can't point to any errors by Ehrman.

You know, he didn't make all that stuff up. There is a giant body of biblical scholarship, but you, and Johnson, don't want to hear it.

[vidomo1541]

Either Moderation4ever is misquoting Ehrman (pretending to have read him when he didn’t), or Ehrman doesn’t know very basic facts about New Testament archeology. Probably the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

[JasonT20]

No, you are not understanding what Ehrman is saying. That link shows when scholars think that the parts of the Bible were composed in written form, but that is a separate question from whether the words we have now are the same as those original compositions. Note that the table on Wikipedia includes the earliest known fragment of each of those Books. The oldest complete manuscripts of the Bible date to the 4th century, and they do have differences with later versions.

[vidomo1541]

“and they do have differences with later versions.”

But that’s not the pertinent question, is it? If I produce a bad translation of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, does that mean we "don't really know" what the original said?

The pertinent question is whether the earliest versions we have access to have differences with the original versions, not later versions, and whether those differences are in any way substantive.

Notice how the Moderation4ever didn’t provide any examples of these alleged “copying errors, deliberate changes to achieve clarity and deliberate changes to conform with the scribes world view”.

Of course, Moderation4ever is in a bind if he now claims that they are different, because that would imply that he/we do have access to the original versions, which would render the whole discussion moot, because we can just look at those.

[JasonT20]

But that’s not the pertinent question, is it? If I produce a bad translation of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, does that mean we “don’t really know” what the original said?

If we don't have the original to compare your translation to, then yes, we couldn't be sure what the original said.

Notice how the Moderation4ever didn’t provide any examples of these alleged “copying errors, deliberate changes to achieve clarity and deliberate changes to conform with the scribes world view”.

No, he didn't quote from Ehrman's work with examples. But if you are curious, but don't want to read Ehrman's book, then there are a ton of videos on YouTube of Ehrman speaking, giving interviews on people's podcasts, etc, where he goes through some of them.

[vidomo1541]

Also, “the oldest complete manuscripts of the Bible” is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is “oldest fragment of passage X or book Y”, for the particular X or Y we’re interested in.

[JasonT20]

It's not completely irrelevant. Fragments might not agree with each other, and we can't know that the scribes that wrote Fragment A, for instance, put down the same thing for Verse 5 that the scribe that wrote Fragment B put down for Verse 5, since Fragment B doesn't have Verse 5 on it.

The oldest complete texts of the Bible are important because they are complete and were written by a single person (or possibly multiple scribes but working together at the same time and place).

[Nelson]

"Also, “the oldest complete manuscripts of the Bible” is completely irrelevant."

Even the Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and King James Bible don't all agree. And those were all Protestamt translations from the 1500s (1611 for the King James). The chances of the Bible being divinely inspired and not the work of humans with human motivations and human frailties approaches zero. Logic and the available facts stand strongly against it.

If you choose to believe it, have at it. My mother is a devout Catholic and gains enormous comfort from her faith, so it's not like I think only stupid or ignorant or clueless people are believers. But claiming that it is a universal truth that must be acknowledged by everyone else is indefensible. Religion is a personal thing, not public policy.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's well-researched, Bob. Experts explain things with citations all the time. No need to be snarky just because it hurts your feelings that "the Bible" is a mishmash of human creativity rather than whatever you apparently think it is.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't hold any brief for the "New Testament" so my feelings are not "hurt" in any way.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So snark for no discernible reason whatsoever?

[Bob from Ohio]

Making fun of atheists is always a good reason.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You unintentionally made fun of yourself. The book does explain, including the basis for the author's conclusions. We're now how far down the comments and you still have provided no substantive response that justifies your initial snark.

What part of this do you think is ridiculous for moderation4ever to describe as the book explaining:

"the New Testament is a document created from copies made by scribes, until the invention of the printing press."

You are the joke, Bob.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another dumb atheist checks in.

I don't believe in the Christian Bible but, unlike atheists, I respect those who do.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Ad hominem. Every accusation an admission with you, Bob.

(Pointing out that “the New Testament is a document created from copies made by scribes, until the invention of the printing press” is not disrespectful of people who “believe in the Christian Bible”. And pointing out your stupid snark on that point is also not disrespectful of people who “believe in the Christian Bible”.)

You continue to be the joke.

[vidomo1541]

Either Moderation4ever is misquoting Ehrman (pretending to have read him when he didn’t), or Ehrman doesn’t know very basic facts about New Testament archeology. Probably the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

You’ve embarrassed yourself by blindly parroting Moderation4ever’s claim.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Either Moderation4ever is misquoting Ehrman

He didn't quote him, he summarized.

You cite to wikipedia regarding New Testament archaeology, but Ehrman actually did the research. Also, I read Ehrman's book. It has better citations than wikipedia.

But if you find wikipedia authoritative, just follow this link for "proof" that "The majority of scholars believe that most of the books of the Bible are the work of multiple authors and that all have been edited to produce the works known today." Which is the assertion Ehrman made (and which moderation4ever summarized).

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

It appears you are much dumber than I first assumed.

[vidomo1541]

“have been edited to produce the works known today.”

Irrelevant, as I already pointed out elsewhere: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/30/monday-open-thread-24/?comments=true#comment-10297414

Show us these alleged substantive “edits” of our oldest from the originals. (Good luck.)

“It appears you are much dumber than I first assumed.”

Taking out the insults because you know you’ve lost the argument.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Show us these alleged substantive “edits” of our oldest from the originals. (Good luck.)

A charlatan's request.

What we do know is that, in the past, the versions of the Bible that were presumed to be accurate copies of earlier versions were not, in fact, accurate copies of earlier versions. See Ehrman. Now, you are perfectly free to believe that this time, the earliest versions we have found are the perfect copies for which the Christians have been searching, but there is no reason to believe that's the case. Moreover, the fact that through most of the history of the church, certainly the English language church, the Bibles were not accurate copies of prior versions which were later discovered (and/or incorporated into new translations).

And, as you pointed out via a wikipedia link, the earliest versions we have of the various books of the Bible post-date the most likely original date by 100-300 years. So, prior to the printing press, and during a time Christians were not a favored group, the assertion would be that they maintained perfectly accurate copies of the original letters, with no interpolations, edits, or additions? It requires faith to believe that. All the evidence (including that subsequent copies were not accurate vis a vis the earliest copies, humans tend to be fallible even when trying and, often, humans don't try to be accurate as they have their own agenda) is against it.

And maybe faith is enough for you or someone else, but realize it's faith in the face of contrary evidence.

[hobie]

You just showed your ass, Bob

[vidomo1541]

Once again, either Moderation4ever is misquoting Ehrman (pretending to have read him when he didn’t), or Ehrman doesn’t know very basic facts about New Testament archeology. Probably the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

You've embarrassed yourself by parroting Moderation4ever's claim.

[apedad]

It’s funny/sad that vidomo is accepting science to date some papers but doesn’t accept science to date the Earth or Universe.

[Nelson]

"Making fun of atheists is always a good reason."

Why all the hostility? There is nothing wrong or bad or deficient about being an atheist or an agnostic or a nondenominational spiritual believer.

[vidomo1541]

Either Moderation4ever is misquoting Ehrman (pretending to have read him when he didn’t), or Ehrman doesn’t know very basic facts about New Testament archeology. Probably the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

[Jimmy the Dane]

Have you actually read the Bible? Like cover to cover?

Yeah, there is an argument that the Old Testament is no longer a valid covenant with God, but the New Testament doesn't really say many things which people try to interpret it as today. (Like the whole Jesus = Love thing.)

The argument that books like this ignore is that the Bible is the word of God. As it was interpreted and written down it was directed by his hand and therefore is infallible. Sure, that creates a rather solid argument that is irrefutable to any criticism of the book and translations (ha - it is God's word so will also be valid!) but that is also part of the doctrine of faith.

[Martinned]

Have you actually read the Bible? Like cover to cover?

Yeah, there is an argument that the Old Testament is no longer a valid covenant with God, but the New Testament doesn’t really say many things which people try to interpret it as today. (Like the whole Jesus = Love thing.)

It contains arguments for and against literally anything. From for and against slavery, to for and against a correct definition of pi, and everything inbetween.

[Life of Brian]

to for and against a correct definition of pi

I'm familiar with the too-clever "against" take, premised on a lack of multi-decimal precision (how many places would be required to "correctly" define an irrational number, anyway?) in a ratio of measurements made with the forearm.

But what's the "for" argument? That's a new one.

[Zarniwoop]

(how many places would be required to “correctly” define an irrational number, anyway?)

"Mathematician James Grime of the YouTube channel Numberphile has determined that 39 digits of pi - 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288420 - would suffice to calculate the circumference of the known universe to the width of a hydrogen atom."

https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/how-many-digits-of-pi-do-we-really-need/

[Brett Bellmore]

Gravitational distortions of space assure that you're wasting your time memorizing more than 10-20 places. Even in 'flat' space over 150 is a waste of time due to quantization of space at the Planc dimension.

[vidomo1541]

“against a correct definition of pi”

False. It’s embarrassing when atheists parrot such patently ridiculous so-called “contradictions”.

[Nelson]

How about the contradiction between "the Bible is a guide to moral behavior" and "the Bible supports slavery (as long as you give your slaves the Sabbath off)" or "the Bible supports genocide (as long as the babies you kill are the wrong people, like "the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite")"

Or is that not a contradiction, according to you?

[vidomo1541]

"How about..."

Thus begins the gish-gallop.

"is that not a contradiction"

Correct, not a contradiction. I suggest you look up what a contradiction is.

Though you were unable to provide an actual contradiction, I'll indulge your fee-fees anyway:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you a victim of childhood indoctrination by substandard adults, or is this a case of adult-onset superstition?

[Nelson]

"Correct, not a contradiction."

Really? Let's examine that. The Bible is purported to be a moral guide.

"Samaria will be held guilty,
For she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword,
Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,
And their pregnant women will be ripped open."

Hm, that doesn't seem very moral. In fact, it seems downright evil.

"Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes."

Wow. That seems pretty immoral to me. How about you?

"They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword."

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out, eh? Pretty brutal, evil, and awful stuff. But still moral, according to you?

Maybe slavery is forbidden, since slavery is clearly immoral.

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."

Hm. It's pretty clear that slavery not only isn't forbidden, it's approved of by the Bible.

"“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do."

Apparently it's not just OK to enslave strangers. If it's abhorrent to pimp your daughter out (and, if you're uncertain, it absolutely is), how much worse is it to sell her into slavery?

"But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you."

Well if you give them the Sabbath off, maybe slavery isn't wrong? Oh, wait. Slavery is always wrong.

I read your articles and I'm impressed by the Olympic-level mental and logical gymnastics required to say "no, no, they didn't mean slave, they meant paid servant". I mean, "You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever." doesn't necessarily mean they were enslaved, right?

The Bible advocates immoral and evil things. That is unequivocal. The fact that it also contradicts itself about basic moral issues makes it even more unreliable as a source of consistent, honest moral guidance.

You can believe whatever you want for yourself, but don't piss on people and tell them it's raining.

[John F. Carr]

The New Testament is people writing about God. The Bible as the literal word of God from cover to cover is a minority view, most often associated with those who think the King James translation was divinely inspired.

The Koran is different. That is taken as the word of God, although like the Bible it was reviewed and abridged by a human editorial committee.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The story of how the King James Bible was compiled is interesting. It was a hugely complex process that involved hundreds of scholars. It is one of those once in a thousand years kind of events that was a massive undertaking. So, yes, perhaps it was divinely inspired.

[Martinned]

What about the decision about which gospels and which other materials to include in the bible in the first place? You know that there are dozens of gospels and fragments of gospels, right?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Inspired by God.

[Sarcastr0]

Glad Jimmy is here to speak for God.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I might not but the good book does.

[David Nieporent]

You understand how "This book is true because it says it's true" might not be the most compelling argument?

[vidomo1541]

No one made that argument. He stated his opinion, true or not.

[not guilty]

Where are the four corners of the earth, Jimmy? Please be specific.

[vidomo1541]

Ever heard of the phrase "follow someone to the ends of the earth"?

[apedad]

Right alongside Jeff Warrens, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate), etc.

[vidomo1541]

Wrong.

[bernard11]

And other translations? Not divinely inspired, so to the extent they differ from the KJV they are heretical?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Have you actually read the Bible? Like cover to cover?

Yes. Including the parts that only some people consider to be part of it.

The argument that books like this ignore is that the Bible is the word of God.

The entire point is that there isn’t any standard text that can be called “the” Bible—the content changed, in substantive ways, as manuscripts were copied and translated and so on.

[vidomo1541]

"the content changed, in substantive ways, as manuscripts were copied and translated and so on."

False.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You make a lot of unqualified assertions, especially for a guy relying on nonsense.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bart Ehrman is one of the most reliable (and readable) writers on the New Testament. Most (actually almost all) have an agenda, and predetermined conclusions that they have to do somersaults and triple lutzes to get to. Not Bart -- he is honest about his journey from born-again Christian to agnostic. A real treasure.

[vidomo1541]

"Most (actually almost all) have an agenda"

Including Bart Ehrman. Just because you agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let's be honest here.

[not guilty]

Regarding Mr. Johnson's comment, “I said, well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview. That’s what I believe and so I make no apologies for it”, I wonder how he views killing babies. FWIW, the Old Testament shows Yahweh to be a prolific baby killer.

He put a targeted hit on Bathsheba's firstborn, allowing the baby to suffer from illness for seven days before dying. He sent the prophet Samuel to instruct King Saul to kill all of the Amalekite babies. The Great Flood and the Tenth Plague did not spare the infants.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Old Testament"

Its called the Tanakh. If you are going to try to mock it, get its name right.

[Martinned]

Except of course that the Old Testament and the Jewish bible are not the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

[Sarcastr0]

Gatekeep harder.

[not guilty]

My mockery here is of the new Speaker of the House.

[vidomo1541]

You mock only yourself in the process.

