Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The feds supposedly have a policy of giving Secret Service protection to major Presidential candidates. Of course, this was never meant to include independent challengers to incumbent Presidents, not even if they’re polling in high numbers.

If RFK, Jr. wanted Secret Service protection, he shouldn’t have challenged an incumbent who has control over who gets Secret Service protection.

I mean, you can’t ask President Biden to recognize, in any way, the RFK candidacy. Giving Kennedy protection from assassins would be to recognize him as a legitimate contender.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4292933-why-is-biden-denying-secret-service-protection-to-rfk-jr/

[Frank Drackman]

Like when Richard Milhouse offered Ted Kennedy SS protection in 1972 after Wallace was shot, it wasn’t for protection. RFK jr would be wise to decline, they’re just a bunch of AA fuckups anyway.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

He just needs to stay away from Sirhan Sirhan Jr.

[Martinned]

Are you suggesting that there is any likelihood at all that RFK jr will be elected president next year?

[Armchair]

It's not impossible.

Imagine if Biden was to implode further in one way or another. If Democrats were left with a choice between RFK and Trump, that's a pretty easy choice for them.

[Martinned]

It's not impossible in the same way it's not impossible for any other living American over the age of 35 to be elected president. But there is virtually zero chance that RFK will end up being the Democratic nominee.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But there is virtually zero chance that RFK will end up being the Democratic nominee."
True, since he is running as an independent.

[Frank Drackman]

Good! You saw what happened when his father ran against an Incumbent DemoKKKrat (Parkinsonian Joe's more like a Recumbant DemoKKKrat)

Frank

[not guilty]

The incumbent withdrew from the 1968 race shortly after Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh you said "RFK"
well he's been dead for 55 years, so there's that little Constitutional problem.

[Armchair]

I didn't say he'd be the Democratic nominee. I said he could be elected. There are a few potential scenarios.

1. Joe is hit with Nixon-like scandals that make him politically unsupportable, even if he's the Democratic nominee.

2. Joe gets to September, then suffers a health issue that leaves him uncapable of being president.

Either scenario may result in the calculus that it is better to just support RFK, then risk a Trump win.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I could see where dying would be a "Health Issue".
He's already uncapable of being president, death would just be a formality, and probably controversial, as the normal Brain Death criteria wouldn't apply.
With apologies to the great Yogi Berra,
"Biden's Brain Scan showed nothing!!!"

Frank

[Martinned]

Under either scenario, the Democrats would organise behind voting for the vice-presidential nominee instead. If need be as a write-in candidate.

[Armchair]

A write in would almost automatically lose.

RFK is a better option.

[Martinned]

A write in would almost automatically lose.

What's your basis for this claim?

[Don Nico]

History

[Martinned]

When has this ever happened before? (I.e. a major party not having a nominated candidate, but asking its supporters to write-in someone instead.)

[not guilty]

It's not the presidency, but in Tennessee an incumbent state senator was shot to death several days before the general election. The death occurred too late to name a replacement on the Democratic ticket. The Republican nominee was arrested before the election and charged with the senator's murder. The senator's widow was elected on write-in ballots. The Republican was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

[Armchair]

There are several reasons, but perhaps the easiest for you to grasp is this. Election law.

See, 7 states simply ban write in votes for President. Notably NM and NV. That's not insurmountable. The bigger problem is that many other states require write in candidates to register with the state by a given deadline.

So, in the given scenarios, Biden wins the Democratic nomination (which occurs in late August, until then, it's easy to switch out). But then "something happens" in September. But the write in deadlines for several states are before September 1st (FL, TX, NC). The critical dates are September 3rd (IL's write in registration date ) and September 4th (MA, MI). Missing those, and it's basically impossible for a write in candidate to win, because they can't actually win those states.

[Martinned]

In those states, presumably the obvious thing for the Democratic party to ask voters to do is vote in whatever way will result in a Democratic slate of electors going to the electoral college on behalf of that state.

[Martinned]

RFK is a better option.

Better than what? Trump? Even against that extremely low bar I'm not sure I'd agree. They're both crooks, but I suspect Trump is more incompetent at actually getting the Federal Government to support his schemes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that Joe Biden is the President, when did being a crook become disqualifying?

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t forget depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Adroitly handled Afghanistan withdrawal (now we see why Hunter is so bad at the “Withdrawal” method) and nominating an Affirmative Action Judge who can’t tell a Schwanz from a Scheide to the Surpreme Court. Oh wait, you’re talking about “45” just reverse the above points.

Frank

[Armchair]

Wow.

[Nelson]

"RFK is a better option."

RFK is a better option only if Hannibal Lector and Vladimir Putin are the other choices.

RFK is an anti-vax wingnut. The support he seems to have is an amalgamation of frustrated Dems, who will come back home to Biden but want to make the obvious point that Biden is old, and idiots who think that vaccines are bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently the law mandating Secret Service protection for Presidential candidates is quite explicit that only major party candidates for President get the protection. Everybody else is open season.

18 United States Code § 3056

"(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons:
...
(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term "major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates" means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee. The Committee shall not be subject to chapter 10 of title 5."

[not guilty]

Brett, the subsection you quote nowhere excludes candidates not affiliated with the major parties. Your claim that the statute "is quite explicit that only major party candidates for President get the protection" is a flat out lie.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they're "authorized to" protect major candidates, what are they NOT authorized to do?

Protect other candidates.

Unless you're suggesting they might moonlight providing Kennedy unauthorized protection, I don't know what your quibble is.

Sure, in theory the relevant committee could up and decide that an independent or third party candidate would be considered a "major" candidate. But not doing so is actually the POINT of distinguishing them from "minor" candidates!

[Absaroka]

Dunno how accurate it is (the source is supposedly someone from the Secret Service, so maybe accurate) but this does seem pretty 3d party unfriendly:

"Lastly, the candidate must be running for a party that received at least 10 percent of the popular vote in the previous election, which disqualifies the likes of Libertarian front-runners Michael Barnarik and Gary Nolan. (As a result, it’s not clear that Perot would even have been eligible for protection in ‘92.)"

If Perot wouldn't have qualified, that's a pretty high bar for 3d party candidates.

Given the costs of Secret Service protection, I'm sympathetic to the argument the bar needs to be fairly high, but I don't like the "running for a party that" angle. If the country is tired of business as usual and Fresh Breeze Fran from the newly formed Motherhood and Apple Pie party is the front runner, it's more important to protect her than Same-O Sam from the D or R party.

[David Nieporent]

As I just posted above, here's the actual policy of the Secret Service directly from the horse's mouth, and no such limitation is included:

https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024

[Armchair]

From David's link.

"Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days;

Whether the candidate is the formal or de facto nominee of a major party for President or Vice President;

Whether the candidate is an independent or third-party candidate for President polling at 20% or more of the Real Clear Politics National Average for 30 consecutive days;

[Sarcastr0]

I think it was an honest miscommunication, but leaving something out of express authorization is not expressly excluding something from authorization.

'Only major party candidates for President get the protection' is untrue - protection can be otherwise authorized without breaking the law. I'd guess DHS can do it on their own initiative.

[not guilty]

Brett, you claimed that the statute “is quite explicit that only major party candidates for President get the protection” (emphasis added). The word “explicit” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

The statute on its face makes no reference to political parties. You lied when you claimed that it does.

Man up and admit it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's actually stupid for Brandon not to because what if something happens?

[Brett Bellmore]

Then dead men can't pull votes away from him?

[Sarcastr0]

You do realize who he's taking votes from according to polls, right?

[Frank Drackman]

The same Polls that predicted President Hillary Rodman Clinton's historic victory?

[Dr. Ed 2]

JFK himself thought he was going to lose in 1964, he was nowhere as popular as he became after he got shot. So Biden would be blamed if a 3rd Kennedy was assassinated, and that would extend to an incident like with Ford.

And just the Kennedy name will bring nuts out of the woodwork.

[David Nieporent]

When were you ever in the woodwork?

[Frank Drackman]

When were you ever Potent? or Cogent?

[Voize]

Conservatives seem to think Biden personally directs every decision his administration makes. The man must be an organizational genius with the mental acuity of a chess grandmaster.

If he were behind this particular decision he would, of course, do everything he could to encourage and protect an independent candidate who will drain votes from Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

You ever heard the phrase, "The buck stops here."?

Apparently it's been replaced by "Buck? What buck?"

[Sarcastr0]

There's a huge gulf between 'final accountability is to the President' and 'I'll just assume Biden personally directed this.'

[Brett Bellmore]

As near as I can tell, your position seems to be that every last negative change in policy that coincided with the change of administration represented either a coincidence, or somebody besides Biden making a decision.

[Sarcastr0]

My position is I require evidence of things before I assume they exist. This includes personal Presidential involvement.

[DonP]

When Joe hears, "The Buck" he wants his "Vig" now!

[Nelson]

"You ever heard the phrase, “The buck stops here.”?"

C'mon, Brett. You don't believe that the President personally approves (or even weighs in) on the vast majority of things their administration does, do you?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I believe that what Presidents aren't directly responsible for, they're generally indirectly responsible for. They pick people, provide the general orders they follow, set the tenor of their administration by what they permit and what they put a halt to.

[Nelson]

And how do you view something where a government agency makes a decision based on longstanding, published, clear-language policies? Is that, somehow, also the fault of the present officeholder? Like, say, giving Secret Service protection to a fringe candidate in a presidential election?

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually said that it was long standing policy to only give protection to major party candidates. And cited the relevant law which identified the members of Congress who make the call.

But responding to, "Conservatives seem to think Biden personally directs every decision his administration makes.", sure, if the administration makes a decision, then the President heading up the administration is responsible. That's kind of the whole point of having a unitary executive, so some particular person will be responsible.

So, as a general proposition, YES, if the administration adopts a policy, it's on the President. Either he made the call, picked the person who made the call, or didn't stop them when they made it.

That's what I was commenting on.

[not guilty]

No, Brett, what you said was:

Apparently the law mandating Secret Service protection for Presidential candidates is quite explicit that only major party candidates for President get the protection. Everybody else is open season.

You then quoted the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a)(7), which includes no reference to party affiliation.

Don't crawfish away from that now. Admit that you lied.

[Nelson]

I didn't say "Conservatives seem to think Biden ...", I said "You don’t believe that the President personally approves (or even weighs in) on the vast majority of things their administration does, do you?"

The assumption that the day-to-day minutae of executive departments are the personal responsibility of the President is preposterous. Especially policies that have been part of various departments for multiple administrations.

No one reinvents the wheel and builds department policy from the ground up every time a new President is elected. The duties and responsibilities of each department usually isn't impacted by the President, his appointees, or his policies. It's why we have have relatively easy transitions, despite the massive size of the government.

[Jerry B.]

Well, Liberals seemed to think that Trump was at the same time a complete idiot and a master of 4D political chess.

[Both Sides]

Not just living up to my poster name here, but that’s true of what every out-party has said about every President for decades now. Many people in both parties seem to think a President of the other party is indeed simultaneously both an idiot/incompetent and also, somehow, pulling the strings/organizing vast evil plans and conspiracies.

[Martinned]

Well, during the Bush jr. administration the typical approach was to describe the president as an idiot and the vice-president as an evil genius.

[Both Sides]

I will accept that as a friendly amendment.

[Voize]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to Trump as subtle or clever. Certainly not his supporters who celebrate that he doesn't fit the politician mold, but not his detractors either.

[apedad]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to Trump as subtle or clever.

Have you ever heard Trump talk about . . . himself!

[Don Nico]

I have never heard Trump say that he is subtle.

[Sarcastr0]

I've seen some mental gymnastics on the left about how Trump's very clever at populism and insults but it's all low cunning and not real smarts.

Both Sides has this one right, I think!

[Both Sides]

My quota for the week has been met!

[jb]

No, we pretty much all think he's just a complete idiot.

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1 (with a knack for flamboyant salesmanship which is pretty much the exact opposite of chess in anything more than one dimension).

[jimc5499]

Thanks for the laugh.

I seem to remember that every time a Democrat Public Sector Union worker screwed up it was Trump's fault.

[Nige]

Really? I remember every single Trump setback, difficulty, failure and breakdown was the fault of the Deep State.

[Both Sides]

Often people Trump himself had hired!

[Nige]

And later pardoned!

[Zarniwoop]

Or claimed he didn't know .. they might have gotten coffee.

[Sarcastr0]

jimc5499 - Trump's personal involvement was generally easy to figure because he kept tweeting it out.

[David Nieporent]

The feds supposedly have a policy of giving Secret Service protection to major Presidential candidates. Of course, this was never meant to include independent challengers to incumbent Presidents, not even if they’re polling in high numbers.

The feds do not "supposedly" have any such "policy." There is an actual statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a)(7) The statute requires that "major" candidates be protected, and yes, includes independent candidates. And there are published guidelines for who qualifies:

https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024

But note from the link you provide, Kennedy gave the, "I'm not worried about myself, but I'm worried about my family" argument, and the statute does not authorize that candidates' families be protected at this stage.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Fantasizing and arguing about pointless bullshit involving a misfit loser such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is mostly what the disaffected right-wing fans of the Volokh Conspiracy seem suited to do . . . and they seem to enjoy it.

[Frank Drackman]

"Misfit Loser"??
He went to Georgetown Prep, Hahvud? London School of Economics? UVA Law Screw-el??
RFK Jr is the epitome of our "Bettors" you keep blathering about to all of us Klingers.
Of course you're a Foo-bawl Coach, so he's just one of those "Einsteins" what with the books and everything

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He is a delusional conspiracy theorist properly regarded as a clown by the American mainstream. He is a misfit, a malcontent, and a discredited loser.

After a sketchy start, and with plenty of assistance from unearned privilege, he was a serious, accomplished, and admirable environmental lawyer a few decades ago. I also recognize that having a father and uncle assassinated could fuck someone up. In any event, he has squandered his credibility with a stream bipartisan, delusional crusading based on bullshit.

His family has excoriated his public statements. Everyone else should, too.

[Kazinski]

Washington state has instituted a 7% capital gains tax, and proposed a 1% wealth tax.

Now Jeff Bezos has announced he is moving to Florida to be able to live closer to his parents.

Just a coincidence I think.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-move-miami-parents-avoid-taxes-2023-11

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant."

/Judge Learned Hand

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Learned_Hand

[Stephen Lathrop]

Perhaps Judge Hand had not anticipated the system of legalized dark money bribery of incumbents which Citizens United nonsensically (and counter-factually) endorsed:

The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate. See Buckley , supra , at 46. The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. This is inconsistent with any suggestion that the electorate will refuse “ ‘to take part in democratic governance’ ” because of additional political speech made by a corporation or any other speaker.

Or perhaps Judge Hand could not imagine Supreme Court Justices as corrupt as Clarence Thomas, or Justice Alito.

[Krayt]

"So if this corporation published a book about a candidate a month before an election, the book would be illegal?"

Government lawyer: "Yes."

[Stephen Lathrop]

What has that got to do with the ludicrous assertion of fact from the decision which I quoted above? If the Court had stuck to the facts from below, and just decided the case, I could have supported a decision in favor of Citizens United. But instead the Court demanded overreach on behalf of corporate dark money, and made up that absurdity to support it. Do you think no one can reasonably conclude that corporate dark money has not caused many in the electorate to lose a sense of influence or purpose for their own political participation?

[Joe_dallas]

typical progressive distortion of the holding of Citizen United. The Government had the power to ban books and speech under McCain Feingold.

Yet, loopholes designed to facilitate dark money from soro's funded organizations.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Lathrop is one of those idiots who thinks that the court declared corporations to be people in the CU decision.

[Frank Drackman]

But he’ll miss WA’s great weather!

[Mr. Bumble]

Wasn't the nickname for Ft Lewis "rain and rocks"?

[Frank Drackman]

Furthest north I've been on the Left Coast is San Luis Obispo for a HS baseball game in 1977, just remember that is was cold and rainy The local University had this talented Shortstop by the name of Osborne Smith, would do back flips running on/off the field, wonder whatever happened to him?

Frank

[Armchair]

Ouch...a 7% state capital gains tax?

That seems to be a really good way to drive rich people out of the state. As a tax. it's not like an income tax (which is annual), it occurs when you want it to (when you sell the capital gains) So, it's pretty easy to avoid. Just don't sell the stocks (or other assets) until you leave the state.

[Frank Drackman]

Manny Boom-Bots does my taxes, but if you own Stock Mutual Funds aren't they constantly selling/buying, with subsequent Capital Gains?? Anyway, the WA tax is like it always starts, it only applies to the portion of Capital Gains >$250,000 which is even out of my upper middle class ballpark.
The "Deal Killer" for Washington State to me, besides the Weather (You have a Choice of San Franciso Style Rain or Idaho Heat/Cold) is it's one of the states that doesn't allow ownership of fully automatic weapons (you can own a Silencer though, weird)

Frank

[bernard11]

So, it’s pretty easy to avoid. Just don’t sell the stocks (or other assets) until you leave the state.

This is true if the assets are a small portion of your overall portfolio, and if you in fact have control of the timing. That's not always the case.

For example, I held a stake in a public company which was acquired in a cash transaction last year. I had a very substantial gain - about half my AGI - and had no control over the timing.

Now, I'm not complaining. It was a pleasant experience. But it does show that in fact we cannot always control the timing. The gain mat come as a result of some transaction we are not directly involved in.

[Armchair]

There are a few rare cases (like a company being bought out and going private) where you don't decide the timing.

But in general, you decide when you want to sell your stocks.

[bernard11]

Those few cases usually involve lots of money.

And another case where you can't control timing is when mutual funds distribute gains.

As for the rest, well, I guess you can move if you are selling all at once, but if you just sell a stock very occasionally, which is pretty much all the trading you should do, you are not going to move, sell, and then move back. That would be ludicrous, letting the tail wag the dog.

[JasonT20]

Ouch…a 7% state capital gains tax?

Washington doesn't have a state income tax. Perhaps this is a way to make their state tax system more progressive? Would be interesting to see how effective tax rates break down by income level there.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if regulatory competition between jurisdictions favours the most mobile factors of production. Who knew?

[Krayt]

I’m sure the wealth tax doesn’t kick in for a certain amount. Can’t have voting homeowners having to come up with functionally another $3k in property taxes every year. Just irritating political opposition. Win win, says the politician.

[Nige]

Come to Florida: soon to be a proper Oligarchy!

[AmosArch]

Its been relatively easy to photoshop a realistic looking nude of someone for years thats good enough to fool people. Arguably in some aspects its even easier than it is now with ‘AI’ what with all the googling and model downloads and monkeying with the settings and inpainting etc and iterating over and over to get it just right. But now that you can do it with ‘AI’ everyone loses their mind.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArach, a tiny percentage of the population is conversant with Photoshop. An even smaller percentage is sufficiently expert with it to make a nearly-undetectable fake photograph.

So when someone announces a much-less-expensive, no skills required, tool to accomplish that same bad (or damaging, or illegal) publishing practice, yeah, folks ought to object. Bring back private editing and defamation law full strength, and there would be nothing to worry about.

The combination of generative AI and unlimited access to world-wide publishing by anyone absolutely will wreck the internet unless it is regulated. It would be far better to accomplish that indispensable regulation privately than to put that power in the hands of government.