[SRG2]

Nowhere in the Bible is there a prohibition against abortion, and Jesus preaches against hypocrisy and wealth but not against homosexuality, so I wonder what Bible the Speaker is referring to.,

[Dan Schiavetta]

The disgusting mud milkshake that God makes an accused wife drink in the “ordeal of the bitter water” (Numbers 5:11 – 31), in context, appears to be an abortifacient.

[SRG2]

Indeed it is. And note that the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is a fine payable to her husband. Which proves that in Jewish law, a fetus was not the same as a born baby.

[vidomo1541]

All life belongs to God (I AM), and originates from Him.

What God freely gives, He can freely take away. Job 1:21.

“But it hurts my fee-fees!” is not an argument. Isaiah 55:8-9.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Competent adults neither advance nor accept superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate among adults.

Then there is vidono1541 . . .

(If you are 12 or younger, vidomo1541, you get a pass . . . for now.)

[Nelson]

"All life belongs to God (I AM), and originates from Him."

No, it doesn't.

See? I can assert simplistic and unfalsifiable things just as well as you can.

It's possible there is a God. It's even possible that it is a conscious, moral God. There's even a non-zero chance that one of the thousands of religions is completely correct. An infintessimally small chance, but a chance.

However, there's no way to prove it. Or prove it's wrong, for that matter.

[vidomo1541]

"the New Testament is a document created from copies made by scribes, until the invention of the printing press. It had changed from its origin by copying errors, deliberate changes to achieve clarity and deliberate changes to conform with the scribes world view."

False. Either you're misquoting Ehrman (pretending you read him when you didn't), or he doesn't know very basic facts about New Testament archeology. Probably the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

[Dr. Ed 2]

An interesting issue: clawing back signing bonuses -- particularly when the employee is fired a month before the bonus would vest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/mortgage-lenders-demand-laid-off-workers-return-bonuses/ar-AA1j391a

I always thought a signing bonus was either cash up front so you didn't have to wait for your first paycheck, or a bonus you'd get if you were there past a certain date.

What appears to be happening here are some sort of forgivable loans and I'm just thinking of (a) the messes that could be creating and (b) how easy it would be to run afoul of all the borrower protection laws that were instituted in the early 1970s in response to stuff done in the 1960s.

In this case, I doubt the guy has the $100,000 in liquid assets, he may not have it at all and these suits could become quite interesting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I've also seen a rise in "employer-provided training as being paid as vesting compensation or a loan" in recent years. It is quite nasty. Most of these jobs pay $30,000-$40,000/year for the first few years. Calling 50% of the first year's pay a "loan" that is forgiven over the course of 3 years is wholly unfair and there is no way that person is every going to be able to repay it outside of just keeping the job until it fully vests.

I get that employers don't want to give someone six months of paid training to see them jump ship to a competitor shortly after completing the program. But, then again, bind that person up in an employment contract with some guarantee of continued employment instead of at-will. Companies can't have their cake and eat it too.

[John F. Carr]

I first heard about that in the mid-1990s. My company got bought and the new bosses gave an ultimatum: piss in a cup and agree to pay us a lot of money if you don't stay a year, or you're not working for us. The fine was said to be for reimbursement of training costs. Except they were buying us because of our specialized expertise.

[Jimmy the Dane]

This was pretty standard for "tuition reimbursement schemes" in the 90's and 2000's. You had to stay with the company for at least 1-2 years after getting reimbursed or had to pay it back. Those were pretty small though because it was usually reimbursed on a credit basis and you could only take essentially one class a semester. Total benefit was usually less than the IRS limit which was around $4,000/year at the time.

Around 2010, I saw my first "training as loan" scheme when I was doing some contract work. It was for a para-professional certification that was about $5,000 in coursework and testing fees. The job might have paid in the low $20's at the time. I remember asking the manager if they ever collected and he said "all the time, we will just ruin their credit if they don't pay it back." Not the main reason why I didn't continue my contract, but definitely was a consideration. Also, the number of people I have told to avoid that particular company must not be in at least the dozens.

[theobromophile]

In my limited experience, signing bonuses and relocation expenses are only repayable to the company if the employee voluntarily leaves within a year (and it might be prorated) or are fired for gross misconduct.

I suspect that as non competes are falling out of favour, companies will find ever more creative ways of forcing employees to continue to work for them, and are not going to use any sort of bilateral agreement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other shoe I am waiting to drop is sub-prime auto loans.

People were paying a lot more than they could afford for vehicles before covid, and they are even more expensive now, particularly used ones. The people 90+ days behind keep rising and at some point a lot of repos have to come onto the market, dumping the value.

[Frank Drackman]

Why not just pay cash, like I do?

[Longtobefree]

Would anyone buy a repossessed electric vehicle?

[John F. Carr]

Why is it any worse than a gas-powered repo?

In my state if you buy a used car from a dealer the law implies a 90 day waranty.

[Frank Drackman]

That's stupid as fuck, so I don't like the car 89 days after I buy it, I can run it without oil, lock the engine up, fill it back up with oil, and get my money back?

[SomeGuy 2]

They might hold off on actually executing repos, far later than the contract allows. They'd end up reselling it for less than they're owed. In general, lenders would much rather be paid (even if it's late) than exercise their remedies.

[Martinned]

Can't they collect the rest from the borrower?

[Jimmy the Dane]

In almost every state, if the dealer takes your car you still owe the balance of the loan. Only the sale of the auto gets credited toward the loan (minus all those exorbitant fees they add on to do the repo and sale).

So, no, lenders don't mind taking your car and selling it. They will then lean on you heavily to settle the rest of the loan. Even if that is only 5-10% of the amount they still make money.

[Martinned]

That makes sense. I remember hearing weird stories about laws (or contracts, I'm not sure) that basically had the effect of letting people walk away from their home and their mortgage when their mortgage was under water.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Mortgages are a different form of security. Usually foreclosure of the house ends the mortgage obligation because the security was seized.

I know in some states they can go after you for associated fees and sometimes part of the balance, but usually taking possession of the house/property voids any further obligation by the debtor.

Also, what you may be thinking of are people who lived in their houses for years (especially around 2008) without paying because the banks were so far backed up with foreclosures. Many of those cases settled with the homeowner just walking away because the bank didn’t have the time/resources/manpower to process a contested foreclosure so they gave the homeowner a sweet settlement offer to just leave.

[Martinned]

No, what I was thinking of was this:

"usually taking possession of the house/property voids any further obligation by the debtor."

This is, respectfully, illogical. Obviously debtor and creditor can write whatever contract they like, but as a general principle it doesn't make sense that taking possession of something that is given as security can have the effect of reducing the size of the loan.

[Brett Bellmore]

"because the banks were so far backed up with foreclosures."

As I recall, a major factor there was that if they foreclosed/took possession, they had to update the value of the property to current market price, whereas so long as they pretended the borrower was eventually going to get back to paying them, they could keep it on the books at the original value.

A lot of banks were actually underwater, in terms of having more money loaned out than the current market value of the homes securing the loans, and would have legally been required to shut down if they'd updated those values. So they slow-walked the process, even if it meant that many of those homes went to ruin due to being unoccupied.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other thing is having physical custody of the house as owner of record -- that creates legal (and often expensive) obligations with the local code enforcement guy.

You gotta mow the lawn -- this adds up quickly if you hire a landscaper. You gotta heat it (or drain the pipes, but heating it is better) and that costs money. You really need to keep the walk and driveway shoveled.

Biggest thing is making it not look abandoned because then you either get people breaking in to strip the plumbing and/or squatting.

[Brett Bellmore]

We were house-hunting a few years after 2008, and I could scarcely count how many houses we'd find in the listings that looked good, and when we got there the windows had been busted out, or a minor leak in the roof had resulted in the ceiling becoming water logged and falling in. In one case we drove up and water was pouring out the door; The mortgage company hadn't bothered having the water shut off, and a pipe had burst in the ceiling.

Worst part was that the short sale on our previous home had ruined our credit, so we were not capable of getting a mortgage on any house that needed the least bit of work. Often we were prevented from buying by minor issues I could have easily fixed. (We later learned that we'd have been better off immediately abandoning the house, instead of painfully making mortgage payments until we could find a buyer; The damage would have come off our credit record earlier!)

In fact, one friend only managed to buy a house because some of our circle of friends snuck into the house and fixed an issue with it; He then had the inspector 'double check' it, and officially conclude that the original report had been in error.

[John F. Carr]

You might be thinking about

1. Banks may agree to take a loss in return for the borrower leaving quietly without trashing the place.

2. If the bank has a non-recourse mortgage taking the house back through non-judicial foreclosure erases the debt.

[Martinned]

Yes, it's the non-recourse mortgages I was thinking of. They are weird. Why do they only exist for homes, and not for other forms of security?

[Jimmy the Dane]

As you wrote above: " Obviously debtor and creditor can write whatever contract they like..."

[Martinned]

Sure, and that raises the question why debtors and creditors agree non-recourse secured loans for homes but not cars.

(Not to mention that I gather non-recourse mortgages are the required form in some US states.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose because it's harder to take a house with you when you move without providing a forwarding address?

[John F. Carr]

Houses keep their value well. Americans traditionally paid 20% down and got a low interest rate because the house was almost guaranteed to be worth at least 80% of what it was purchased for. If my house were abducted by aliens the lot with a hole in the ground would be worth about 65% of what I paid for the house and lot five years ago. The split was closer to 50-50 when I bought the house.

Also, people who default on their mortgages are likely to be too poor to be worth pursuing in court.

[Martinned]

Also, people who default on their mortgages are likely to be too poor to be worth pursuing in court.

Given the traditional advice to pay your car loan before your mortgage, because you can live in your car but can't drive your home, I'd say that's even more true for people who default on their car loan.

[bernard11]

Some states have laws requiring that mortgages be on a non-recourse basis.

There are 12 states that, by law, only allow nonrecourse loans. These are known as “nonrecourse states,” and they include Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington.

[loki13]

IME, in a jurisdiction that allows mortgage companies to pursue that debt ... it is the exception, not the rule, for the mortgagor to seek a judgment on the deficiency.

That's not to say that it never occurs ... but it's rare.

[bernard11]

Probably, it's usually pretty much uncollectible. People who can't make their mortgage payments aren't generally going to be able to come up with the whole balance due.

[David Nieporent]

About a dozen states are so-called "non-recourse" states, where people under some circumstances can turn over the property and the lender cannot then pursue them individually. (During the financial crisis, when lots of people were underwater on their homes, this led to a phenomenon that was dubbed "jingle mail." That is, you mail in the housekeys to the lender and walk away.)

That having been said, even in recourse states, banks often didn't (don't) find it worthwhile to go after people for the balance due on underwater mortgages after foreclosure. It costs money to pursue those borrowers, and people who are foreclosed upon often don't have the assets to make it worthwhile.

[SomeGuy 2]

The law school answer is yes.

The real answer is: They can try, but if that borrower wasn't paying before you take their car, they're not going to start paying after. Either they're so broke that they have no assets you can collect on* or, if they happen to scrape together some cash, they'll take a quick visit to bankruptcy court and wipe out your un/undersecured debt for pennies on the dollar.

*Every state has different rules on this, but exempts a base level bare necessity of goods from collection actions, largely because if creditors literally took everything, then the people would become public charges.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I was surprised that some people treat a trip to bankruptcy court like it is a regular life event. Of course, these are usually the same type of people that thinking going to jail is also just something that happens in the course of normal life. But, still...

[John F. Carr]

If you are really poor you don't need bankruptcy. In my state you if you live in a modest house, drive a beater, and only have $1,000 in your bank account your creditors can't touch you. If you financed the car they can take the car, but if your debt is credit card debt there's nothing they can do but pile on 24.99% interest hoping you come into money before the statute of limitations expires.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, one theory I have heard bantered around is that bankruptcy actually HELPS their credit in that you can't declare bankruptcy again for some period (10 years?) and hence can't dump the new debt the same way.

So you just don't pay the new debt either and then the statute of limitations on it expires as well...

Of course one stunt often spoke about with vehicles is intentionally wrecking it.

[SomeGuy 2]

Credit card companies do indeed love to give credit cards to people just out of bankruptcy because you're right, they can't discharge the debt. But nobody is going to trust such a person with a high credit limit, and at first it might even be a secured card. The first bankruptcy is the most lucrative, in that somebody could in theory lard up credit cards with experiences that can't be repossessed (amazing meals/vacations/etc.) rather than goods. Interest rates are up, but credit standards are still pretty lax, and who cares about interest if you're not paying anyway?

Hmmmm, I might be talking myself into this.

[Nelson]

"I was surprised that some people treat a trip to bankruptcy court like it is a regular life event."

One of them was our President a few years ago.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They *are* holding off repossessing, but for how much longer?

[Jimmy the Dane]

This is already happening. There are some fun repo guy channels on Youtube and they talk about how business is through the roof.

Makes sense. I bought a car during the pandemic (with cash) and the couple next to me were negotiating an interest rate of 18%(!) with a term of 7 years. I asked the dealer if that was common and his response was "oh yeah, we just focus on the monthly payment and as long as people can pay that they are good."

When I went home I did some brief research and saw many subprime loans were upwards of 22% in my area.

If you want a cheap car wait about 6-12 months and the market is going to be flooded with repoed ones soon enough that dealers are looking unload.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be good timing for us, my son will start driving about then, and we'll be in the market for another car.

[Nelson]

The problem right now is the supply chain shortages of chips (which limited new car production during the pandemic) is just starting to disappear, but now there's the auto worker strike.

It's been about three years since there has been sufficient supply if new cars to keep prices low. So even used cars are ridiculously expensive these days.

I was in a very bad car accident in January (and learned a new phrase that I hope none of you ever encounter: vasovagal syncope). Since they had to cut us out of it, the car was obviously totaled. It was a little over three years old and I got over $2000 more from the insurance company than I paid for the car originally. Which seems awesome, except I obviously had to get a new car.