[Kazinski]

Who did Bezos have to bribe In order to move to Florida? Florida amended its constitution in 1968 to forbid a state income tax, Bezos was 4 or 5 them so I don't think his dark money or Citizens United had anything to do with it.

Its worth noting that Jeff Bezos is not a Washington native. He moved to Washington to start Amazon in large part because its tax structure. Washington has never had an income tax either, and its supreme court has consistently ruled against efforts to impose an income tax as violating the state constitution. But reversed itself last year ruling that a capital gains tax is an excise tax not an income tax.

Nothing wrong with a frog figuring out the water is getting hot and jumping out of the pot.

[Nige]

Tax money is supposed to flow towards billionaires, not away from them.

[Jerry B.]

Apparently, AI makes it easier.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/05/ai-deepfake-porn-teens-women-impact/

[not guilty]

Mark Meadows has been sued for breach of contract by the publisher of his memoir in the wake of media reports that Meadows told Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and/or his staff investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection and attack at the United States Capitol and testified before a federal grand jury under oath in exchange for immunity from prosecution that Meadows warned Donald Trump against claiming that election fraud corrupted the electoral votes cast in the 2020 Presidential Election and that neither Meadows nor Trump actually believed such claims.

The publisher alleges that Meadows’ reported statements to the Special Prosecutor and/or his staff and his reported grand jury testimony squarely contradict the statements in his Book, one central theme of which is that Trump was the true winner of the 2020 presidential election and that election was “stolen” and “rigged” with the help from “allies in the liberal media,” who ignored “actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze,” leading to the wrongful election of President Joe Biden. https://www.bing.com/rebates/welcome?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.scribd.com%2fdocument%2f682052355%2fALL-SEASONS-PRESS-LLC-V-MARK-MEADOWS&murl=https%3a%2f%2fscribd.sjv.io%2fc%2f2003851%2f1320869%2f14808%3fsharedid%3dEdgeBingFlow%26u%3dhttps%253a%252f%252fwww.scribd.com%252fdocument%252f682052355%252fALL-SEASONS-PRESS-LLC-V-MARK-MEADOWS%26subId1%3d&id=scribd&name=scribd&ra=$3&hash=8ed233f63f1f492293d8e49b552339bb522a509c55e2e429e14894f15c6ad476&network=ImpactRadius

As Groucho Marx observed, time wounds all heels. Is anyone surprised that Mark Meadows regards truth as a malleable thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

...does anyone care?
(winner for the longest link?)

[Commenter_XY]

not guilty, there is a moral obligation to tell the truth, and I would say doubly so if you write a book (as an eyewitness account, of sorts). But is there a legal obligation? Nope.

Won't this case turn on the contract between Meadows and the publisher, at the end of the day? Isn't that what this is, a contract dispute?

Is anyone surprised that Mark Meadows regards truth as a malleable thing? Answer: No. And if they are surprised that anyone from the civic cesspool known as Washington DC would lie, they're dumb as hell. They nearly all lie.

[John F. Carr]

Meadows signed a contract promising "all statements contained in the Work are true and based on reasonable research for accuracy." The publisher cited two chapters that he later contradicted. The low sales of the book may be related to rumors that he was a cooperating witness, or (my suspicion) may be typical for a B-grade politial memoir. The publisher wants about $2 million: $350K advance, $700K publishing expenses, $1 million expectation damages. Plus attorney's fees. The amount seems high.

The publisher spent over $50,000 on an assistant who is described in one paragraph as a ghost writer.

[Commenter_XY]

Well then...If it is written in the contract, then the publisher has him by the short hairs and needs to yank. 🙂

Thx (to both - John, Kenneth) for the reply.

[David Nieporent]

I assume the underlying purpose of that contractual provision is not to ensure that the book is accurate in general; why would the publisher even care? It's to guard against defamation.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I can imagine a publisher caring, at least on the margins. This situation is unusual in that it involves a criminal proceeding against a former President, but the idea that book sales would be hurt if someone said one thing in their memoir and then went around saying they lied in their memoir. So a wise publisher would include a term like this in the contract for reasons in addition to the need to deflect liability for any defamatory lies. A contractual provision can serve more than one purpose.

[not guilty]

Apart from the contract that other commenters have pointed out, there is not a legal obligation to tell the truth in a book, even one marketed as non-fiction. But this will make for a vigorous cross-examination of Meadows at any trial during which he testifies.

[Kenneth Almquist]

From the complaint: “After conducting the appropriate due diligence and based upon repeated assurances from Meadows that facts in the Book were true, ASP published the Book and on or about February 11, 2012 paid Meadows the remaining installment of the Advance for a total Advance of $350,000.000.”

And their due diligence didn’t uncover that Biden won the election?

“With the media supplying ever increasingly credible evidence that Meadows lied in the Book in clear breach of the Agreement and the warranties that he made therein, ASP having heard nothing from Meadows and without contacting the Special Prosecutor, which would have rendered ASP vulnerable to accusations of attempting to interfere with the investigation, determined that it was ethically obliged and pulled the Book off the market on November 2, 2023.”

OK, the fact that they pulled the book suggests that they were, in fact, conned by Meadows. In any case, the complaint says that Meadows signed an author agreement stating that, “all statements contained in the Work are true and based on reasonable research for accuracy.” So Meadows is going to face an uphill battle to show that ASP actually contracted to purchase a pack of lies.

[John F. Carr]

"And their due diligence didn’t uncover that Biden won the election?"

What's the relevant fact here? The winner of the election? Who Trump thought was the winner of the election? Who Meadows thought was the winner of the election? Probably the last one. I doubt the publisher was intending to publish a shocking exposé of election fraud.

[Mr. Bumble]

The relevant fact here is that the publisher made a bad bet and is trying to recoup their loses.

[Krayt]

Advance of $350 million, damn! That’s some serious confidence it will do well.

🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, that was $300,000.000. Why he had to specify the 300K to the tenth of a cent, I don't know.

[Nelson]

“ASP published the Book and on or about February 11, 2012”

Is this a typo? Or was the contract actually agreed to more than four years before Trump became President?

[Nelson]

Wait, someone in the Trump administration was unethical and publicly lied about Trump losing the 2020 election? Shocking.

Although it takes a lot of balls to make someone pay you for your lies. I could almost admire that level of chutzpah if it weren't connected to trying to steal a Presidential election from the choice of the people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Move over Elizabeth Warren as another "Pretendian" is exposed.
Seems like Buffy Saint-Marie is not who she claims to be.
https://www.cbc.ca/newsinteractives/features/buffy-sainte-marie

[Michael P]

These people are really taking off the mask: https://nypost.com/2023/11/04/news/pro-palestinian-marchers-flood-dc-say-racist-state-israel-does-not-have-the-right-to-exist-long-live-the-intifada/

But maybe we can start to find common ground in the slogan "F--k Joe Biden"?

[Mr. Bumble]

“But maybe we can start to find common ground in the slogan “F–k Joe Biden”?" ” Seems that some Dems are coming around to that point of view.

[John F. Carr]

I remember during the Cold War there was a vocal fringe of demonstrators who agreed with Reagan that the world was in a battle of good vs. evil except they wanted the Soviet Union to win.

[jimc5499]

Teddy Kennedy comes to mind on that one. After all he did try to broker the surrender of the US to the USSR about that time.

[Martinned]

Of course

[Sarcastr0]

Gotta admit, I am curious.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I believe he's referring to discussions Kennedy had with a Russian diplomat that were explicitly authorized by the Reagan administration and of which Kennedy kept the Reagan administration apprised. These Kennedy contacts were used as a bit of whataboutism by MAGA types to try to justify Michael Flynn's shenanigans.

[Nelson]

An unreasonable interpretation of a historical event used to make ridiculous comparisons to apologize for a MAGA favorite?

That tracks.

[David Nieporent]

No. He's referring to when Kennedy supposedly secretly sent his college roommate — California Senator John Tunney — to Moscow before the 1984 election for backchannel discussions with the Kremlin. The story comes from a Soviet source, and makes no sense. (For example, it has Kennedy offering to arrange for Yuri Andropov to be interviewed on American television if Andropov helped Kennedy. As if any American network wouldn't have rushed to interview Andropov without Kennedy's intervention if Andropov had offered. Moreover, it wasn't even clear what Kennedy would get from this arrangement.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Same thing. The nugget of truth is that the Reagan administration used Kennedy as a back channel to the Russians sometimes, but Reagan officials knew of it:

In his memoirs Entering New Worlds, Kampelman wrote that the Soviets liked working with Kennedy as a back-door conduit of information, and Kampelman welcomed the arrangement. "I learned that the senator never acted or received information without informing the appropriate United States agency or official," Kampelman wrote.

Yes, they took that truth, found a KGB memo that makes various claims that Kennedy had contacts trying to de-escalate nuclear tensions (not "defeat" Regean) and, as David points out, the memo is wholly unverified and, spun as it was into something sinister, is contradicted by every witness and all documentary evidence.

But, of course, the only government bureaucrat the MAGA crowd trusts to tell the truth is a middling KGB agent trying to curry favor with his management. [eyeroll]

[Frank Drackman]

Well, the US Economy was seriously underwater, I mean, the National Debt was a record for it's time, and was nearly drowning, I mean, asphyxiating the market, if they hadn't "Floated" the Dollar, who knows what would have happened? Good thing he didn't cross that bridge when he got to it!

[Dr. Ed 2]

What Kennedy did was bad enough, but not quite this.
He wanted Soviet help to defeat Reagan in 1984.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is a blatant lie, Dr. Ed. Unfortunately, I don't expect more from you.

Others should know the truth so they don't unwittingly parrot your falsehood, however.

Among other things, Kennedy wasn't running in 1984 and, though he planned to run in 1988, Reagan wouldn't be.

Moreover, his discussions with the Russians were explicitly authorized by the Reagan administration and had nothing to do with "defeating" Ronald Reagan.

Denials from anyone tied to Kennedy might be expected, but Kennedy does have a sort of character reference in the arena of foreign relations from a Reagan insider, the administration’s disarmament negotiator Max Kampelman.

In his memoirs Entering New Worlds, Kampelman wrote that the Soviets liked working with Kennedy as a back-door conduit of information, and Kampelman welcomed the arrangement.

"I learned that the senator never acted or received information without informing the appropriate United States agency or official," Kampelman wrote.

In 1985, Reagan himself approved using Kennedy this way, and a working relationship grew between Kampelman and Kennedy.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jul/18/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-host-cites-ted-kennedy-kgb-meeting-never-/

[Commenter_XY]

It has started here, in America now. I cannot believe it. There were similar demonstrations in other 'Enlightened, Progressive' cities: NYC, Chicago, Philly to name a few. At our 'elite' institutions (Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, etc), pro-Hamas demonstrations continue. For these Judeocidal Hamas terror supporting demonstrators, it isn't about Israel anymore: It is about Jews everywhere. These demonstrators are talking about Jews like me (and maybe you) in America. Antisemitic attacks on Jews have increased even more in the wake of the Simchat Torah pogrom.

Can you put toothpaste back into the tube?
If you think you can, how do you know you were successful?

[Brett Bellmore]

The first step is, I suppose, admitting that you have tooth paste. I'd say that step is pretty decisively complete.

[Nige]

Of course there were many Jews at the protests. Biggest anti-war protests since post 9-11. Warmongers expressed similar sentiments about those protests, too.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Actually, the protestors seemed to be pretty keen on one side in one particular war…

[Nige]

Yeah, they said that sort of thing, too.

[Drewski]

It's not an anti-war rally when the central theme is calling for the forcible destruction of a nation.

[Nige]

Those other rallies weren't anti-war either because they were implicitly supporting Saddam; more idiotic bollocks.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh, there's nothing implicit in these protestor's support for Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind they don't think the US has a right to exist, either. Or Canada. Or... any country that's not Islamic!

Israel is just at the top of the world conquest list.

[Martinned]

Keep in mind they don’t think the US has a right to exist, either.

Who doesn't? Care to share your basis for this claim?

[Frank Drackman]

Only everything that’s happened since September 11, 2001. (For those with short attention spans, mine goes back to September 5, 1972.) And who the fuck killed Robert Kennedy? It wasn’t an Israeli.

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

There's some Internet loud twitter types that talk about everything from North America to Israel to Hollywood as colonial, and thus illegitimate.

They tend to be very silly people.

My favorite is 'green colonialism' which is indeed the dunderheaded nonsense the right claims the environmental movement is in secret.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's all fun and games until the people openly advocating genocide demonstrate that, yes, they actually do mean it.

More than 25,000 protesters fill downtown Toronto to demand a ceasefire in Gaza: ‘I just pray to God that this violence stops’

Scrolling down,

"In Toronto, speakers at the demonstration denounced the evils of colonialism. A unifying chant, repeated end-to-end along the massive column of demonstrators was: “From Turtle Island to Palestine, occupation is a crime.”

“As a Native person from Turtle Island, colonization razed our land, stole our languages, murdered our children, murdered our women and murdered our elders. That’s our history,” said Joey Twins, 65, an Indigenous woman from Treaty 6 territory in Alberta."

"Turtle island", I remind you, is slang for North America, used by groups that have the goal of reversing the colonization of this continent.

[Sarcastr0]

Demanding a ceasefire is dumb and anti-Israel. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if those groups were revealed as being pretty anti-Semitic.

But it is not 'openly advocating genocide.' Don't cry wolf.

I'm also not scared of those groups having any kind of power in the near future.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we can safely say that 25K people physically present are not "some Internet loud twitter types".

"Demanding a ceasefire is dumb and anti-Israel."

Well, duh. Being anti-Israel is sort of implied by being pro-Hamas, not that we need implication when they come out and say it.

"But it is not ‘openly advocating genocide.’ Don’t cry wolf."

Mr. Wolf is in the door and he's dispensed with the sheepskin, so I damned well WILL cry wolf.

[Sarcastr0]

25K people physically present are not “some Internet loud twitter types”

Disagree. It's a vanishingly small fraction of Toronto's population.

And protests are not taking over buildings, shooting people, and running them over with cars. Say what you will about the left fringe, they're a lot less deadly with their nonsense protests than the right with their guns and keep your powder dry catastrophism bullshit.

You should reread the story about the boy who cried wolf maybe, before you endorse spending all your credibility on partisan dramatics.

[Brett Bellmore]

25K people is a small number of people to show up expressing some anodyne view point. 25K is not a negligible number of people to be publicly displaying support for a terrorist organization, in a Western democracy.

What percentage of the population in Toronto do you suppose would need to become jihadis or support them, to make Toronto too dangerous for Jews to live in? 25K isn't far from a half percent of Toronto's population, you know.

[Don Nico]

" It’s a vanishingly small fraction of Toronto’s population."
That is a bogus comparison.

[Sarcastr0]

Don - what's the right baseline? Brett's post explaining the vibes won't cut it.

Brett - it's a telling pivot you had to do to go from deeply wrong protesters to jihadis.
If your thesis requires a hypothetical to move away from the actuality, your thesis isn't supported.

[Don Nico]

"what’s the right baseline? Brett’s post explaining the vibes won’t cut it."
Good question.
I'd have to look at historical examples of demonstrations in Toronto and comparable cities to give you a number. But I'd be extremely surprised is 25,000 is a vanishingly small fraction.

[Frank Drackman]

the 19 9-11 Terrorists were a vanishingly small fraction of Saudi Arabia/Egypt's population, good thing they didn't do anything (HT M. Omar)

[Harvey Mosley]

"And protests are not taking over buildings..."
At least not this time.
https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2021/06/history-of-chop-capitol-hill-protests-seattle

[Nige]

'Being anti-Israel is sort of implied by being pro-Hamas'

Sure, if you lie about them being pro-Hamas.

'so I damned well WILL cry wolf.'

Again. And again. And again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, if you lie about them being pro-Hamas. I wasn't lying about them being pro-Hamas.

"In Toronto, speakers at the demonstration denounced the evils of colonialism. A unifying chant, repeated end-to-end along the massive column of demonstrators was: “From Turtle Island to Palestine, occupation is a crime.”"

What they mean by "colonialism" is the very existence of Israel. Or any non-Islamic country, which is why the "Turtle Island" part of the chant.

A lot of people are in serious denial about this. We have let an absurd number of jihad sympathizers into Western countries over the last couple of decades. The idea that this isn't going to blow up in our faces is crazy.

[Sarcastr0]

Quit with the drama - you can legitimately think Hamas being rooted out and killed isn't worth the civilian deaths.
You'd be wrong, IMO, but it's not even supporting Hamas, much less 'openly calling for genocide.'

[Nige]

That's not pro-Hamas, though it is a hard line on Israel.

Hey, you know who was in denial? Netanyahu and every body who thought he had Gaza sewn up tight.

Laying the foundations for an authoritarian crackdown, I see. Just like Netanyahu's doing right now.

[Aunt Teefah]

"We have let an absurd number of jihad sympathizers into Western countries over the last couple of decades."

Pass the Freedom Fries, we done got us some Islamo-fascists bringing yellow cake over the border in aluminum tubes!

As the past couple weeks have shown, 2002 never ended for some people.

[Bob from Ohio]

"you can legitimately think Hamas being rooted out and killed isn’t worth the civilian deaths."

No, you can't. Its not a"both side-ism" situation after 10/7.

Backing a cease fire is pro-Hamas, its saying they can kill more Jews without penalty.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever, Bob. I'm sick of the 'you agree with my take or you hate Jews.'

[Nige]

‘Its not a”both side-ism” situation after 10/7.’

Yes, you’re either for the killing of civilians or you’re against it. You’re for it.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Demanding a ceasefire is dumb and anti-Israel. And I wouldn’t be surprised at all if those groups were revealed as being pretty anti-Semitic."

According to recent polling, US voters support a ceasefire by a spread of 66% to 25%. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2023/10/19/voters-agree-the-us-should-call-for-a-ceasefire-and-de-escalation-of-violence-in-gaza

Supporting a ceasefire may be a marginal position among politicians and elite opinion. But, it turns out, actual voters don't particularly like seeing thousands of children being bombed to death every week. There is nothing remotely anti-Semitic about holding this view. And to the extent it is anti-Israel, that speaks to the actions of Israel, not the merits of a ceasefire.

[Commenter_XY]

Fortunately, Israel is not putting up the question of a ceasefire with Judeocidal terrorists to a vote. Actual voters know the Gazan casualty figures are Hamas fluff.

Gazans have only been told for 2 weeks to move south to Rafah. If a Gazan civilian is ambulatory and they're in Gaza city, they want to be there. They will die with Hamas if they are in physical proximity of a Hamas member.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Israel is not putting up the question of a ceasefire with Judeocidal terrorists to a vote."

Yeah so, what's your point? That "Genocide Joe" Brandon is too feckless to stand up to the Israel lobby and the warmongers to do basic diplomacy in order to protect protect the thousands of innocents Israel is slaughtering on a weekly basis? On that, you'll get no argument from me. But that does nothing to change the fact that average Americas - though not yet their leaders - are growing increasingly sick of Israel's shit. So too in other western countries, it appears. There is nothing remotely fringe or marginal about calling for a ceasefire. It is you, the genocidaires, who are fast becoming the minority.

[Commenter_XY]

Genocide Joe...really?

[Nige]

‘Actual voters know the Gazan casualty figures are Hamas fluff.’

They real figures are probably worse.

‘They will die with Hamas if they are in physical proximity of a Hamas member.’