In February 2023 the 2023s were still a month or more away from delivery for most dealers (I looked in a 100 mile radius around my house and found none) and there were only four 2022s left. I paid 40% more for the 2022 that I bought than the 2019 I wrecked. And since then I have been inundated by dealers who want to buy it for more than I paid for it.

The supply shortage is old enough and broad enough that prices will remain high. Even new car prices will be elevated, although for a shorter period.

Even if there's an epidemic of repossessed cars, the demand backlog is so big that it won't make that much of a difference. Car prices probably aren't going down for another 3-5 years.

You may want to start managing your kids' expectations now. And I extend my sympathy in advance for your upcoming parental nightmare.

[Zarniwoop]

but now there’s the auto worker strike

Not as of this morning, GM and UAW announced that a deal has been reached. So while real, the effects of the strike on supply should recede into the rear-view mirror fairly quickly.

[Nelson]

True. I didn't expect the employers to give up in such a short time. Although the inventory shortage may have hastened the negotiation process.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When the five year loans came out, an auto body person pointed out to me that -- with book value -- the insurance in the 5th year wouldn't pay what was still owed on the vehicle.

I know that used cars hold their value better now, but a seven year loan on a depreciating asset? How much is a total wreck payout in years 6 & 7?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Heck, the value of a car at day 2 off the lot doesn't cover the loan. It gets better by year 5, and for some models that is the break-even point (which is why auto loans have a 5 year term). But, cars are just an expense. People who treat them as anything else are going to lose out in the long term.

[theobromophile]

Because of the craziness of the used car market, the price of a 6-7 year old car is higher than you would think.

Anecdotally, my husband’s 2015 subcompact did not depreciate at all in absolute (not inflation-adjusted) dollars between 2019 and 2023. (We had reason to look at the KBB value at both points because it needed an expensive repair in 2019 and was totaled in a wreck in August of this year.)

Right now, in the era of a nutty car market, lien holders are not underwater, or are less underwater than they could be. However, if/when increased production brings the used car market back down to earth, that will change.

[theobromophile]

I've thought this for a long time. In 2019, the WSJ had an article about people owing twice the value of a vehicle. They would buy a car, drive it for a few years, and trade in the underwater vehicle for a newer one. The dealership would roll the old loan into the new one.

Maybe they figure that it's a good way to keep people perpetually paying interest and that's where they make their money? I don't know.

The other problem is that if people lack the funds to maintain their vehicles (because they have a car loan out on a vehicle that needs maintenance and can't afford the loan), the used car market will get even more jacked up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In 2019, the WSJ had an article about people owing twice the value of a vehicle. They would buy a car, drive it for a few years, and trade in the underwater vehicle for a newer one. The dealership would roll the old loan into the new one.

Maybe they figure that it’s a good way to keep people perpetually paying interest and that’s where they make their money? I don’t know.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. A loan for twice the value of what you're financing makes that item pretty poor collateral. And I'd think that very few people with credit good enough to warrant such a risk by lenders are that bad at managing their finances.

[theobromophile]

I don't necessarily disagree, except for the fact that auto manufacturers make a lot of their money on financing, not vehicle sales. In a normal economy, if you arrive at a dealership owing $10k more than your want-to-be trade-in is worth, they would pursue you for the difference, not sell you a new car and roll the old loan into the new one. But we have something going on that resembles the 2006-2008 housing market.

Perhaps the interest rates are high enough to protect against the risks of underwater vehicles. Perhaps the idea is that they can get their driver into one of their cars for the next 5-10 years, and then the unpaid debt will be someone else's problem. Perhaps the idea is to have so much unsecured debt that it becomes worth pursuing in court and obtaining a judgement for.

Nevertheless, it is happening and will cause massive ripple effects.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

except for the fact that auto manufacturers make a lot of their money on financing, not vehicle sales

Yes, but that doesn't account for anyone with good enough credit willingly choosing to be that far underwater on a financed purchase and paying so much interest on it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Last week I did mandatory pro bono representation in New Jersey. Attorneys are assigned cases to represent people pro bono.

The case I was assigned involved a divorced man who it was alleged violated a restraining order taken out by his ex-wife. The charge was criminal contempt, which carries a maximum penalty of 18 months.

I was surprised that such cases can be assigned pro bono. I have not done criminal work for over 25 years, and even then it was white collar cases in federal court. I did not feel qualified. The Pro Bono office told me that it's only a quasi-criminal case, so they do assign lawyers pro bono. And pointed me to a website where I downloaded a 53-page short treatise entitled "Defending a Domestic Violence Contempt Case: A Primer for Assigned Counsel"

I was planning on filing a motion that this arrangement violated the client's right to counsel. But then when I called the prosecutor's office, she said they were dismissing the case, because my client was in the hospital with cancer, and the ex-wife felt sorry for him and did not want to proceed.

I still had to show up in court at 8:30 am. Judge does not come out on the bench until 10 am. I was the third or fourth case called, and after 4 minutes of talk, case was dismissed.

I probably could have done an ok job defending this had it been a contested case, but I wonder if NJ is fulfilling its obligation to provide counsel to defendants through this arrangement.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting. I did not know that pro bono work could be compelled. But then again, it is NJ.

[Bored Lawyer]

It's a condition of practicing law. If I retired, they could not compel me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back circa winter '85-'86, Massachusetts tried a similar arrangement and the Bar (BBA?) sued on 13th Amendment grounds and won. It was in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly for those with archive subscriptions and an interest -- it likely would have been in Suffolk County (Boston) and likely in the Mass JSC, but I'm not sure about that part.

[David Nieporent]

I am quite certain that this anecdote has the same truth value as all of Dr. Ed's other anecdotes. There have been many 13th amendment challenges to mandatory pro bono, and they have virtually all been rejected.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look, Nimrod, I enclosed a citation to look up if you have access to MLW back issues. So no, I am not fabricating this.

Although I *was* surprised to see the 13th Amendment upheld, and can't say what was done in the subsequent 38 years, although I do know that the Commonwealth pays private lawyers to defend the indigent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hey Nimrod -- here's the statute that says they have to be paid:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter211D/Section6

See Section B

[David Nieporent]

1) The statute doesn't say that they have to be paid. It says they can be.
2) A statute saying that private attorneys who are appointed have to be paid would not in any way support your claim about a purported court ruling that the 13th amendment forbids the compulsory appointment of pro bono counsel.
3) Indeed, the 13th amendment has nothing to do with pay in the first place. The 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude, not unpaid work.

[David Nieporent]

I enclosed a citation to look up

I mean, you didn't in fact do any such thing.

[Commenter_XY]

I just shake my head at the thought that NJ can compel lawyers to do legal work for the state/county, for free. Indentured servitude.

[Nelson]

My sister is a lawyer in Illinois and they have the same thing there.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I didn’t realize that there were still states that used this arrangement, but the last time I did research in this area, state supreme courts were pretty unsympathetic to the objecting attorneys and concluded that any lawyer should be a capable for preparing to try a routine criminal case.

[SomeGuy 2]

Compelling representation is a heinous mistake-- you were conscientious, but many lawyers will simply phone it in and not care (why should they?). To the extent the state believes that representation should be available in matters such as this, the model is the public defenders; pay do-gooders to do it as their full time job. Of course the state would rather not pay the money, hence the stupid solution of making "pro bono" a licensing condition.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I probably could have done an ok job "

What if you did not? I assume the enslaved lawyer is still liable to malpractice and attorney discipline claims?

[John F. Carr]

A public defender can't be sued for malpractice. Discipline is still an option. It is not customary to discipline lawyers who are found to be constitutionally ineffective.

[Bored Lawyer]

But I was not a public defender, I was an assigned pro bono attorney. Not sure if there is some malpractice immunity. Although the chances of a malpractice suit are remote.

As for discipline, I would have to do something off the wall, like curse out the judge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Showing up drunk? (I've seen it done...)

[Dr. Ed 2]

John -- aren't you a member of the Mass Bar? Have *you* been compelled to provide unpaid pro bono defense of the indigent?

My observation -- as a "janitor" advising undergrads was that there were a half dozen failed attorneys who hung around the (district) courthouse and picked up indigent defense cases for a set hourly fee paid by the Commonwealth. They were not very good and there was one that I don't think I ever saw sober.

[not guilty]

Some media outlets have sued seeking to televise Donald Trump's D.C. trial. Among the claims is a contention that Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contravenes First Amendment guaranties. Judge Chutkan has ordered a response by November 10. The application of NBCUniversal Media is here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.260957/gov.uscourts.dcd.260957.1.0.pdf

I hope that the trial will be televised, but the media have an uphill climb here. Several Courts of Appeals have upheld Rule 53 against First Amendment attack as a reasonable time, place and manner regulation. United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1282-84 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. United States, 461 U.S. 931, 103 S.Ct. 2094, 77 L.Ed.2d 303 (1983); Conway v. United States, 852 F.2d 187, 188 (6th Cir. 1988); United States v. Kerley, 753 F.2d 617, 620-22 (7th Cir. 1985). See also, United States v. Edwards, 785 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1986).

[Bored Lawyer]

But there is always the doctrine of lex Arausicani capilli hominis.

[Bored Lawyer]

Or perhaps Lex hominis capillus aliquam

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male conservative blog
has operated for no more than

SEVEN (7)

days without publishing
a racial slur; it has published
racial slurs on at least

THIRTY-SIX (36)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
36 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 36 racial slurs; many
of those discussions have
featured multiple racial slurs).

This assessment does not address
the broader, incessant stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic, and
immigrant-hating slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which is
presented from the receding, disaffected
right-wing fringe of modern legal academia
by members of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s obsolete and objectionable right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile. (Stones outtake; Mick Taylor tune)

This is a good one, too. Not a Stones performance, but Keith on guitar, Charlie on drums, Mick on backing vocals, Ian MacLagan on keyboard.

[Kazinski]

Matt Taibbi published a Thanks, to a Politician Who Did His Job

"When the IRS visited my home, Jim Jordan actually did something about it. Why couldn't I call a Democrat?

A new report about IRS home visits has just been released by the House Weaponization of Government Committee, chaired by Ohio congressman Jim Jordan. It outlines disturbing issues, including confirmation that IRS agents making home visits may come without warning, using aliases, and without informing local enforcement agencies of their presence.

One of the cases outlined is my own. My home was visited by the IRS while I was testifying before Jordan’s Committee about the Twitter Files on March 9th. Sincere thanks are due to Chairman Jordan, whose staff not only demanded and got answers in my case, but achieved a concrete policy change, as IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel announced in July new procedures that would “end most” home visits.

Anticipating criticism for expressing public thanks to a Republican congressman, I’d like to ask Democratic Party partisans: to which elected Democrat should I have appealed for help in this matter? The one who called me a “so-called journalist” on the House floor? The one who told me to take off my “tinfoil hat” and put greater trust in intelligence services? The ones in leadership who threatened me with jail time? I gave votes to the party for thirty years. Which elected Democrat would have performed basic constituent services in my case? Feel free to raise a hand.

If silence is the answer, why should I ever vote for a Democrat again?"

Here are the actual facts uncovered by Jordan's investigation that were supplied to his Judiciary committee by he IRS about the IRS investigation of Taibbi:
"The IRS’s production shows that the IRS opened its examination of Mr. Taibbi’s 2018 tax return on December 24, 2022. Not only was this date Christmas Eve and a Saturday, but it also happened to be three weeks after he published the first Twitter Files detailing government abuses and the same day that Mr. Taibbi published the ninth segment of the Twitter Files, detailing how federal government agencies “from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA” coordinated to censor and coerce speech on various social media platforms. It is unclear from the documents alone why the IRS opened its examination of Mr. Taibbi’s tax return on such an unusual date or whether it coincided intentionally with Mr. Taibbi’s reporting about government censorship.
A month later, on January 27, 2023, the IRS assigned an agent to Mr. Taibbi’s case to initiate face-to-face contact. The IRS documents reflect that the case agent performed an extensive investigation of Mr. Taibbi, using publicly available search engines and commercial investigative software such as Anywho, Consumer Affairs, LexisNexis Accruint, and Google.
The IRS’s dossier about Mr. Taibbi included information such as Mr. Taibbi’s voter registration records, whether he possessed a hunting or fishing license, whether he had a concealed weapons permit, and his telephone numbers. The agent also examined and saved Mr. Taibbi’s Wikipedia page, which contained details about Mr. Taibbi’s work on the Twitter Files.7 By the time the agent appeared at Mr. Taibbi’s home, it had been nearly three years since the IRS claims it last tried to contact Mr. Taibbi about his 2018 tax return. Instead of attempting to reinitiate contact with Mr. Taibbi by less intrusive means, the IRS scheduled its field visit for March 9, 2023—the very day Mr. Taibbi was to testify before Congress.
The IRS’s production confirmed one crucial fact—that Mr. Taibbi did not owe the IRS anything. Rather, the IRS owed Mr. Taibbi a substantial refund. "
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20230524/116023/HMKP-118-JU00-20230524-SD005.pdf

And please note that as a result of the House investigation in to the IRS home visit to attempt to intimidate Taibbi, the IRS has changed its policy on home visits and has new restrictive guidelines on when agents can make home visits.

[Longtobefree]

And the democrats want to give these clowns guns!

#disarmthefeds

[Kazinski]

Tragically yes, there are armed IRS agents.

Now there is one fewer, in August an IRS agent doing weapons training at a federal facility in Phoenix was shot and killed by another IRS Agent.

The agent who was shot was probably very competent with weapons because he was an Air Force National Guard Master sergeant. He was also married and had 4 kids.

But one of his fellow IRS agents he was training with was incompetent and careless and it killed him.

https://www.azfamily.com/2023/08/17/irs-agent-accidentally-shot-killed-by-fellow-agent-during-training-phoenix-gun-range/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I blame the range safety officer. That person is responsible for ensuring that everyone is acting safely and/or kicking those who aren’t off the range.

And not informing local police of your presence is STUPID.