In one week they dropped as many bombs as the US dropped in Afghanistan in ten years.

Remember, these people are claiming to be mad that civilians got murdered.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They real figures are probably worse.

What's your thinking behind this rather remarkable claim?

In one week they dropped as many bombs as the US dropped in Afghanistan in ten years.

They did not, in fact, do that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In the meanwhile, Israel has continued to bomb those who couldn't leave, didn't leave, didn't get the notice, and even those who did leave and went to refugee camps.

But they aren't Jews, so it's ok with you. Your attitude makes you a fantastic recruitment anecdote for Hamas. "Look at the Jew who doesn't care if you live or die."

Your indifference to and devaluation of non-Jews is disgusting, and directly promotes the anti-Semitism you cry about.

[Commenter_XY]

War is all hell - William Tecumseh Sherman

Take it up with Hamas.

[Sarcastr0]

Israel's bombing is looking increasingly indiscriminate. I was suspending judgement given the churn in the news cycle. But we see random residences with no justification given; refugee camps; the family of a former Congressman killed in the Orthodox church where they were taking refuge. (Justin Amash)

This is what I hoped would not happen, despite the rhetoric of Netanyahu. Dunno why I had any hope when Israel's move off the break was cutting off vital resources from civilians and combatants alike.

To quote Kevin Drum: "Destroying Hamas is fine, but the demands of basic human decency haven’t suddenly been repealed."

If this ends up looking more like an excuse for broad retribution/cleansing rather than righteous and necessary retribution, that'll be bad for Israel and thus the region.

I don't think we're there yet but I don't like the momentum.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, basically what we expected: People would demand that Israel somehow conduct the first perfectly precise war in history, or do nothing. Those same people would, of course, assume that Hamas' description of what was happening was accurate.

I'm really sorry for his family, of course, but people DO die in war zones, and Hamas does deliberately position its military assets right next to civilian sites just to maximize opportunities to claim that return fire was aimed at civilians.

[Sarcastr0]

I think my post is quite clear I'm not demanding perfection.

Saying 'no indiscriminate bombing' is requiring perfection. I challenge that such a campaign has any relation to the mission of wiping out Hamas at all, in fact.

Amash's family was in a refuge. At least as it looks now, that's more than regrettable collateral damage, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Calling collateral damage from an attack on a legitimate military target deliberately sited next to a church "indiscriminate bombing", yeah, that's demanding perfection.

They didn't target the church. Hamas put military assets right next to it in order to make sure that return fire could be claimed to be them targeting a church. They have a long, long record of deliberately launching attacks next to schools, hospitals, and churches, specifically for that purpose.

We've been over this before: The laws of war, such as they are, do not actually require you to spare an innocent shield. They require you to not USE innocent shields.

Indeed, the laws of war actually contemplate that attacks on legitimate military targets may take place even when it is known they will result in civilian casualties, so long as the attack is justified by the military objectives, and the civilian casualties are only incidental, not a purpose of the attack.

"1953 The armed forces and their installations are objectives that may be attacked wherever they are, except when the attack could incidentally result in loss of human life among the civilian population, injuries to civilians, and damage to civilian objects which would be excessive in relation to the expected direct and specific military advantage."

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, the church is hardly the only example.

Hamas put military assets right next to it in order to make sure that return fire could be claimed to be them targeting a church Did they put assets in the supposed safe zone?

You have a lot of work to do to establish necessity to Israel’s actions. Not the least because Israel doesn’t seem super interested in establishing it themselves.

I get it, Israel is mad and resolute this won’t happen again and rightly so. But that doesn’t mean killing civilians is now not a big deal and doesn’t need justification.

The laws of war are not the issue here until you get in alignment with the facts on the ground.

I didn't get spun up until I saw from multiple sources what was going on. And I don't mean like an Al-Jazeera op ed either.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Did they put assets in the supposed safe zone?"

They put them next to the safe zone, and you're demanding precision in bombing. Enough precision that they can blow up a bunker, and not damage the church next to it?

Screw that, you're demanding that Hamas' use of innocent shields be permitted to work. And the laws of war don't demand that.

[Sarcastr0]

Israel chose the safe zone, then bombed it, then offered only general ‘we are going after Hamas in lots of places’ explanation, Brett.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/as-israels-bombing-hits-declared-safe-zones-palestinians-trapped-in-gaza-find-danger-everywhere

You’re providing no facts, just speculation around the axiom that Israel is cool and good.

You do a lot of work to keep your universe morally smooth. And then you accuse me of doing exactly because you conflate Sharia with not being a democracy in your demonization of all Muslims in large groups.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"War is all hell – William Tecumseh Sherman

Take it up with Hamas."

You are solely responsible for your own genocidal and hateful thoughts.

[Absaroka]

"Amash’s family was in a refuge. At least as it looks now, that’s more than regrettable collateral damage, Brett."

Israel's explanation:

"Israel’s military said in response it had damaged “a wall of a church” while hitting a Hamas “command and control center” nearby, but it denied deliberately targeting Saint Porphyrius."

Can you outline the evidence you have that the church was deliberately targeted, or that the Israelis are lying about a nearby Hamas target, or whatever else makes you believe it wasn't justifiable?

[Sarcastr0]

I can't, and I didn't say the church was deliberately targeted.
But it is absolutely part of the general trend I of Israel's bombing being indiscriminate.
It looks verifiable that Israel killed Gazans who followed evacuation orders by bombing the supposed safe zones.

The indiscriminate nature of the response is kind of what Israel promised, and Israel is not pushing back much on the reporting.

This does not further the mission of dealing with Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, collateral damage to innocent shields does NOT match the definition of "indiscriminate bombing". And is actually contemplated as acceptable under the Geneva accords.

[Absaroka]

"I didn’t say the church was deliberately targeted."

I was seeing "as it looks now, that’s more than regrettable collateral damage".

"But it is absolutely part of the general trend I of Israel’s bombing being indiscriminate."

So your position is that the bombing is just not carefully targeted enough? Implying that "hitting a Hamas “command and control center”" is unacceptably indiscriminant in your eyes?

[Sarcastr0]

So your position is that the bombing is just not carefully targeted enough?

My position is that it’s increasingly looking a lot like it’s hardly targeted at all. Just hit somewhere in Gaza and you’re good.

“Implying that “hitting a Hamas “command and control center”” is unacceptably indiscriminant in your eyes?”

Come on, I said nothing like that. I and you both know what indiscriminate mean and it’s not just ‘not being careful.’

This is a question of facts, not of line drawing. There’s plenty of evidence beyond the church that can cause me to question the command and control center justification after the fact as well.

If it really is indiscriminate, that has implications beyond just not caring about Palestinian lives. That kind of campaign would not further ending Hamas. Retribution is not called for.

[Absaroka]

"My position is that it’s increasingly looking a lot like it’s hardly targeted at all."

"There’s plenty of evidence beyond the church that can cause me to question the command and control center justification after the fact as well."

Sharing those sources would make your assertion more persuasive.

[Sarcastr0]

Come on, Ab, this news is not hard to find.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1198908558 is where I first heard about it, but didn't really give it credence.

Now you see stories from the Guardian, reuters, CNN...pick a source they're reporting on it. And as I said Israel isn't really interested in pushing back.
Looking less like one can blame fog of war as time goes on.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think maybe Sarcastr0 has an utterly unrealistic notion of how accurate you can demand that bombing be. Maybe.

Or maybe he just doesn't care enough about Hamas making genocidal attacks on Israel to accept that there will be collateral damage during the response.

Yeah, I think it's the latter.

[Absaroka]

So, in your NPR link I see a an Israeli named Mark Regev saying:

"Obviously, we take such matters seriously, but there's a dilemma here. On one hand they say, don't attack when there are civilians in the area. On the other hand they say, you can't ask the civilians to move. And there's a problem there because it's almost saying because Hamas works and has positioned itself amongst civilian population, that they have immunity preventing us from hitting back to their horrendous attack upon us."

...and a Palestinian named Mustafa Barghouti saying:

"They're bombarding everything - universities, schools, clinics, hospitals. Many hospitals have already been evacuated because they were bombarded by airstrikes."

Your position seems to be that Mr. Barghouti is more credible than Mr. Regev, but you haven't provided evidence that persuades me that must be the case. We do know of one hospital bombing that Hamas claimed was an Israeli strike that I think is generally now believed to have been a Hamas rocket, so 'always believe Hamas' doesn't seem like a good heuristic.

"They are demolishing everything in Gaza down to earth."

n.b. that this can be true, and that destruction might be justified. Here is a picture of Manila. That's what urban combat does. That's why you shouldn't provoke wars.

Israel may be bombing indiscriminately, but whether that's true takes more than 'lots of stuff is getting bombed'. You'll need specifics that surely aren't in that NPR link.

[Sarcastr0]

Ab, this is tiresome. There are sources all over the place. NPR isn't just putting liars on the air, and the two sources are not even being contradictory.

Reason only allows one source at a time. I'm not going to drip feed you stories to slowly convince you source by source.

As I said, pick any mainstream source you like and they're covering Israel's indiscriminate bombing campaign.

[Sarcastr0]

I think maybe Sarcastr0 has an utterly unrealistic notion of how accurate you can demand that bombing be. Maybe.

Nice fraught maybe Brett. You going to call me a Jew hater as well?

Again, this is not me with a personal take, this is multiple media stories that are finding way more issues than just imprecision.

In other words, nothing like you pretend I'm saying.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think at this point you're more of a Jew-indifferenter, than a Jew-hater.

"Again, this is not me with a personal take, this is multiple media stories that are finding way more issues than just imprecision."

Yes, I realize that a lot of media outlets on the left are happy to pretend that Hamas is a credible source for what is happening in Gaza.

[Sarcastr0]

Also not helpful to Israel's cause - going after anyone who criticizes Israel as not supporting Jews enough.