Homeowner makes 911 call of "an armed man trying to force his way into my home" and what do you *think* the local PD is going to do?!? Half the cops wouldn't recognize an IRS/Treasury badge if you showed it to them in a calm situation, which this ain't gonna be...

STUPID

Stupid arrogance that gets your own people killed.

Just like Waco where the local Sheriff offered to help the ATF arrest Koresh downtown when he went to buy groceries. When both of his hands would be full and no shots could be fired....

[Brett Bellmore]

That wasn't a screw up, though. "Operation Showtime" wasn't a regular law enforcement operation, it was an effort to generate splashy headlines going into their budget hearings.

They knew the Davidians weren't guilty, they just figured the acquittals would come after their budget was renewed, so it wouldn't matter.

[David Nieporent]

And not informing local police of your presence is STUPID.

Homeowner makes 911 call of “an armed man trying to force his way into my home” and what do you *think* the local PD is going to do?!?

What the fuck are you talking about? There was no armed man, and nobody forcing anybody's way into anything.

Half the cops wouldn’t recognize an IRS/Treasury badge if you showed it to them in a calm situation, which this ain’t gonna be…

Dr. Ed makes more stuff up! Must be a day ending in 'y.'

[Kazinski]

Oh come on David, Ed happens to be right this time.

I’m surprised you don’t know standard procedure to keep blue on blue shootings from happening is for federal agencies conducting law enforcement operations to notify the local police or sheriffs and usually ask for assistance. This is specifically so the victim/perp doesn’t call 911 and have the local sheriffs arrive, knowing nothing about any LEO activities, and may indeed shoot first and ask questions later.

[Nige]

They tried to intimidate him by granting him a tax rebate?

[Kazinski]

Use your dictionary to figure out the difference between a rebate and a return.

They also didn't grant him anything, they paid him what they owed him, after Congress investigated.

[Nige]

Oh, beg pardon, gave him a refund. Terrifying.

[Kazinski]

Well thanks for illustrating why Matt Taibbi doesn't think he can continue voting for Democrats.

They do think the IRS is a legitimate weapon to try to intimidate journalists and others that push back at federal government overreach.

But in this case there was a happy ending, the IRS had to admit the visit was inappropriate, and changed its policies as a result. After of course they were caught lying about the facts.

[Nige]

Matt Taibbi was a Democrat? How long ago was that?

‘It is unclear from the documents alone why the IRS opened its examination of Mr. Taibbi’s tax return on such an unusual date or whether it coincided intentionally with Mr. Taibbi’s reporting about government censorship.’

Or if it’s because of the deliberate Republican defunding of the IRS to let rich tax-dodgers get away with it, resulting in erratic and poorly executed investigations.

‘But in this case there was a happy ending,’

If you’re friendly with Congressional Republicans they’ll get the IRS off your back!

[Kazinski]

The IRS is so broke it has to send agents to private residences to contact taxpayers it owes returns to?

[Nige]

Agents? Contacting taxpayers they’re investigating? Never!

[Kazinski]

Matt Taibbi was a Democrat not that long ago. You can tell that by the titles of his most recent books and the published dates:

Hate Inc. 2019
Insane Clown President 2017
The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap2014

Actually for him the turning point seems to have been when he started criticizing his fellow journalists about Russiagate, this is from Vox:

"Trump and his staunchest defenders on the right have long made the case that “Russiagate” was a sham, joined by some commentators like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi who aren’t professed Trump fans but who do disdain what they view as the groupthink, dishonesty, and partisanship of the media and liberal establishment."

I covered the investigation contemporaneously for Vox, and I do think a reassessment is worthwhile. But the revisionists tend to fall into their own patterns of oversimplification and overhype.

Does the media’s Trump-Russia coverage hold up? It depends on what coverage you’re talking about. The “Trump as Manchurian candidate” theories, the frenzied hunt to unearth any suspicious-sounding “contacts” with any Russians, and anything based on the Steele dossier — the explosive document that purported to have the goods on Trump but very much didn’t — have not aged well."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/2/15/23588121/trump-russia-cjr-jeff-gerth-russiagate

[Nige]

'but who do disdain what they view as the groupthink, dishonesty, and partisanship of the media and liberal establishment.”'

'I don't like Trump but I'm going to pretend the Mueller Report doesn't exist while I trash his critics with Republican talking points.'

'Does the media’s Trump-Russia coverage hold up?'

Depends, are you going to pretend the Mueller Report doesn't exist?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I’d like to ask Democratic Party partisans: to which elected Democrat should I have appealed for help in this matter?. . . Which elected Democrat would have performed basic constituent services in my case? Feel free to raise a hand.

Taibbi is enough of a partisan, disaffected dope that perhaps he called someone involved in the Comey and McCabe IRS adventures.

[bernard11]

“The IRS’s production shows that the IRS opened its examination of Mr. Taibbi’s 2018 tax return on December 24, 2022. Not only was this date Christmas Eve and a Saturday,

Something a little strange here. Normally, the latest Taibbi would have filed his 2018 return is Oct. 15, 2019. As I understand it, the usual statute of limitations on IRS audits is three years, so it had expired by Dec., 2022.

[Kazinski]

Glad you noticed there was something strange about it.

As the Judiciary letter elaborates:
"After the IRS’s field visit, Mr. Taibbi promptly resolved his 2018 tax filing on March 21, 2023. On March 23, 2023, the IRS sent Mr. Taibbi a Notice of Case Resolution, informing Mr. Taibbi that his case had been closed and that no taxes or tax returns were due. The IRS’s production, however, lacks any indication of the IRS’s decision-making process to open a case against Mr. Taibbi, or to conduct a field visit at his home. "

[Brett Bellmore]

There are multiple strange things here, Bernard. But they're only strange if you assume it was the IRS doing their job. If you assume they were sent to 'deliver a message', they all make perfect sense.

[bernard11]

If you assume they were sent to ‘deliver a message’

Which of course is your automatic, instinctive, unshakeable opinion.

You invent some giant conspiracy involving the IRS, government regulators, possibly Administration officials, all based on a coincidence of dates.

Never mind that Jordan and Taibbi are liars and rabble-rousers, and that the argument that the IRS was just doing its job is perfectly plausible. Taibbi claims that he had no idea there was a problem with his return. But wait. He was entitled to a "substantial refund." He didn't notice that he never got it?

He never got those earlier letters? Really?

[Kazinski]

If you read Jordon's letter you will see that not only does Taibbi claim that he never received the letters, but that the IRS has no record of sending them.

That of course means the IRS is lying when it says it sent the letters. The file on Taibbi wasn't opened until long after the letters were purportedly sent. The House obtained Taibbi's file directly from the IRS, after obtaining Taibbi's consent, so these are not just allegations.

[bernard11]

If you read Jordon’s letter you will see that not only does Taibbi claim that he never received the letters, but that the IRS has no record of sending them.

Actually, that's not quite right. He does say Taibbi claims not to have received them, but he does not say the IRS can't find them.

What Jordan says is that the IRS did not produce them, presumably in response to a committee request. That's a far cry from not being able to find them. We don't even actually know they were specifically requested.

A couple of questions:

1. The documents requested by Jordan's letter do not include copies of the IRS letters. Wonder why.

2. Jordan specified deadline of June 7 for the new production. Have we heard anything since?

[Nelson]

"Never mind that Jordan and Taibbi are liars"

Don't do the "guilt by vague association" thing.

Jim Jordan is demonstrably a liar and lacks ethical and moral compasses.

Matt Taibbi is the exact opposite. He is principled, honest, and very transparent. He said things that Ds disliked, so per normal political behavior these days he was relentlessly attacked by those who didn't like what he found when he investigated.

Matt Taibbi is what all journalists should be, but few are. His personal problems with Ds haven't changed his reporting. When he finds things that trend towards them, he reports them.

[bernard11]

Nelson,

OK. Maybe you are right about Taibbi, though he does have a reputation as a bit of a bullshitter. I haven't followed his career, so can't say.

Still, let's note something important. We do not have Taibbi's actual statements to the committee.

What we have is Jim Jordan's description of those statements. I don't trust that for a millisecond. As you note, Jordan is seriously integrity-challenged. If Taibbi said something like, "I don't remember getting those letters," do you doubt for a second that Jordan would describe that as Taibbi saying he never got them?

I don't.

[Kazinski]

Taibbi details in his columns from March the entire story.

He thanks Jordan for vindicating his case and making the IRS answer for what I will admit is a fairly minor, but still troubling transgression.

It’s pretty disturbing though your lickspittle devotion to the IRS, like any possibility of IRS abuses ended with the Nixon administration.

[Nelson]

Bernard, I agree with you about Jordan. I wouldn't trust it if he said water was wet without checking. He has no integrity and no compunction about lying.

But Taibbi has been pretty specific and detailed about what he has dealt with. And I would point out that praising Jordan for his actions in a specific instance isn't the same thing as praising Jordan in all things.

Taibbi did a Munk Dialogue segment that was very impressive. I don't always come to the same conclusions he does, but I have never felt like he manipulates language or facts nor that I should question his motives. And these days, that's pretty unusual.

Usually those that don't have a consistent "team" and form their opinions from the facts they find are torn apart by the party that dislikes their conclusions. And
Since neither party is 100% right, truly independent journalists usually get gunned down by both sides. Taibbi has managed to make a living without being concerned about pissing either side off.

[bernard11]

I see.

They actually opened the investigation a few days after he filed, while Trump was President, and it was based on some suspicion that the return was part of an identity theft operation. IOW, it triggered some alert that suggested it might be phony. That would certainly explain why they checked his drivers' license and looked for other public information. Note that he was entitled to a "substantial refund," which might easily have been one of the reasons the identity theft suspicion arose.

Who should Taibbi have contacted to complain? Funny, he dopesn't mention his own Representative, just some unidentified Democratic House Members.

In short, this is BS.

[Kazinski]

If its bullshit then why did the IRS change its guidelines on home visits and disallow them except in cases where the taxpayer owed money, and letters had already been sent?

[Nelson]

"As I understand it, the usual statute of limitations on IRS audits is three years"

Unless something has changed drastically, I believe it's seven years.

[bernard11]

Here you go.

Period of limitations for assessment of tax:

3 years - For assessment of tax you owe, this period is generally 3 years from the date you filed the return. Returns filed before the due date are treated as filed on the due date.

No limit - There's no period of limitations to assess tax when you file a fraudulent return or when you don't file a return.

6 years - If you don't report income that you should have reported, and it's more than 25% of the gross income shown on the return, or it’s attributable to foreign financial assets and is more than $5,000, the time to assess tax is 6 years from the date you filed the return.

[Nelson]

Ouch. They should change that back. Fraudsters and people with complex returns must have lobbied hard for that rule, since 3 years isn't very long to catch tax cheats, other than the simplest of returns.

[David Nieporent]

It outlines disturbing issues, including confirmation that IRS agents making home visits may come without warning, using aliases, and without informing local enforcement agencies of their presence.

Once again, we see Trumplaw in action: the notion that routine conduct somehow becomes unacceptable only when it happens to Trump and his hangers-on and goons. As the very tweet linked by Taibbi in his screed demonstrates:

After intense scrutiny by @Weaponization, the IRS revoked its policy of unannounced field visits, ending a decades-long practice the agency had been exploiting.

In other words, this had nothing whatsoever to do with Taibbi's so-called "reporting." It's the way the IRS operates. But Taibbi thinks that pretending to be persecuted will get him more attention.

I also like the bad faith "What Democratic congressman could I have asked for help? What, you didn't answer my rhetorical question? Well, then, why should I continue to pretend that I was ever a Democrat?" (I'm not sure what "help" he even needed to ask for, by the way.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you honestly saying that the IRS was working on a Saturday that was Christmas Eve???

[Martinned]

We've spoken in the past about state laws that govern party primaries, and how those fit with the First Amendment. Can someone walk me through this one?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/30/joe-bidens-big-new-hampshire-blunder-00124145

Now, the Granite State will once again hold an election to begin the presidential nominating process, Biden will not appear on the ballot and Democratic insiders here are being made to organize a write-in campaign to ensure that the sitting president prevails when the vote is held in January. Which may have been the end of the story before last Friday.

The article is a bit loose with facts, but who decided when New Hampshire holds its primary, and who decided whether or not Biden will be on the ballot?

[John F. Carr]

Presidential primaries are different from other primaries because the winner has no special legal status in the general election.

The New Hampshire legislature decides whether and when the state will sponsor a primary. Leaders of the Democratic Party decide what to do with the results. If the primary is not held at the right time the party threatens to ignore the results.

[Martinned]

So why doesn't the Democratic Party simply hold a primary whenever it pleases? Freedom of association and all that?

[John F. Carr]

It's hard to run a primary without the public election infrastructure, which in New Hampshire is offered at the start of primary season. Other options are caucuses and a nominating convention. The caucuses were meant to have ordinary citizens choose, while a large party's convention would be stacked with party VIPs.

Immigrant communities organize votes in foreign elections. South American citizens living in Lawrence, Massachusetts (over 80% Hispanic) can sometimes vote there. I think they use public buildings. I don't know if they use public voting machines. I don't know who pays for the election.

[ReaderY]

Remwmber the legislature could always just pick the electors itself.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I'm wondering about is the Republican NH Sec of State ruling that only parties who participated in the January NH Primary may put a candidate on the NH General Election ballot.

In other words, because the Dems didn't participate in the NH Primary on the statute-stipulated date, they can't have their candidate on the NH ballot. That's four electoral votes in a Purple state.

[Absaroka]

"who decided whether or not Biden will be on the ballot?"

The decision was made by Joe Biden:

"President Joe Biden won’t file to have his name appear on the 2024 New Hampshire Democratic primary ballot, his reelection campaign said Tuesday, opting to skip a contest that the state plans to hold in defiance of a revamped primary order that the White House has championed. "

[Kleppe]

"The article is a bit loose with facts, but who decided when New Hampshire holds its primary"

State law set the date.

"and who decided whether or not Biden will be on the ballot?"

Biden did, when he decided not to file to have his name appear. How are these serious questions?

[John F. Carr]

The public has recently been reminded that children of married families do better. Not simply children with two parents, children with two married parents. Put a ring on it. This is old news but a new book by Melissa Kearney has upset some people who want the world to be a different place.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/22/1207322878/single-parent-married-good-for-children-inequality

[Martinned]

Sure, but what is the cause and what is the effect?

[John F. Carr]

I think there is some effect if only because it's harder to walk away when you are married. I have not yet found the source for this recollection.

[theobromophile]

Or what third factor causes both? Emotionally stable, mature people who are capable of putting other people's needs ahead of their own desires probably make better spouses (on the whole, fewer divorces) and better parents.

As always, when talking about trends, there exist exceptions to general tendencies.

[Nige]

Is this going to be part of the push against no-fault divorce?

[ScottK]

Magic 8-ball says yes.

[Commenter_XY]

Truth hurts = Kearney's data clearly shows children with married Moms and Dads in the house have better outcomes

I really do wish parents would think long and hard before pulling the marital eject lever.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I really do wish parents would think long and hard before pulling the marital eject lever.

From the article:

One fact is undeniable in all this: More women are deciding to have children and also remain single. Almost half of all babies born in the U.S. were born to unmarried women in 2019, a dramatic increase since 1960, when only 5% of births were to unmarried mothers. And it’s not because of divorce; today’s unpartnered mothers are also more likely to have never been married.

…

Kearney’s endorsement of the institution of marriage seems antiquated and out of touch. Marriage rates have declined, with more people deciding to remain single for longer.

…

In the same period, more women entered the workforce and their average earnings increased regardless of their education level. This change has stripped many men of their traditional role as breadwinner for the family and, in simple terms, made them less desirable marriage partners. Research shows that in parts of the country where men’s earnings have fallen, so too have marriage rates.

…

Their book suggests that many women don’t marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability. They appear to have a higher bar for a potential spouse than their partners, or the fathers of their children, have met.

I haven’t read the book (have you?) but according to the gloss (which seems to have Kearney’s endorsement), this is not about divorce.

[Nelson]

"Truth hurts = Kearney’s data clearly shows children with married Moms and Dads in the house have better outcomes"

No, Kearney's analysis of other peoples' data that she collected says that. See below for the various ways the term "married" is manipulated. Pro-marriage people almost always avoid apples-to-apples comparisons and often distort data intentionally to support their biases.

"I really do wish parents would think long and hard before pulling the marital eject lever."

Clearly you've never been in a house where the parents "stay together for the kids". It's usually a brutal, miserable environment for everyone living in it.

[David Nieporent]

Clearly you’ve never been in a house where the parents “stay together for the kids”. It’s usually a brutal, miserable environment for everyone living in it.

False. That's just a rationalization people use to get divorced for their own benefit rather than for that of the kids. There are, of course, truly abusive marriages, but nobody objects to splitting up in those cases. But the majority of divorces do not involve violent households; that's the whole reason no fault divorce was created: to allow divorce when there was no reason beyond vague unhappiness.

[Nelson]

"False. That’s just a rationalization people use to get divorced for their own benefit rather than for that of the kids."

No, unfortunately it's true. And I apologize. I used "brutal" in the emotional sense. I didn't mean to insinuate physical abuse.

I understand your point. There are people who give up on a relationship too quickly. I've been with the same woman for 24 years and I'd be lying if I said it was always easy. But it's worth the effort, to me.

That said, I had numerous friends growing up whose parents "stayed together for the kids" and they were terrible houses to visit. Kids aren't stupid and they can feel the hostility of two people forcing themselves to stay together for a decade or more when both want out.

That's not even taking into account the normal human desire for emotional connection that leads to "cheating" in these situations, which is even more awkward and difficult for the kids. And that's if no one else finds out. If everybody knows that dad is "cheating" on mom? Teenagers aren't compassionate creatures. That is emotional warfare waiting to happen.

Some relationships don't last. They shouldn't be extended "for the kids". It's bad for everyone, especially the kids.

[Nelson]

"Not simply children with two parents, children with two married parents."

And she claims that she's just looking at the data, but is she?

No one disputes the premise "Children raised by two parents have a much higher chance of success than those raised by one." That's just basic logic. Two people have twice as much time in a day than one person. Two people usually have more income than one person. Two people usually have more resources than one person. No one disputes that.

Yet she goes even further to argue that whether parents are married or not impacts their children's success. She says that unmarried relationships are less stable, but most marriages don't last and she doesn't say whether her definition of "married" means "married to the same person" or "married to someone else, not necessarily the child's other parent". This is a common distortion those who want to push the value of marriage frequently ignore, often on purpose.

The idea that marriage (and/or heterosexual marriage) is superior has repeatedly been shown to be based on biased data sets. It is a manipulation used in studies about gay parents, single parents, divorced parents, and unmarried parents. There is, intentionally, no consistent treatment of data. It is sorted based on outcomes, not the child's situation.

Studies that find significant benefits to marriage invariably count kids whose parents divorced, but one parent remarries, as from married parents if it is a positive outcome and as from divorced/gay/single/unmarried parents if it is a negative outcome.

They also don't consider the length of time the child lived in a particular situation. So, for example, take an 18 year old whose parents were married for the firat 16 years of their life. Pro-marriage studies count them as a child of a single/gay/unmarried parent if there is a negative outcome, but a child of a married couple if there is a positive outcome. Honest analysis would weight the 16 years of married parents and treat them as a child of married parents regardless of outcome. Pro-marriage studies almost never do this, nor are they consistent about how they treat the custodial parent's status vs. the noncustodial parent. Honest analysis would weight the living situation of the custodial parent more than the non-custodial parent.

Honest studies give more weight tp the majority family environment the child was raised in, the custodial parent's marital status (or sexuality, in homo/heterosexual studies), and the amount of parental involvement when addressing the children of divorced parents.

Honest studies are harder to find, since cultural conservatives desperately want there to be something magical to marriage that exact analogues (gay parents before gay marriage, long-term, unmarried relationships between biological parents, etc.) lack, but the support just isn't there. A long-term, committed relationship between a child's parents has the exact same benefits if those parents are gay or straight, married or not. Marriage isn't a good thing or a bad thing, on a macro level. It's just a thing.

A good rule of thumb is usually that if Focus on the Family or a similar fringe group says something is true (and they LOVE heterosexual-marriage-is-better-for-kids narratives), come to it with a healthy dose of skepticism if you don't want to look like a credulous rube.

I haven't read the book, so perhaps this woman is different than the dozens of other marriage-is-better authors before her. But I doubt it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I notice a distinct lack of citations for all these claims.

[Nelson]

“I notice a distinct lack of citations for all these claims.”

Hey, you’re the one that wants to believe that a piece of paper makes analogous situations different (and, somehow, magically better). The idea that marriage is somehow different than every other long-term relationship is ridiculous on its face. A 25 year commitment is exactly the same if the two are married for those 25 years, not married for those 25 years, or eventually married (or not) after Obergafell. There is no difference.

Look up the studies you choose to believe and see how they define their cohorts. You’ll find that “married” doesn’t have a hard definition and, assuming they even present the raw data, that everyone who isn’t either from a family comprised of two married parents for all 18 years or two unmarried parents for all 18 years seem to be randomly applied to a group.

That’s because in order to create a statistically relevant conclusion, the analysis has to artificially assign some of those “mixed” kids to the “married” or “unmarried” cohort because the cohorts of “children of continually married, biological parents” and “children of continually unmarried, biological parents” so small.

For an honest study, the bare minimum would require multiple cohorts, with the two “pure” groups at either end and multiple mixed cohorts, based on defined criteria, in between. However, sudies with rigor don’t provide a clear message for the “magical marriage” theory of child rearing, so pro-marriage groups don’t do it. That’s because without outcome-based data manipulation, no statistically-relevant results are found.

And that doesn’t even take into account adopted children, who are sometimes included and sometimes not. But if you think you know a valid study, post it. I’m always willing to examine a rigorously-conducted study. But an economics study using someone else’s sociological study with questionable methodology as the foundation doesn’t make the cut.

[David Nieporent]

but most marriages don’t last

I mean, that's false, unless you mean — as per Keynes — that in the long run we're all dead. The famous claim that "half of all marriages end in divorce" (a) is not true; (b) was never actually true, but was a projection of then-existing trends; (c) said trends were from the 1970s.

A long-term, committed relationship between a child’s parents has the exact same benefits if those parents are gay or straight, married or not.

There are weird ideologues who don't believe in the institution of marriage; for 'most everyone else, a long-term committed relationship means marriage. That's how one signals said long-term commitment. A refusal to get married signals lack of commitment.

And everything else you said is identifying imaginary flaws in unspecified studies.

[Nelson]

[Nelson]

“I mean, that’s false, unless you mean — as per Keynes — that in the long run we’re all dead.”

No, I mean most marriages fail. But you’re right in that it’s not that simple. Roughly half of first marriages end in divorce. Second marriages fare even worse and third marriages? Still worse.

If you’re interested, here’s a primer: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/divorce-statistics/

"There are weird ideologues who don’t believe in the institution of marriage"

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe in marriage, but I know a lot who don't really see the point. It's apathy, not opposition.

I have been in a monogamous, committed relationship with a woman for over 24 years. I know at least half a dozen other people (some with children, some without) who have been in 20+ year, never-married relationships. It isn't weird. It's about asking "why should I get married" instead of "why shouldn't I get married". And except for a few legal hoops, getting married doesn't have relevant advantages for a lot of people.

Unmarried people having the same legal rights as married people is done with a few readily-available legal documents. About the only weird one is my investment accounts which, because we are separate for tax purposes, would have tax implications if we were joint holders. So I have a TOD (transfer on death) account with documents giving her complete access and trading rights on the accounts. There really aren't many reasons left to get married these days. I'm not against it, I just don't see the point.

"That’s how one signals said long-term commitment."

So form over substance? Sorry, not my scene. I don't need to signal anything to anyone. My relationship speaks for itself.

"A refusal to get married signals lack of commitment."

That's an assumption that a lot of people trapped in the past make. They're wrong.

Out of curiosity, are they shaking their fists at those damned kids and yelling at them to get off their lawn while they project their insecurities onto me?

"And everything else you said is identifying imaginary flaws in unspecified studies."

And yet when people without an agenda run studies, they show no disadvantages. The methodological flaws I pointed out have been identified as causing this discrepancy. I admit that my belief that it is an intentional attempt to mislead people and push a political agenda is just a logical conclusion. However, when a premise is as logically questionable as "a marriage certificate results in better outcomes for children", it isn't an unreasonable conclusion to come to.

If you want some examples here's one with the double benefit of debunking both the "married parents get better outcomes" myth and the ""heterosexual parents get better outcomes" at the same time. Note that the study took place before Obergafell, so all gay parents were unmarried.

sciencedirect. com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000580

"In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents”". It then goes on to confirm that premise.

Of course, there is the most notorious study that cultural conservatives to this day don't acknowledge is purely manipulated data. It's called the New Family Structure Survey. He literally gamed the system from the start. "Regnerus removed the effects of divorce, infidelity, and single parenthood from his heterosexual control group, but not from the gay parent group.". A more detailed analysis of how badly this dishonesty skewed the results is here: sociologicalscience. com/articles-v2-23-478/

"This analysis revisits recent controversial findings about children of gay and lesbian parents, and shows that family instability explains most of the negative outcomes that had been attributed to gay and lesbian parents."

I don't understand the desire to falsely laud intact, heterosexual marriages as some sort of special thing that benefits children. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help either. A stable, two-income household with supportive parents provides the same benefits to children if they are gay, straight, a blended family, a second marriage, etc.

Why is it such a bad thing to acknowledge that it is stability, support, and income that benefit children and provide superior outcomes, not ncessarily the marital staus, genetic connection, or sexual orientation of the parents?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reason-based schools are far better than schools that teach and flatter nonsense. Are clingers ready for the policy choices indicated by that obvious point?

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in world sport, South Africa beat New Zealand in a tough match to win the Rugby World Cup for a record fourth time. (It was raining, so New Zealand and its preference for technical play were at a disadvantage.)

And in cricket, raining ODI world champions England continue to get their asses handed to them. Yesterday they were beaten by Australia by 100 runs. With three games to go, they are now dead last in the ranking. (The ODI world cup involves a round robin stage between the 10 countries that qualified, with the best four proceeding to the semi-finals.)

As you will have noticed, in Formula 1 Max Verstappen continue to vanquish all others by wide margins.

[SRG2]

I cannot believe how badly England's cricket team have sucked. Fortunately, I regard limited-over cricket as none too serious - great when we win, no big deal if we don't.

That Red Bull/Verstappen combo is amazing, but what is also amazing is that Hamilton still has a decent shot of finishing 2nd in the Championship, which tells you that when he was winning, it wasn't all about the car. I like Verstappen - he is a truly great driver. I just like Sir Lewis more - been a fan since his very first race.

[Martinned]

I regard limited-over cricket as none too serious – great when we win, no big deal if we don’t.

Agreed. Only test/county cricket is proper cricket. Everything else is just baseball-style swinging at every ball. (Not to mention that it can't be a serious form of cricket if there's a very real chance that the Netherlands will beat England next week.)

[SRG2]

FWIW my county, Surrey, won the championship again

[Voize]

How can England be the raining champion if they lost when it was raining?

[apedad]

Former Attorney Convicted of Bribery Scheme

A federal jury convicted a former attorney today of engaging in a scheme to bribe the chief of police of Medford, Massachusetts, to obtain approval for a client to sell recreational marijuana.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Sean O’Donovan, 56, of Somerville, Massachusetts, paid a bribe to influence the Medford police chief in connection with O’Donovan’s client’s recreational marijuana business.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-attorney-convicted-bribery-scheme

Alright....which one of you is O'Donovan?

[John F. Carr]

This is not the first conviction of its kind. The marijuana licensing process was designed to be based on bribery and extortion. Some local officials got greedy and kept the money for themselves instead of letting the town have it as the law requires.