That sweeps up a ton of Jews, and even some Israelis.

I realize that a lot of media outlets on the left are happy to pretend that Hamas is a credible source
It's quite clear from this you haven't bothered to read anything at all on this.
A smooth frictionless reality.

[Absaroka]

"You have a lot of work to do to establish necessity to Israel’s actions."

Consider: "The US has a lot of work to do to justify the necessity of the artillery it called in all over the place during the battle of Aachen". Or pick any number of battles ... the Battle of Manila might be a good example. A long quote:

"Trying to protect the city and its civilians, MacArthur had stringently restricted U.S. artillery and air support.[1]: 103  Yet, by 9 February, American shelling had set fire to a number of districts.[1]: 114  "If the city were to be secured without the destruction of the 37th and the 1st Cavalry Divisions, no further effort could be made to save buildings, everything holding up progress would be pounded."[1]: 122  Iwabuchi's sailors, marines, and Army reinforcements, having initially had some success resisting American infantrymen armed with flamethrowers, grenades and bazookas, soon faced direct fire from tanks, tank destroyers, and howitzers, which blasted holes in one building after another, often killing both Japanese and civilians trapped inside, without differentiation.[7]

Subjected to incessant pounding and facing certain death or capture, the beleaguered Japanese troops took out their anger and frustration on the civilians caught in the crossfire, committing multiple acts of severe brutality, which later would be known as the Manila Massacre.[1]: 96, 107  Violent mutilations, rapes,[1]: 114–120  and massacres of the populace accompanied the battle for control of the city. Massacres occurred in schools, hospitals and convents, including San Juan de Dios Hospital, Santa Rosa College, Santo Domingo Church, Manila Cathedral, Paco Church, St. Paul's Convent, and St. Vincent de Paul Church.[1]: 113  Dr Antonio Gisbert told of the murder of his father and brother at the Palacio del Gobernador, saying, "I am one of those few survivors, not more than 50 in all out of more than 3,000 men herded into Fort Santiago and, two days later, massacred."[1]: 110 

The Japanese forced Filipino women and children to be used as human shields into the front lines to protect Japanese positions. Those who survived were then murdered by the Japanese.[8] "
(that's just a sampling of the horrors there, RTWT)

I'm not sure I see why one side in a war is presumed to have to subject every operation to a high burden of proof. Wars - and especially urban combat - can reasonably be expected to be horrific in general, and specifically for trapped civilians. I think the blame for those perfectly foreseeable horrors largely rest on the aggressor who unjustly started the war.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The US were not moral paragons in WW2. MacArthur was especially shitty, among a few others.

2. This isn't the world of the 1940s.

3. This isn't a World War between roughly equal powers.

4. Total War is not an established necessity here.

Appealing to WW2 is not engaging with the actual facts. Bottom line, Hamas being as bad as the Nazis does not mean you can say 'The US in WW2' and suddenly all morality is off the table.

[Absaroka]

"The US were not moral paragons in WW2"

What would you have had the U.S./MacArthur do differently in Manila?

"This isn’t the world of the 1940s."

With respect to what happens in urban combat, how is it different?

"This isn’t a World War between roughly equal powers."

And....? Aggressors get different rules if they are weak? You'll have to elaborate on your view of the ethics here.

"Total War is not an established necessity here."

It would help if you spelled out what you would like the Israelis to do instead. Is it perhaps your view that an assault with more infantry and less airpower would be more moral? I'm not sure that would result in fewer civilian casualties - from above "soon faced direct fire from tanks, tank destroyers, and howitzers, which blasted holes in one building after another, often killing both Japanese and civilians trapped inside, without differentiation". No airpower mentioned there.

[Sarcastr0]

What would you have had the U.S./MacArthur do differently in Manila?
Maybe a bit less raping.

With respect to what happens in urban combat, how is it different?
What the world considers acceptable now that we've gotten used to warfare in the modern world. You know I'm not much of one for international law, but plenty of stuff we did in WW2 is no longer acceptable.

Aggressors get different rules if they are weak?
Yes, because the justification of necessity is attenuated for the side on the commanding side of the power differential.

It would help if you spelled out what you would like the Israelis to do instead.
I'm fine with bombing Hamas targets, including the inevitable collateral damage.

Indiscriminate bombing is not only unnecessary, it does nothing not help Israel go after Hamas, in fact hurting their cause.

You and I both know boots on the ground is going to be needed at some point if they truly want to get at Hamas. We'll see what happens then. I'm increasingly not optimistic...the US was at least trying not to be shitty when we dealt with similar issues in our own ME adventurism.

[Absaroka]

“I’m fine with bombing Hamas targets, including the inevitable collateral damage.”

I agree.

“Indiscriminate bombing is not only unnecessary, it does nothing not help Israel go after Hamas, in fact hurting their cause.”

I agree. We apparently disagree that there is credible evidence showing indiscriminate bombing at this point.

You say there are lots of sources, but the only one you supplied was at best he said/she said, with no specific incidents that would let us decide who is or isn't telling the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not going to do your homework for you. Both because that’s not my responsibility, and because Reason’s comment system makes that a burden.

Sources I have seen with recent stories about the indiscriminate bombing:
NPR
PBS
Reuters
CNN
The Guardian
NYT
BBC

I don’t buy Brett’s position that these are all liberal media with an anti-Israel agenda and sources who are just Hamas propagandists.

Any of these sources could be taken in by bad sourcing (always a problem in wartime) but all of them? Unlikely.

I may still be wrong, the fog of war is a heckuva thing and both sides are adept at weaponizing ambiguity in this new social media driven age. But it looks bad.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 7 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
I’m not going to do your homework for you. Both because that’s not my responsibility, and because Reason’s comment system makes that a burden.

Sources I have seen with recent stories about the indiscriminate bombing:
NPR
PBS
Reuters
CNN
The Guardian
NYT
BBC

Sarcastro - you know full well that All those MSM media sources have a long history of dishonest reporting - .
Reuters having an office in the same building as Hamas yet claiming they never knew that.
NPR radio - 24/7 coverage over the last two weeks of the suffering of the palestinians with zero mention of palestinian killing Israeli's zero mention of the Hamas culture the permeates through out the palestinian population.

[Sarcastr0]

“you know full well that All those MSM media sources have a long history of dishonest reporting”

I do not know that. Telling you’re so far into the right-wing denial of reality you’re to the step where everyone agrees with you and is lying about it.

Nor do I believe those places are pro-Hamas.

“Reuters having an office in the same building as Hamas yet claiming they never knew that” does not seem implausible to me.

You clearly listen to different NPR shows than I do if you didn’t hear *any* coverage of Hamas’ massacres.
Are you demanding that after every new example of Palestinian suffering, the massacre must be mentioned for context? Because if so, that says a lot about what you're willing to justify.

I am ambivalent about you listening to NPR. Good to listen to stuff you disagree with but with how much you seem to hate them I'm not sure that's healthy.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
“you know full well that All those MSM media sources have a long history of dishonest reporting”

"I do not know that. "

Sacastro - that you claim to not be aware of the frequent distortion / dishonest reporting doesnt surprise me. You have a well established history of living in a left wing progressive bubble.

[Don Nico]

'But it is not ‘openly advocating genocide.’
But it is effectively advocating ethnic cleansing, and if some Jews are killed in the process that was only collateral damage.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll agree with you as to the upshot of the protest. Or mostly do since I don't think Hamas has that power. They still need to die though.

'Effectively advocating ethnic cleansing' is miles away from 'openly advocating genocide.'

[Ed Grinberg]

If Israel is "the little Satan," who do you think is "the great Satan"?

[Nelson]

Mephistopheles. Beelzebub wanted to be, but "Big Meph", as they call him, was having no part of it.

[SimonP]

As usual, Brett, you're taking a figment of reality and spinning it into a grand, boundless conspiracy.

Most of us would infer, from a protester's assertion that all colonial projects, including Canada and the US, ought to be reversed, that the person is crazy or engaged in a manner of rhetorical excess, and is unlikely to get much traction with even very incensed people protesting the war in Gaza.

But you? No. You warn darkly of the coming leftist genocide.

[Sarcastr0]

I notice everyone is having some trouble specifying how many of these people there are.

Because yes they suck. But America including shorty bigots against whatever subgroup you care to name is not actually news.

Their boldness is, but what is the upshot in that?

Bottom line, protesters don’t tell you much. I’m waiting for the surveys. Or a political party changing its support of Israel.

[Armchair]

36% of liberals thought that Hamas's attack on civilians was justified.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/27/opinion/poll-shows-alarming-support-for-hamas-but-likely-understates-the-problem/

[Armchair]

A majority of 18-24 year olds thought that Hamas's slaughter of Israeli civilians was justified.

https://www.newsweek.com/insane-number-gen-zers-support-hamass-slaughter-innocent-israelis-opinion-1837422

[Armchair]

Biden backtracking on full support for Israel

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-panel-biden-backtracking-position-on-israel-because-of-response-from-public-197065285674

[Frank Drackman]

A majority of 18-24 year olds are fucking idiots.

[Brett Bellmore]

If by the time you're middle aged you haven't realized you were an idiot when you were 18-24, it's because you still are one.

[Frank Drackman]

I certainly was, who the eff flunks out their first Semester at Florida State?? (Me)
The Larry Bird program did it for me, few months cutting grass/cleaning toilets/emptying trash at Pubic City Parks, raising money to pay tuition, and the rest is His-Straw

Frank

[Nige]

That's sad. Many, if not most of the commenters here think Israel's ongoing killing of civilians is justified.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hamas launches rockets every day. Every single one is a war crime. Thanks to Israeli's caring about their population, most are intercepted without dead Jews. I know that make you sad.

[Nige]

Netanyahu suppported Hamas. Seems like he didn't give that much of a shit about Israeli lives, given Oct 7th. You, neither.

[Moderation4ever]

Your right here Israel still enjoys support and will continue to enjoy support. These are small groups magnified by MSM.

[jimc5499]

There's a reason that Journalism is a LIBERAL Arts Degree.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not satire, I don't think.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Armchair, I’m not going to see your posts for quite a while, after you called me a Jew hater who might just support the Holocaust.

You’re not about argumentation, you’re about an excuse to attack people. Fuck off.

[Armchair]

Sweet, no more gaslighting and strawmanning!

For the crown, the Holocaust reference was in reference to where I was OK for having shallow morality if it meant I opposed the Holocaust.

Sarcastr0 somehow interpreted that to mean I accused him of supporting the Holocaust.

[Life of Brian]

Welcome to the noble ranks of the Sarc-banned.

Putting aside his cover story, it's hard to miss that he did it when you calmly gave him a source for a simple fact that he alleged not to exist. As I myself found, that sort of thing unduly interferes with his shtick.

[Bwaaah]

"You’re not about argumentation, you’re about an excuse to attack people. Fuck off."

Sarcastr0

[Sarcastr0]

You don't think I make arguments?

[Commenter_XY]

Not always, but you do come up with some good snappy one-liners.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll take it!

[Michael P]

To coin a phrase, we need to lock things down and stop arming US Park Police until we can figure out what the hell is going on. Guns are too dangerous for these clowns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/05/us-park-police-fatal-shooting-dry-fire-gun/

[Frank Drackman]

Ever see these Park Police guys? Russ Lasky was more competent guarding Wally World, at least he realized Clark had a fake gun.

[Michael P]

Using a nuclear weapon against Gaza might be a popular idea with one commenter here. Fortunately Israel's government does not agree.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/05/news/israeli-minister-suspended-for-saying-nuking-gaza-was-one-of-the-possibilities/

[John F. Carr]

I wonder how much support Israel would lose if Hamas "accidentally set off a nuclear weapon it was preparing to fire at Israel."

[Mr. Bumble]

Not likely that Hamas has a nuke, but a dirty bomb is a possibility.

[Frank Drackman]

Every A-rab's shorts are a "Dirty Bomb"

[Longtobefree]

Iran could lend them one.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the term is "give", since they'd be hoping not to get it back.

[Longtobefree]

As in 'lend lease'.
An approved international subterfuge.

[bernard11]

That's worth a chuckle.

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind the scale of things here; The Gaza strip is only 6-12 km wide, you know.

You could hardly nuke Gaza without collateral damage extending outside of Gaza, either into Israel or Egypt. So it's just not a practical suggestion even setting aside the diplomatic consequences.

[Michael P]

There are other reasons "nuke Gaza" is a bad idea, but yes, that too.

[Mr. Bumble]

A more interesting question would be what would happen if Israel took out Hamas' fearless leaders hiding out (in luxury) in Qatar?

[Frank Drackman]

Or their Financiers in Terror-Ann.
but seriously Folks, it's like if you have a gun, and your neighbor who's sworn to shoot and kill you the second he gets a gun, sits out in his carport every day putting together an AR-15 (did it once, what a pain), are you really going to wait until he's done?
We should have nuked Ear-Ron January 20, 1981 as soon as our Hostages landed at Wiesbaden just to show them what happens when you mess with the U-S- of A. What would they have done? commit thousands of terrorist attacks for the next 40 years? When's the last time Japan attacked the US? (militarily)

Frank

[ThePublius]

In my estimation, since a state of war exists between Israel and Hamas, those Hamas leaders in Qatar are a legitimate target.

[Martinned]

They are, but that doesn't mean that Israel can attack them while they're in Qatar.

[Frank Drackman]

It's been done before, just in Dubai, not Qatar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- Police announced 15 new suspects in the January killing of a Hamas leader at a Dubai hotel, bringing to 26 the number of people suspected of involvement in his death.
Authorities previously had released a list of 11 suspects in the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a founding member of Hamas' military wing. Al-Mabhouh was found dead in his hotel room January 20.
Police believe he was killed the night before and suspect the Mossad, the secretive Israeli foreign intelligence unit, was behind his killing.

Frank

[Absaroka]

Hypothetical: it's 1943 and Hitler is visiting Ankara to try and get Turkey to join the Axis. The Russians get wind and put a command detonated mine under the train tracks and blow Hitler's special train sky high outside of Ankara. In your view, is that a war crime? Unethical because one shouldn't blow up the leaders of countries you are at war with while they are on neutral territory?

[Martinned]

I didn't say anything about "unethical", but it would definitely be illegal. (Assuming the Turkish didn't consent.)

[Bwaaah]

That's a helpful dichotomy. You can cite the ethics when the law doesn't support your position, and the law when the ethics don't do it for you. That way, you can always justify your position regardless of law *or* ethics.

[Martinned]

This is a legal blog, and my comments here usually refer to the law. When I discuss ethics instead, I tend to say so explicitly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it would be considered an act of war against Turkey (by whatever country did it). Never forget how WWI started.

Now Turkey would have numerous options and what most likely would happen is that England (or whoever blew up the train) would pay damages to Turkey, to the railroad, and the families of those killed.

[Sarcastr0]

The contours of International Law seem ever uncertain and subjective. Seeking a final answer to 'this is an illegitimate action' in such a fraught situation seems a fool's errand.

It'd seem a pretty bad idea practically, though.
The US got away with breaching international sovereignty norms for OBL. Seems risky for Israel to assume it is in the same position, even with US backing.

[Martinned]

Never mind international law, blowing someone up in downtown Ankara is definitely illegal under Turkish law.

[Absaroka]

“The contours of International Law seem ever uncertain and subjective.”

Indeed, that was my point.

“The US got away with breaching international sovereignty norms for OBL”

I dunno; I think that doing what we did to OBL, after what he did to us, is in fact an international norm – any country that could do it would do it. We object – rightly, IMHO – when Putin assassinates political opponents in London, but imagine that Pol Pot had gotten asylum in Somewhereville. I don’t think that him being offed by Cambodian operatives would generate a lot of outrage worldwide. Iceland had the concept of outlawry, where one’s crimes could be so bad you put yourself beyond the protection of the law. That may not be encoded in written international law, but I think it is very much alive as an international norm.

For an example involving Israel, consider Eichmann. ISTR the general sentiment being ‘it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy’.

“It’d seem a pretty bad idea practically, though.”

I don’t have a clue there. Some movements will be crippled by offing the leader(s) – Nazism wouldn’t have survived Hitler, IMHO – but for a lot of others killing the leaders seems like endless whack-a-mole. I just don’t know enough about Hamas to speculate. I think the root cause of a lot of the trouble from Hamas and Hezbollah is actually Iran.

On that note, I found this video to be a fascinating look at Iran. For one tidbit, it seems that a lot of their post-Shah economy is centrally planned, and that is (thankfully!) working about as well as it usually does. And Iran’s demographics are fascinating … it will be a different country in 30 years.

[Sarcastr0]

Ab - I think that doing what we did to OBL, after what he did to us, is in fact an international norm – any country that could do it would do it.
I think that 'could' is doing a TON of work there, though. Of everyone in the world, only we could do it and be pretty confident we could deal with any potential blowback.

I'm making a bit of a distinction between covert and overt I hadn't realized until you teased it out. And which may not be really specified by the hypo above. I was thinking overt action a la OBL, but Israel has a history of rolling more covert, and I do think that is more doable.

I'll have to check out your link on Iran. It is a really interesting place, past and future (the present is almost boring by comparison). I would also note that the neocon cries to take out Iran have renewed, and despite what some on here say those folks seem still quite comfortable in the GOP.

[Absaroka]

I don't see your overt/covert distinction. Consider Eichmann and OBL. They were both covert until completed, and both pretty overt afterwards. We gave press conferences, and the Israelis put Eichmann on trial. We send in stealth helicopters because we can, other countries send in undercover assassins or snatchers because they can. The world reaction seems to turn on whether the world thinks 'they had it coming' or not.

"I’ll have to check out your link on Iran."

The dude's vids are long, but I almost always always learn something interesting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"potential blowback"

What is Qatar going to do? Fund genocidal terrorist groups?

Oh, it already does.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, radicalization of a population or a government is not a step function. It is unwise to roll in all 'what you gonna do about it' even if you think there isn't much.

Ab - The world reaction seems to turn on whether the world thinks ‘they had it coming’ or not.
I don't think we can fine grane it to 'the world' in this case. Though I do think plausible deniability allows some pretty impressive rationalizations to not get involved.

I plan to use a youtube-to-mp3 to make it a podcast 😛

[Absaroka]

"I plan to use a youtube-to-mp3 to make it a podcast"

You'll miss the visuals of the Iranian F-22 clone, etc. Which are pretty hilarious.

(The vid is a wide ranging discussion of Iranian 'Defense' policy/infrastructure/capability, from conventional military to support for Hezbollah et al. On the conventional side they have pulled some real groaners. One was publicizing their new F-22 equivalent. But just looking at the mock up ... nose too small for a radar antenna, inlets positioned to be blanked when raising the nose, etc. Just LOL to people who know planes, apparently. It's like 'who do they think they are fooling'.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"unwise to roll in all ‘what you gonna do about it’ "

Some people just need killing no matter the "blowback".

Qatar will bitch that's all.

[Nige]

Right-wing hardliners calmly accepting blowback from their policies:
9/11
Oct 7th.
Both worth it, presumably.

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas leadership, regardless of where they are, are dead men walking. It is only a matter of time.

[Aunt Teefah]

Doubtless Mossad knows their locations. They'd be doing a pretty bad job as handlers if they didn't.

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas is Amalek, and Israel will never, ever stop striking at them. They will die. The world will be a measurably safer place without Hamas in it.