[John F. Carr]

Carnival has been found negligent for allowing a cruise ship to set sail during COVID. A woman who got sick won a lawsuit.

When I saw the headline I was contemplating a big company bankrupted by a rapacious jury. Then I learned the case was in Australia, not the United States. She is entitled to compensation, not a lottery payout.

She is, however, successful on her claim for out-of-pocket medical expenses in the sum of $4,423.48 plus interest.

Mrs Karpik is also entitled to distress and disappointment damages on all her claims. These are damages that are available to compensate someone for what they were promised when the expectation of a happy and relaxing holiday has been unfulfilled. However, in this case all the passengers were paid a full refund by the respondents. As I assess Mrs Karpik’s distress and disappointment damages at no more than the refund of about $4,400 that she received, and Mrs Karpik does not dispute that the refund can be set-off against such damages, she gets nothing on this head of damages.

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca1280/summary/2023fca1280-summary

[David Nieporent]

Carnival has been found negligent for allowing a cruise ship to set sail during COVID. A woman who got sick won a lawsuit.

So Australia doesn't believe in the assumption of risk defense any more than the U.S. now does?

[Kleppe]

Why is it every time a mass shooting happens the Democrats' solution is I must have my rifle taken away? It doesn't matter the context, that is their only answer.

[Nige]

Why is it every time a mass shooting happens Republicans get sulky thinking their favourite expensive hobby is at risk?

[Michael Ejercito]

Because there are people who actually want to do away with civil rights.

[Nige]

The Constitution is a mass murder manifesto.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is Paul Harding.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14

All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I'd catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I'd find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child's bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I'd find out for sure whether a lab was there.

How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we've got some evidence, but it isn't enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I'll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I'm allowed to do to you, what's going to keep you safe from me?

Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven't really thought through the consequences. I won't argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

[Nige]

Oh we knew after Sandy Hook that your hobby was more important than dead children.

[Michael Ejercito]

Ah, yes.

The thing is, the Constitution restrains remedies against mass shootings.

In 1996, Curtis Flowers was accused of a horrific mass shooting at a furniture store in Mississippi.

Doug Evans, the D.A., used peremptory strikes to remove Black jurors from the jury.

Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death.

The United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-9572_k536.pdf

[Z Crazy]

What?

The Supreme Court let a mass shooter go free?

That's outrageous.

Why do we have these civil rights?

[not guilty]

I haven't looked up this particular decision, but reversing a conviction because of a Batson error does not mean that the reviewing court lets the accused go free. The remedy is a new trial before (hopefully) an untainted jury.

[David Nieporent]

Indeed, Flowers was tried six times, and spent 20 years in prison. He was convicted four times, all of which were overturned either for Batson violations or other prosecutorial misconduct, and there were two mistrials. Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, had a tantrum about SCOTUS’s Batson decision.

[Nige]

Whole generation growing up scarred by shooting drills.

[Z Crazy]

All because of courts' obsession with mUh CiViL rIGhTs.

Did you know that in 1994, a judge stopped the cops from searching the homes of suspected gang members in chicago?

That was outrageous.

But too few people care about children being scarred in shooting drills, because that onl;y happens in the ghetto. Too many people ignore the ghetto, viewing their lives as less than human!

That's also outrageous!

[Nige]

Hey, the real enemy there is poverty.

[Idihax]

No the real enemy is not poverty, it's schizophrenia for mass shooters, and low IQ for gang banging.

Sterilize low IQ black women and most of the latter shootings go away.

[Kleppe]

"favourite"

European identified; opinion disregarded.

[Nige]

Derp.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is it any wonder that we call you the Nigebot?

[Nige]

Because ol' Edgebot is profoundly unoriginal?

[Jimmy the Dane]

So next time some Christian says we should ban sodomy (which is a favorite hobby of many), I'm sure you will say the same thing right?

[Nige]

You have sex with your gun?

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-Bot has never seen "Full Metal Jacket"

[Frank Drackman]

Really not that expensive, once you buy the gun (or better yet, build one from a kit) you just have to feed it, and if you had foresight and bought thousands of rounds of ammo 20 years ago, you mostly just pay for gun cleaning supplies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Doesn't ammo go bad over time?

[Frank Drackman]

Nope, I mean, maybe over centuries, and the Corrosive variety (Scares everyone because it's um, "Corrosive" but all you have to do is clean your gun after shooting with Hot soapy water.) is damn near immortal, I've shot some 8mm x 56R and 8mm Mauser that's 90 years old.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then what's the big issue about WWII shells being unstable?

[Frank Drackman]

"Unstable" in that they go bang? I'd be more worried if they didn't go bang. You can get corrosion in the shell casing, which isn't good, because then the gas from the powder goes out the weak area and not the neck of the cartridge, but thats more or an ish-yew with ammo that's been already opened, and usually pretty obvious if you look at your bull-wets (HT E. Fudd) as you're loading them.

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

More to the point, why do they ignore urban gun violence?

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/

They had been invited by the Obama administration to talk about what the country should do to address gun violence. Vice President Joe Biden had been meeting with victims and advocates all day, and he arrived so late that some in the room wondered whether he would come at all. When he finally walked in, the clergy started sharing their advice, full of pain, some of it personal. “The incidents of Newtown are very tragic,” Michael McBride, a 37-year-old pastor from Berkeley, California, recalled telling Biden. “But any meaningful conversation about addressing gun violence has to include urban gun violence.”

McBride supported universal background checks. He supported an assault weapons ban. But he also wanted something else: a national push to save the lives of black men. In 2012, 90 people were killed in shootings like the ones in Newtown and Aurora, Colorado. That same year, nearly 6,000 black men were murdered with guns.

Many people viewed inner-city shootings as an intractable problem. But for two years, McBride had been spreading awareness about Ceasefire, a nearly two-decades-old strategy that had upended how police departments dealt with gang violence. Under Ceasefire, police teamed up with community leaders to identify the young men most at risk of shooting someone or being shot, talked to them directly about the risks they faced, offered them support, and promised a tough crackdown on the groups that continued shooting. In Boston, the city that developed Ceasefire, the average monthly number of youth homicides dropped by 63 percent in the two years after it was launched. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “what works” website for crime policy had a green check mark next to Ceasefire, labeling it “effective” — the highest rating and one few programs received.

McBride wanted President Obama to make Ceasefire and similar programs part of his post-Newtown push to reduce gun violence. He had brought a short memo to give to White House staffers, outlining a plan to devote $500 million over five years to scaling such programs nationwide. His pitch to Biden that day was even simpler: Don’t ignore that black children are dying too.

In response, the vice president agreed urban violence was very important, McBride said. But it was clear that “there was not a lot of appetite for that conversation by folks in the meeting,” McBride recalled.

Later, other ministers who worked with McBride would get an even blunter assessment from a White House staffer: There was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Two policies. Illegal immigration and "defund the police."

[Nige]

Jesus can you imagine the Republican response if Obama had done this?

1. Obama is coming for your guns!

2. Obama loves inner city thugs!

Should have done it anyway.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Turns out you just had to wait for Democrat 2.0 to do all of this in 2020.

[Nige]

Are you for it or against it?

[Michael Ejercito]

The fact is that same side that pushes for decarceration, pushes for defunding the police, accuses police of hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, accuses the criminal justice system of being systemically racist…

…is the same side that pushes for stricter gun control laws which would be enforced by these very same police in this very same system.

[Nige]

Yet you oppose all those things so why would you have a problem with it?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Because they want you to ignore all the other horrible social policies that result in those mass shootings.

These people are actually sick in that the first thing they do after someone dies is figure out how to turn it into a political football. Normal people don't do that. Only sociopaths do.

[Nige]

Just because your response to mass shootings is indifference followed by annoyance that people are saying bad things about your hobby does not mean everybody else is an unfeeling monster too.

[Jimmy the Dane]

No rubbing your hands together in glee because some people died and you can make political hay of it is what makes you a sick f-er.

[Nige]

Good thing that's something that only happens in your funny little head.

[Michael Ejercito]

Who here actually supports drive-by shootings by gangbangers?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Woke DA's that refuse to prosecute are one party.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't really support it, but don't really worry about it either, it's Darwinism in action and not in areas I care about. Mostly just one group of criminals killing another group of criminals.

[Nige]

Is it the same people who think all black people are criminals so it's fine if they all go ahead and kill each other?

[Michael Ejercito]

Ask someone who actually believes that.

[Nige]

Hey, you asked.

[Frank Drackman]

Not all, just a substantial number and way more than any other demographic group. And the Leadership of most of Amurica’s big cities must think it’s “fine” as evidenced by their lack of doing anything to decrease it.

[Z Crazy]

They need to send SWAT teams to the ghetto to crush crime there.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is how Cease Fire works.

These insights led a group of Boston police, black ministers and academics to try a new approach in 1996. Since group dynamics were driving the violence, they decided to hold the groups accountable. The plan was simple: Identify the small groups of young men most likely to shoot or be shot. Call them in to meet face-to-face with police brass, former gang members, clergy and social workers. Explain to the invitees that they were at high risk of dying. Promise an immediate crackdown on every member of the next group that put a body on the ground — and immediate assistance for everyone who wanted help turning their lives around. Then follow up on those promises.

The SWAT teams come in when one of these at-risk men put a body in the ground.

[Michael Ejercito]

Never forget.

The same side that pushes for decarceration, pushes for defunding the police, accuses police of hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men, accuses the criminal justice system of being systemically racist...

...is the same side that pushes for stricter gun control laws which would be enforced by these very same police in this very same system.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Liberal: Criminal justice is racist and doesn't work anyhow!

Liberal: Crimes against women like rape ought to get the death penalty!

[Nige]

The same side that argues that the cops are fine actually also argue that they’re too racist and corrupt and violent to take their guns.

[Kazinski]

Kind of funny Nige, you argue local cops are racist and oppress the underclass.

But Federal Law Enforcement and the IRS are dedicated professionals and would never use their authority to oppress or harass perceived opponents.

[Nige]

Well that's Trump's plans for his second term spoiled.

[M L]

Libs are apparently pushing for use of EVs by the US military, EV tanks, EV fighter jets.

[Jimmy the Dane]

This clearly shows that liberalism really is a mental disease. No further proof is needed.

[Kleppe]

Democrats have long used the military as a test bed for leftist policies. The value (as they see it) is the military has to comply. National security is a secondary concern, if at all.

[Nige]

'National security is a secondary concern, if at all.'

Weird thing to hear from Trump supporters.

[Kleppe]

The overwhelming majority of the military voted for Trump, so don't act surprised. World was pretty good when he was C-in-C. Biden, meanwhile, has the negotiated surrender followed by retreat under fire in Afghanistan, the Russians invading Ukraine, and Hamas murdering 1400+ Israelis under his belt -- so far. Still waiting to see if the entire Mideast/world descends into war before we send him packing.

[Nige]

I'm more thinking of the way he dropped secrets to Russians and threw classified documents about.

Also, I'll think you find it was Trump who negotiated the Afghanistan surrender, and Netanyahu who allowed his people to get slaughtered having previously supported the group that did the slaughtering, and, of course, Trump would have handed Ukraine to Putin on a platter. But mostly it's the cavalier attitude to secrets and classified documents

[Magister]

The overwhelming majority of the military voted for Trump

That's probably not true: Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure that, at this point, people in this country are still assuming that answers to polls are really secret.

[Nelson]

"World was pretty good when he was C-in-C"

LOLOLOLOLOL! Funniest comment today!

Oh, you really believe that. That's horrifying.

[Frank Drackman]

You don't believe it, which is even more horrifying.

[Kleppe]

How was it not? I offered my argument; what's yours?

[Nelson]

OK

"Biden, meanwhile, has the negotiated surrender followed by retreat under fire in Afghanistan"

The surrender was negotiated by the Donald Trump administration. The retreat was clusterfucked by the Biden DOD. So not a success for either, would you agree?

"the Russians invading Ukraine, and Hamas murdering 1400+ Israelis under his belt"

So because there were crises in the world after Trump left, that makes him ... good? Your thesis is that the Middle East, which was wracked by war under Trump and every other President before him, has fundamentally changed now that he's not in office? That's not supportable by facts.

And Putin invading Ukraine wouldn't have happened under Trump? The kindest assessment of that claim would be "rampant speculation based on personal political beliefs".

But the steadfast support for our allies that Trump repeatedly failed to demonstrate is somehow admirable?

"Still waiting to see if the entire Mideast/world descends into war"

It won't, but it wouldn't have been any different if Trump were President. Except, perhaps, we would have made sad tut-tut noises as Russia destroyed another neighbor as part of Putin's brutal attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union instead of helping an ally defend themselves against an illegal, unjustified invasion by a warmonger.

And before you make Putin-apologist noises, as long as there aren't American boots on the ground I completely support helping people fight tyrannical invaders. The same goes for giving support to Israel against Hamas terrorists. The choice is to stand with democracies against terrorists like Russia and Hamas or to admit we have no principles and don't stand for anything. Trump chose the latter.

So no, Trump wasn't a good C-in-C, nor a good President and he isn't a good person by any measure. He was awful as President, which is why he joined Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush as post-WWII one-term Presidents.

But he first in a couple things. He's the first and only President to never reach 50% approval. Oh, and he's the only President never to win the popular vote in even one election.

Biden isn't good, but he's better than the alternative. And if they end up facing each other again, he'll still be better than the alternative.

[Kazinski]

Australia's Maritime Safety Authority has issued a special order about dealing with the risks of transporting EV's on ferries:

"DCV Safety Alert 02/2023 – Risks Associated with the Carriage of Battery Electric Vehicles

Some risks associated with BEV fires onboard DCVs include:

High voltage shocks
Direct jet flames
Fires develop in intensity quickly and rapidly reach their maximum intensity (typically within 2-3 minutes)
Toxic gases
Gas explosion (if the released gas accumulates for a while before being ignited)
Long lasting re-ignition risk (can ignite or re-ignite weeks, or maybe months after the
provoking incident)
Once established fires are difficult to stop/extinguish
Thermal runaway
Further considerations
BEVs are approximately 25% heavier than vehicles with internal combustion engines. This should be considered when stowing the vehicles to minimise the potential impact on vessel stability.

Lithium-ion batteries which are used in most battery powered vehicles have been known to suffer from spontaneous thermal runaway fires. The lower the charge retained by the vehicle’s battery the lower the likelihood of a thermal runaway fire."

https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels-operators/domestic-commercial-vessels/dcv-safety-alert-022023-risks-associated-carriage

I wonder how that would work on a troopship?

But one thing is for certain, whoever gets the diesel generator contract to provide charging facilities for the military's EV's is going to be happy.

[Sarcastr0]

Libs!

[jb]

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-lethality-case-for-electric-military-vehicles/

"Unfortunately, critics of efforts to electrify military vehicles have decried them as politically motivated and overly focused on climate change, which they argue should not factor into planning to meet the military’s core mission. But they ignore the obvious tactical and financial benefits of electrification. Shifting the military to electric and hybrid vehicles shouldn’t be controversial; it will help make our forces more lethal and save the military money. "

But yeah, let's make sure the military is more expensive and less good at their jobs to make sure the libs are mad!

[Absaroka]

Well, yes and no. Electric power is great when the engineering works out. I think it does in limited cases today - I saw a thing last week where one of the SpecOp branches was using electric motorcycles. Twice the price of gas, but quiet, OK range for the mission. Seems pretty spiffy for snooping around. But I don't think the engineering is there yet for an electric MBT.

This stood out enough to be worthy of special mention: "The military’s addiction to petroleum fuels is a liability. Convoys are vulnerable to attack by insurgents and enemy forces"

Ooookay ... don't want to use vulnerable fuel convoys to supply energy to Patton's tanks in their run across France. Instead we should ... build invulnerable power lines? Use those space lasers to beam the electrons down? I didn't get the sense the author has really thought this through.

[Kazinski]

Diesel Generators.

Some Tesla charging stations in remote locations or with substandard grids use Diesel generators.

In fact it's largest charging station, 92 stations, between LA and SF has a diesel generator providing supplemental power because the grid there can't handle a full load.
https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/tesla-interstate-5-supercharger-power-plant-18343119.php

[M L]

I saw a picture of this the other day, a city bus being charged by a huge tow-behind generator pulled by a full size truck..

It is good for the economy and employment. The high tech version of digging holes and filling them back in, or breaking windows.

[Absaroka]

Out of curiosity ... how do you get fuel to your diesel generators up on the front line without those vulnerable fuel convoys?

[Kazinski]

Well the thing is every energy source is vulnerable somehow.

Which is the cheapest, most transportable, least vulnerable, and has the highest energy density, and is easiest to replace if it gets destroyed?

I’d say Diesel hands down.

Its not windmills or acres of solar power.

But obviously the best answer is to cut out the middlemen and run everything straight on Diesel, or aviation fuel, or gas.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't we have a pipeline across Europe in WWII?

[Absaroka]

"But obviously the best answer is to cut out the middlemen and run everything straight on Diesel, or aviation fuel, or gas."

That's my take, as of today, for fueling MBTs etc. Maybe with better batteries someday...

"Didn’t we have a pipeline across Europe in WWII?"

Operation Pluto. But pipelines don't solve the convoy security problem any more than electric lines do. If you can't secure the area of the road around your convoy temporarily, you probably can't secure the whole length of a pipeline/electric transmission line permanently.

[M L]

Right, the EV tanks will work better and be cheaper, of course, why didn't I think of that!

You know something is good when it has to be forced. The federal government is ruining the auto industry already with this crap.

Anyway the only reason I posted about this is that it's rather amusing, the idea that we're going to try and shave off a few pounds of engine emissions while .. checks notes.. literally bombing and launching missiles.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“Unfortunately, critics of efforts to electrify military vehicles have decried them as politically motivated and overly focused on climate change, which they argue should not factor into planning to meet the military’s core mission. But they ignore the obvious tactical and financial benefits of electrification. Shifting the military to electric and hybrid vehicles shouldn’t be controversial; it will help make our forces more lethal and save the military money. ”

But yeah, let’s make sure the military is more expensive and less good at their jobs to make sure the libs are mad!

This is the sort of stuff spewed by the IFLS crowd to demonstrate that they actually fundamentally ignorant of things like physics.

[Nelson]

Wait, is that a real article? It reads like a real article. Is the MWI actually in favor of EVs for the military? I'm flabbergasted. Can any of the military-oriented people help me out? Is this real?

[M L]

You stand corrected.

Military leadership is largely lib now after all the purges.

[Nelson]

You think the US military is willing to fail to protect us? Just ignore their oaths? Absolutely not. They aren't like Jim Jordan, they have honor and integrity.

[Nelson]

"Libs are apparently pushing for use of EVs by the US military, EV tanks, EV fighter jets."

According to who? You aren't exactly known for your accurate characterization of what mainstream liberals believe.

That said, in the unlikely event that this isn't a far-left idea that you're projecting onto "libs" (or, more likely, and InfoWars-level claim) it sounds like a terrible idea.

[John F. Carr]

The Governor of Massachusetts said the state's shelter system for homeless families is about to become full. A lawsuit seeks an order that families be given shelter anyway. State law obliges the state to provide shelter for families and pregnant women. State law forbids expending money without an appropriation. I do not know who is legally in the right here.

The Boston Herald reports

The shelter system has been strained over the past year, as an influx of new immigrants has streamed into the state. As of [Governor] Healey’s announcement last week, she said there are close to 7,000 families enrolled in the system and that they were expecting to hit 7,500 families by November. That number is more than double the number of individuals enrolled at this time last year.

[apedad]

The richest states in the US (by GDP per capita) are New York, Massachusetts, Washington, California, North Dakota, Connecticut, Delaware, Alaska, Nebraska, and Illinois. The richest state in America is New York, with a GDP per capita of $96,502. The second richest state in America is Massachusetts, with a GDP of $95,029 per capita.

Hopefully MA can figure it out.

[Bob from Ohio]

" influx of new immigrants has streamed into the state"

Abbott and DiSantis buses and plane(s) really paying political dividends.

[John F. Carr]

The theologically inclined may be familiar with the debate over whether the Pope can be mistaken when he claims to be speaking ex cathedra. A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia brought that to mind. A lawsuit claimed a law severely restricting abortion was void ab initio because it was unconstitutional when passed. Six justices held otherwise. The constitution didn't change between 2019 and 2023. The United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution, turned out to have been mistaken fifty years ago. The right to abortion never existed. Therefore the Georgia six week ban was never unconstitutional.

I also thought of a line from Futurama: Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

[Ben_]

Kamala insists that Joe Biden is still alive:

https://x.com/steveguest/status/1718779449414504824

No, really. He’s still 100% completely alive.

[Absaroka]

I just happened on a series of podcasts Malcolm Gladwell made on guns. Here is the one on assault weapons (n.b. transcript available on the 'transcript' tab).

He's not a gun/gun policy expert, but they are a lot more cluefull than a lot of commentary on the subject.

If you search there for 'guns part' you can find the others. I've only looked at a couple. There is ...ahem...ammunition for both sides of the debate there, and he has his blind spots, but to damn with faint praise: head and shoulders above most of the commentary on the subject.

[loki13]

I very much enjoyed the series.

I think that he is right to examine the issues with gun culture in our society- both the myths perpetuated by the "right" ... and by the "left."

The part on assault weapons was interesting and balanced, and probably would be eye-opening for a lot of people. Then again, I am quite sure that the other parts of the series would be eye-opening for others. Unfortunately, we all have our own "facts" at this point.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It might be a good podcast, but describing the AR-15 in these terms...

"It’s scary. It’s ugly."

...isn't the best way to get 1/2 of the debate to want to listen to you further.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

OK, so I read the transcript...and even ignoring the misuse of "assault rifle" to refer to a semiauto-only long gun, comments like this...

But an AR-15 is more like a firearm platform than a specific kind of gun. Its most distinctive feature, which you can always use to spot an assault rifle, is a tube that runs along the top of the gun barrel.

...makes me not take him seriously at all. I appreciate that he took a more reasonable approach to the "assault weapon ban" issue, but don't try to sound like you know what you're talking about when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Kazinski]

The Offshore Wind Turbine industry seems to be falling off a cliff, first developers are being refused massive rate hikes and are cancelling projects:

“Last week, New York utility regulators dealt the industry a severe blow by denying requests to increase the amount of money New Yorkers would have to pay under existing contracts for power to be produced at four offshore wind projects under development.”
“The wind developers, including units of European energy companies Orsted (ORSTED.CO), Equinor (EQNR.OL) and BP (BP.L), requested those increases to cover rising labor and equipment costs due to soaring inflation and higher financing costs from interest rate hikes.”

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/offshore-wind-developers-likely-cancel-some-contracts-after-ny-decision-2023-10-19/

In the UK: In July, Swedish utility Vattenfall halted the development of its 1.4 GW Norfolk Boreas offshore wind project off the coast of England due to rising costs and supply chain delays. UK mulls revamp of offshore wind pricing after failed auction | Reuters

And then last week Siemens energy which had lost 1/2 its value since June where it dropped $10 a share from 25$ in 1 day, dropped from 12$ to 7$ last week.

The Wall Street Journal Clean-Energy Sector Suffers New Stock Crash: German Giant Siemens Energy Anna Hirtenstein Thu, October 26, 2023

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wait, this was only supposed to happen to third parties, not to duopoly-endorsed candidates!

“The Democratic-endorsed candidate for the Fairfax County School Board’s Franconia District seat has been disqualified due to an error on her petition to get on the ballot….

“Judge Richard Gardiner ruled that [Registrar Eric] Spicer “violated his non-discretionary ministerial duty” by not invalidating the seventh page of [Marcia] Saind John-Cunning’s petition, according to his order.

““The pages denoted as ‘4’ in the lower right corner does not have her address on the front page,” the order said. “Therefore, this petition page and the signatures on the front and back page are invalid as a matter of law.”

“Eleven signatures were deemed invalid, putting St. John-Cunning below the 125 signatures needed to get on the ballot, according to Patch.”…

“The [The Fairfax County Democratic Committee] said its Franconia District committee will conduct “an aggressive write-in campaign” on St. John-Cunning’s behalf.

“”The Fairfax County Democratic Committee will not allow Republicans to steal the school board election in Franconia,” [Committee chair Bryan] Graham said. “We will fight for Marcia St. John-Cunning and I am confident she will be the next FCPS School Board member from Franconia district.””

https://www.ffxnow.com/2023/10/26/judge-disqualifies-franconia-district-school-board-candidate-over-ballot-paperwork/

[ReaderY]

Well, norms have been slipping. There are now boards of election dedicated to converting the duopoly into a monopoly, and a monopoly for their team. If they can find a means to disqualify the other team’s candidate, they will.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In principle, the logic of ballot access denial could be used on behalf of one-party rule as well as two-party.

I recall seeing a dictator on TV who said that in his country there was only one party, but it was OK, because if you want political change you can just join that party and work from within.

Sound familiar?

(And I don’t think the dictator allowed write-ins, but then, neither do many states. Congrats to VA for at least allowing a write-in loophole.)

[theobromophile]

I'm surprised this is news. When I worked on campaigns (either ballot initiatives or political campaigns), we were scrupulous about ensuring that our signature process was done correctly. We also aimed to collect about 20% more than the minimum number, precisely because signature disqualifications happen. Non-voters sign, people sign twice, people sign in the wrong town or city, etc. If there were stray marks on the page, the entire page could be thrown out. If signatures overlapped, those that overlapped could be thrown out. Regarding getting on the ballot for a primary: unenrolled voters can sign for any party; however, a Democrat cannot sign for a Republican or vice versa.

It was well known that if you didn't clear your threshold by a decent margin, there would be blood in the water and your opponents would have a field day getting signatures thrown out.

Beyond that, if you're running for school board, why are you stopping at <136 signatures? Meet more voters!! Get 300 people to sign -- you're functionally getting your campaign started earlier.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Well, I have mentioned previously my problem with signature requirements, including the invocation of them by duopolists to suppress competition. Look at the Dems in NC trying to keep the Greens off the ballot with Trumpian conspiracy theories of election fraud.

So the indignation of the Democrats provokes an amused response from me: "You don't like abiding by your own rules? You poor things."

[ReaderY]

In Anderson v. Griswold, Judge Wallace omitted what would seem the obvious argument. The Colorado Legislature has a great deal of leeway to determine determine the manner of appointing electors. In exercising this discretion, a state legislature can certainly impose additional qualifications on presidential candidates beyond those found in the bare constitution. And they can interpret Section 3 of the 14th Amendment any way they want.

They can’t say only white men can vote in Presidential elections. But they can impose any qualifications on presidential candidates that they could impose on any state office.

Colorado may not have imposed such a requirement directly. But I think it dispositivy defeats a claim that only Congress can determine the qualifications of Presidential candidates. That’s nonsense. In any election, voters and not Congress determine whether they thin candidates’ qualifications are adequater for the job. And in Presidential elector appointments, state legislatures can split this decision with voters if they want. If they wanted to, they could impose their own criteria for whom they think should qualify, and then let voters pick only among those meeting the criteria.

[not guilty]

"In exercising this discretion, a state legislature can certainly impose additional qualifications on presidential candidates beyond those found in the bare constitution."

I don't think so. In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), SCOTUS invalidated an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibited the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Court ruled in substance that neither the states nor Congress is authorized to impose qualifications for ballot access over and above the qualifications specified in the Constitution itself. The Court noted there that § 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person 'who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.' 514 U.S. at 788, fn.2.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

People have a right to elect senators and representatives. But they don't elect presidents and needn't even elect electors.

If a state legislature gave itself the job, and decided that they would only allow the nomination of candidates over the age of 45, I don't think anyone could question that. So the people as a whole would enjoy the same rights.

I hope Scotus doesn't mess things up further and extend Thornton to presidential elections. Better yet, I hope they overturn it.

[Brett Bellmore]

A state legislature is entitled to pick electors by any means it wants, so long as that means isn't racially discriminatory. Throwing darts at a list, vote of the legislature, a bingo cage.

BUT, they've actually chosen a vote of the people. That constrains them, and in a major way: Having decided that the people get to pick the electors by voting, they're stuck with a vote of the people, and with the nature of voting: That the voters decide who they're going to vote for!

They can't hold a vote AND control who wins. They must do one or the other.

[Martinned]

A state legislature is entitled to pick electors by any means it wants, so long as that means isn’t racially discriminatory. Throwing darts at a list, vote of the legislature, a bingo cage.

I'll grant that it would be a fun case to litigate, but I would argue that that would violate the republican form of government clause. (The darts and the bingo, not the vote of the legislature.)

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Note that Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, O'Connor, Scalia, and Rehnquist all disagree with you.

We don't know what Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Roberts think, but given how they tend to think like the people on the first list, I can guess.

[Kazinski]

I might have agreed with you before the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the term limits case.

But the Supreme Court ruled that for federal offices with restrictions delimited in the constitution, the only valid restrictions are those in the constitution.

[not guilty]

Trial begins today in Denver on the lawsuit to prevent the Colorado Secretary of State from placing Donald Trump's name on the Republican presidential primary ballot. The full week is set aside for the non-jury trial. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/Cases%20of%20Interest/10_18_2023%20Topics%20for%20the%20October%2030%2C%202023%20Hearing.pdf

Trump has an opportunity to testify if he chooses to do so. (The Plaintiffs' request to take an evidentiary deposition from him was denied last week.) If Trump elects not to testify, the judge will be entitled to draw an inference that his testimony would be unfavorable to his position. The same would be true if Trump fails to present fact witnesses regarding his conduct on and before January 6, 2021.

"[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable." Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121 (1893). The Supreme Court there quoted from jury instructions given by the trial court in Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 316, 59 Mass. 295 (1850):

"But when pretty stringent proof of circumstances is produced tending to support the charge, and it is apparent that the accused is so situated that he can offer evidence of all the facts and circumstances as they existed, and show, if such was the truth, that the suspicious circumstances can be accounted for consistently with his innocence, and he fails to offer such proof, the natural conclusion is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would tend to support the charge."

150 U.S. at 120-21.

[Brett Bellmore]

"But when pretty stringent proof of circumstances is produced tending to support the charge,"

Well, then Trump has nothing to worry about, on account of the lack of "pretty stringent proof" supporting the charge.

[not guilty]

Have you read the Plaintiffs' verified petition, Brett? Yes or no?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-06-08-43-07-Anderson-v-Griswold-Verified-Petition-2023.09.06.pdf

Allegations in pleadings are not evidence, to be sure, but there is a wealth of proof available here.

[Brett Bellmore]

So you DO know that allegations aren’t evidence! That puts you ahead of most of the people demanding that Trump be disqualified.

Let’s just look at, “A violent mob summoned, incited, and aided by President Trump attacks the U.S. Capitol to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power. ……………..”

Huh. Total lack of any evidence of the charge. Instead we’ve got things like,

“DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark and Trump advisor John Eastman said violence may be necessary to keep Trump in office. On January 3rd, a Deputy White House Counsel told Clark there would be “riots in every major city in the United States” if Trump remained in office, to which Clark responded, “that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act,” a statute that allows the president to deploy the military within the United States and use it against Americans.”

Why, Trump MUST have planned a riot on January 6th! They’d discussed responding to riots if Trump prevailed, that proves it! [/sarc]

This complaint is an absolute joke. I mean that. Nothing in it looks like proof of Trump being guilty unless you start from the assumption that he's guilty, and interpret everything in that light.

[Nige]

'So you DO know that allegations aren’t evidence!'

The Biden Crime Family raise thier eyebrows.

[not guilty]

"Well, then Trump has nothing to worry about, on account of the lack of 'pretty stringent proof' supporting the charge."

When will you move on from denial to anger, Brett?

[Martinned]

Why does a state official have authority over whose name is or isn't on a primary ballot?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because government inevitably ends up converting power into authority. Ministerial roles evolve into decision making roles unless the effort to usurp that power is opposed.

Originally in this country, until about 1880, the voter themselves provided the ballot. They’d write it down themselves, or obtain one from their favored party/candidate. Under this system, the voter picked who they voted for, and had full and unfettered right to vote for anybody they wanted.

In the 1880’s, the US first started adopting the “Australian ballot”, where the government pre-prints ballots with the names of all the candidates. This was promoted as both a convenience for voters, and to advance ballot secrecy, since everybody was voting on an identical ballot you couldn’t tell who somebody was voting for by glancing at the ballot they brought to the polling place.

However, by inserting the government into the voting process at this stage, an opportunity was created to restrict who people could vote for by not printing names of candidates the government disfavored on the ballot.

At first, this was only a ‘nudge’, because you were provided the ability to write in the name of anybody you wanted, regardless of whether they were printed on the ballot. But fairly recently states have begun prohibiting write in votes, fully assuming the power to curate voters’ choices.

Thus does a convenience evolve into control.

States started handling the mechanics of primary elections as a convenience to parties. Eventually they used that leverage to take over the parties' choice of candidates in some states.

[M L]

"A lifelong NY resident gets confronted by the security team at a migrant housing facility.

Funniest shit you’ll see all week."

https://twitter.com/AmiriKing/status/1709394505210753123

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It continues to amaze me (though it shouldn't) how many people think they have the authority to tell others what they can/cannot photograph from a public sidewalk.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Agree. Taking that further, it really saddens me how many people believe that police need to have authority taken from them, rather than bestowed on them. They only have authority when it's given.

[M L]

Also, why does a migrant shelter have a fancy private security team? And what are they hiding that they don't want people taking pictures in front of the building?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sure is a lot of n-bombs. Surprised he didn’t get arrested for that.

At least that would have happened with real cops.

[SRG2]

Radley Balko has begun a series about public defenders in the US.

For Alabama, I note this comment:
For non-capital cases, there’s also a cap on how much attorneys are paid per case. For serious felonies punishable by between 10 years to life in prison, the cap is $4,000 per case. The RAND study recommends that attorneys spend at least 249 hours on these cases. This means that in Alabama, if you’re a private attorney handling one of these cases properly, your hourly rate comes out to about $16 per hour,

https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-states-of-indigent-defense-part

[M L]

I vaguely recall that this "Radley" guy is an insufferable leftist propagandist but he's got a point there.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

States should pass laws saying that Section 3 can't be a basis for ballot removal.

They should leave it to the nationwide electoral process to figure out whether Donald Trump is disqualified.

[JasonT20]

So the text of the Constitution in the 14th Amendment doesn't have any legal effect at all then? It's just a suggestion to voters?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

This is a reply to Jason, but also the other replies, and also just an elaboration on my comment:

If Congress makes routine use of the last sentence of Section 3, the whole thing is just a suggestion. And there's nothing wrong with that. It is unusual, to be sure, for a law to have such a broad dispensation power, but this one does - because we decided to put one there. It's part and parcel of the law.

In interpreting we have to remember that it was a very populist era, even more so than today. Radical republicans weren't about quashing democracy; they were worried about confederates. And it's the intentions of the People, not "framers" that are law. One would have to argue that the People themselves were trying to restrict democracy. The people and lawyers of the time were also popular constitutionalist/functional departmentalists. You interpreted because you had a job to do, but figuring out constitutional questions in the long run fell to public discourse and voting. Not mob rule, but dialogue. The public were the supreme maintainer and interpreter. In passing the 14th, they weren't worried about the "dangerousness of democrecy". Rather, they were worried about disloyal *subsets* elevating disloyal people.

Much of the significance of the provision comes from the fact that, without it, you couldn't keep a state from choosing someone as governor, presidential elector, member of Congress, even if they were an outright traitor. Technically there was national control over the lower executive, but people were bound to slip through the cracks - many appointees had to live locally, and the spoils system was still reigning. Also, a Johnson or a Tilden wasn't afraid to appoint exconfederates.

But the nation as a whole, in ratifying the 14th, wasn't making its own power a target, as y'all assume. If the whole country decides to elect someone, they are exercising their judgement that the person did not commit insurrection, or else that removal of disability is appropriate, and that the person is suitable for the office. In such a case, who is Congress to say no?

[JasonT20]

You took the long way around to get there, but eventually you do answer the question, sort of.

If the whole country decides to elect someone, they are exercising their judgement that the person did not commit insurrection, or else that removal of disability is appropriate, and that the person is suitable for the office.

So, yes, Section 3 is just a suggestion to voters, when it comes to the President. Or perhaps suggestion isn't the right word, but it is a question that the voters have to answer, not anyone responsible for elections. That is what you are saying, correct?

Well, if it at least took a majority of the whole voting population to elect a President, then maybe you'd have something, but it doesn't, as we've seen clearly the last two elections. Trump won in 2016 despite receiving nearly 3 million votes fewer than Clinton. Trump was within ~42,000 votes in the right 3 states of winning in 2020 despite receiving 7 million fewer votes than Biden. If it doesn't even take a majority of the voters of "the whole country" to elect a President, then it cannot be valid to argue that such a person would have been judged fit for office by "the whole country."

There's too much in this argument that looks like special pleading to favor Trump specifically for me to buy it as both sincere and valid as a general rule.

[Martinned]

States should pass laws saying that Section 3 can’t be a basis for ballot removal.

If that is true, a state law wouldn't make it more true, and if it is not true, a state law to that effect would be unconstitutional.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The 14th doesn't require anyone to be taken off a ballot. If you're going to have a preprinted ballot (Modern invention - see what Brett said above), I think it's unwise to leave it to a few officials to censor who can and cannot be on the ballot. It's one thing if it's age or previous terms, which are objective. It's quite another if it's something like whether someone has engaged in insurrection.

[SRG2]

Can you think of any other constitutional law where it is left to the voters to render a decision?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

All the time. If I think someone voted for unconstitutional legislation, it weighs significantly against me voting for him; and if he dares to say "Well courts will figure this out, so we don't need to debate it ourselves" I absolutely can't vote for him, and actively campaign against him, time/life permitting. How faithfully a state judge interprets laws is also a primary concern in voting for judicial candidates. Executives too. My state has initiative and referendum, so it falls to me (and approx. 8 million others) in voting on the state constitution or statutes to decide whether the provision is constitutional. Courts might disagree later on, but they can't uphold a statute we didn't pass; there are two veto points (at least).

And if I think Ted Cruz isn't natural-born, he doesn't get my vote; if enough people think it, he doesn't get elected.

[JasonT20]

And if I think Ted Cruz isn’t natural-born, he doesn’t get my vote; if enough people think it, he doesn’t get elected.

So, what you're saying is that Obama never needed to show a birth certificate to anyone, his qualification was always going to be based on whether voters believed that he was born in Hawaii and not Kenya. Well, that's different, you might say, as Obama's status was a question of fact and not interpretation of the Constitution of what natural-born means as is the case with Ted Cruz.

But then, it is a question of fact about whether Trump engaged in insurrection against the United States after having sworn an oath to support the Constitution. (Oh, wait, his lawyers might quibble with that, as the Presidential oath says "preserve, protect and defend" not "support", so that is completely different!) You just think that it is entirely up to voters to make that determination.

So, since Obama was elected, that settles whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya, not any documentation he was able to provide, right?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"States should pass laws saying that Section 3 can't be a basis for ballot removal."
Are you a lawyer?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The convenient thing about being Nameless is that, whatever I tell you, you will never be able to confirm or deny it, only guess.

[mydisplayname]

The Israeli Ambassador to the UN is wearing a yellow Star of David to remind the body's members of the Holocaust, which is somewhat ironic. During the Holocaust, children under age 13 were relocated, killed, cremated, and disposed of at a rate just over 300 per day: in its current war against Gazan citizens, Israel isn't performing the relocation, cremation, or disposal steps. Modern efficiency?!

Philippe Lazzarini (of Swiss/Italian ancestry and a long-time UN commissioner) late yesterday noted that the number of children under age 13 killed in Gaza during the past three weeks now exceeds the number of same-age-range children killed in all conflicts worldwide during the past four years. Lazzarini stated "Most of the people of Gaza felt abandoned. They feel the world is equating all of them to Hamas. This is dangerous – an entire population is being dehumanized. The atrocities of Hamas do not absolve the state of Israel from its obligations under international humanitarian law. Every war has rules and this one is no exception."

[SRG2]

And has Mr Lazzarini condemned Hamas’s use of human shields?

[Martinned]

You mean, other than referring to the "atrocities of Hamas"?

[SRG2]

Yes. "Atrocities" is unspecific, routine, almost. Condemning their use of human shields is specific and significant.

[JasonT20]

It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? What should a law enforcement officer do when someone with a gun is using someone innocent as a human shield while they shoot at other innocent people? Just back off and hope the shooter misses in order to not inadvertently kill the hostage? Placing that one life as the priority could mean several other people are killed. (Trolley Problem alert!)

The problem, though, is that my hypothetical doesn't reflect what is happening now. A hypothetical that would reflect it would be this:

Someone that had murdered a dozen people has one person as a hostage and human shield, and he is currently armed, but only the hostage is in substantial immediate danger from him. Now what does the cop do? I'd say that putting the hostage's life in jeopardy in order to capture or kill the murderer to hold him accountable and prevent the possibility that he might murder again in the unknowable future is not an acceptable risk. Call in the SWAT team to cover the area and ensure he doesn't escape and look for opportunities to take him out with minimal risk to the hostage. Also, get a hostage negotiator to either talk him into surrendering or keep him occupied while tactical teams look for those opportunities.

[JasonT20]

Yes. “Atrocities” is unspecific, routine, almost. Condemning their use of human shields is specific and significant.

That is not enough different from the usual "must condemn Hamas before showing concern for civilians in Gaza" argument for me to give you credit.