[Nige]

Except for all the dead civilians.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guys like Commenter_XY don't give a shit about (certain) dead civilians.

[Heedless]

Yes, Nige, civilians are dying and will die in this war.

Those of us who are not puerile utopian fantasists understand that the world will still be safer with Hamas destroyed, and that includes the dead civilians in the calculation.

Hamas turned the Gaza Strip into a misery factory long before October 7. Even now they are stealing the fuel that could be used to keep the hospitals running to power their tunnels and launch their ineffective rockets, and their spokesman openly brag that they are planning a new massacre as soon as they can manage it. There will not, and cannot be peace so long as they remain in charge. That makes this war both moral and necessary.

Leave geopolitics to the grown-ups.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You know what else is dying in Gaza? American support for Israel.

Why Israel would want to try to operate without America's political, economic, and military skirts to hide behind seems inexplicable, but hey . . . it's their funeral.

[ThePublius]

I think Mossad is pretty good at surgical strikes internationally, without killing innocents. I applaud them.

Was the 1976 raid on Entebbe a violation of Ugandan sovereignty?

I know this isn't a hostage situation, literally, but figuratively - I'd love to see a "Raid on Hamas in Qatar."

(Incidentally, the only Israeli military death in that operation was Yonatan Netanyahu, the older brother of Benjamin Netanyahu. I'm sure Bibi remembers.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Great!

With Hamas out of the way, the rest of the world can focus on dealing with the next assholes in line -- the current Israeli government, and the parasitic losers who support and vote for that right-wing belligerence.

If you think eradication of Hamas could incline the mainstream modern world to forget the problems associated with (or be willing to continue to subsidize) Israel's violent and immoral right-wing government, you are sorely mistaken.

[Commenter_XY]

The next assholes in line are PIJ, and IJ. Followed by PFLP. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem destined to be surprised and outraged by what comes next.

At some point, unless Israel changes promptly and substantially, you will be begging the American mainstream to reconsider its judgments about support for Israel. I hope people remember your partisan arrogance, partisan blinders, and moral shortcomings during Israel's misconduct more than anything you say while groveling.

[Michael P]

What about the PFJ and the JPF? (Splitters!)

[Aunt Teefah]

"what would happen if Israel took out Hamas’ fearless leaders hiding out (in luxury) in Qatar?"

Well, for one, Israeli intelligence would have to find a new group of Islamist hardliners to fund and prop up as a wedge against Palestinian secular nationalists. I'm sure they'd have plenty to choose from, but still, it's hard to go back to square one when you've had such a productive partnership over the course of decades.

[David Nieporent]

Aunt Teefah has crossed the line from evil to mentally ill.

[Aunt Teefah]

Israeli intelligence's long-term partnership with Hamas is a well-documented fact, though obviously one you'd prefer to ignore. See, e.g., https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/

"Listen to former Israeli officials such as Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who was the Israeli military governor in Gaza in the early 1980s. Segev later told a New York Times reporter that he had helped finance the Palestinian Islamist movement as a “counterweight” to the secularists and leftists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Fatah party, led by Yasser Arafat (who himself referred to Hamas as “a creature of Israel.”)

“The Israeli government gave me a budget,” the retired brigadier general confessed, “and the military government gives to the mosques.”

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades, told the Wall Street Journal in 2009. Back in the mid-1980s, Cohen even wrote an official report to his superiors warning them not to play divide-and-rule in the Occupied Territories, by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists. “I … suggest focusing our efforts on finding ways to break up this monster before this reality jumps in our face,” he wrote.

Benjamin Netanyahu, in his own words: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas . . . This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

But please, continue with the juvenile insults. I'm sure they'll make your genocide apologia more palatable.

[Commenter_XY]

Well AT, Israel will now fix their error. Israel will kill every Hamas member they can lay their hands on. Gazans can thank Israel later, after Israel obliterates Hamas for them.

[Aunt Teefah]

"error"

Riiiight, just another one of those little oopsie-woopsies Israel seems to find itself a part of. Whomst among us hasn't accidentally created and funded a jihadist terror group to meddle in the politics of our adversary, and then ignored reports that that group would be launching a massive attack? Who could've possibly foreseen such an occurrence? Best to just chalk this up to a mistake that could happen to anybody!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel will kill every Hamas member they can lay their hands on.

So far, Israel doesn't have the courage to it with their hands. Israelis are relying on bombs launched from far away, bombs that kill children, the infirm, the innocent, etc.

I would have more respect for Israel if it sought to bring Hamas to account the hard way (by hand, limiting collateral damage).

[Frank Drackman]

Said like a truly stupid disgraced former Foo-Bawl Coach.
Who obviously never served (I know, "Homo, much better now") with
all that Bullshit about doing it "With Their Hands", we're not all Rape-ists, "Coach", Jay-Hey created Rifles and Pistols for a reason.

Frank

[David Nieporent]

1) The first two things are four decades ago, from before Hamas was a terrorist organization.
2) The third is not "his own words," but an unsourced comment that has never been authenticated that (if accurate) completely misunderstands the context. (And since when did you believe things Benjamin Netanyahu said, anyway?)
3) None of that supports any claim about any "partnership with" Hamas, let alone one of "Israeli intelligence's."

The fact is this: Hamas seized power in Gaza in a military coup against the PA in 2007. Israel had nothing to do with that. It wasn't Israel's idea, Israel didn't support it, and Israel tried to undermine Hamas there. Only years later, when it became clear that Hamas wasn't going anywhere, did Israel begin transferring funds intended for humanitarian relief to Gaza to be administered by Hamas because there wasn't any alternative other than (a) what Israel is doing now, which you hate because not enough Jews are dying, or (b) letting Gazans starve, which you like because then you can blame Jews for it.

[Aunt Teefah]

Whoa, careful there! Wouldn't want you to strain yourself with all that furious backpedaling.

1. Hamas was always a terrorist organization. That's kind of its whole point. Whether or not it was technically *designated* as such by this or that government body seems kind of irrelevant, doesn't it?

2. "completely misunderstands the context." Ok, so what is the context? Help me out here. For what reason is the Israeli prime minister telling Israelis to "support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas"?

3. "transferring funds intended for humanitarian relief to Gaza to be administered by Hamas" Oh, that makes sense. Netanyahu is, after all, ever the humanitarian. I'll bet that's why he said bolstering and funding Hamas is "part of our strategy." He's just talking about their strategy to build more schools and hospitals in Gaza! Yup, that checks out, nothing to see there . . .

Except . . . he then said "part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank." Oh, well that's awkward. Seems like maybe his motives were based in things other than humanitarianism after all. Hmmm.

4. "you hate because not enough Jews are dying, or (b) letting Gazans starve, which you like because then you can blame Jews for it."

And there it is. Ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations of antisemitism. The last refuge of the incompetent hasbarist.

[David Nieporent]

1. Hamas was always a terrorist organization. That’s kind of its whole point. Whether or not it was technically *designated* as such by this or that government body seems kind of irrelevant, doesn’t it?

The answer to your second question is yes. But the first statement is false. Hamas started as a social welfare organization. While there were some violent clashes between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas did not undertake a single attack on Israel until 1989.

2. “completely misunderstands the context.” Ok, so what is the context? Help me out here. For what reason is the Israeli prime minister telling Israelis to “support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas”?

He wasn't. Again — assuming the statement was made — it was at a private Likud meeting, where hardliners were challenging him on the fact that his government was interacting with Hamas in any way. So he's saying, "Actually, it's good for Israel." But he's saying it as a politician, not as a policy analyst. You're doing the equivalent of the neoconfederates who trot out statements by Lincoln to supporters about how he thought blacks were inferior and about how he didn't intend to free slaves as "proof" that the war wasn't about slavery.

[Aunt Teefah]

"the equivalent of the neoconfederates who trot out statements by Lincoln to supporters about how he thought blacks were inferior"

I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here - Lincoln really DID think that black people were genetically and socially inferior to white people. That does not take away from the fact that he was one of the very few "great men" who actually led and "made history" in a way that was positive. Nor does it change the fact that the south seceded to preserve the institution of slavery, and that he fought a war to keep that from happening. But he still was a man of his time, and truly did believe in "white supremacy" (as did even most of the more radical abolitionist republicans, so far as I know).

The fallacy the neoconfederates make is thinking that believing in white supremacy = not having a problem with slavery. This is obviously a massive logical leap that cannot be justified. But I make no such logical leap with respect to Netanyahu. I simply take him at his word. He said that Israel funds and supports Hamas to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state. That is fully consistent with his public statements on the subject over the course of decades. It is also consistent with longstanding practices of Israeli leaders, as demonstrated by the article linked above.

By contrast, to buy your interpretation, you would have believe that Benjamin Natanyahu is a closet peacenik who cares so deeply about the welfare of the Palestinian people that he's willing to pull the wool over the eyes of his own party just to make sure Gazans get the humanitarian funding they need. That he just *really* wants to make sure Gazans get schools, hospitals, and clean water, but unfortunately the mean old hardliners in his party just won't go for it. Thus, he has no choice but to "vice signal" to those hardliners to trick them into behaving morally by thinking they are acting in their self interest.

If this is what happened, Netanyahu is nothing less than a hero to the Palestinian people. What a great guy! He may well be in line for a Nobel Peace Prize.

To state this theory is to refute it. I trust you're too intelligent to actually believe something so laughably absurd. But if not - call me "mentally ill" all you want, but it is you who ought to be fitted for a tinfoil hat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Both US & USSR built small "suitcase" nukes -- under 100 *ton* yield -- and a lot of the Soviet ones are missing.

30-50+ years without maintenance they may not go "bang" but they'd still be a dirty bomb and I can think of all kinds of possibilities. The Israelis won't do it with one of their own because the fingerprint would come back to the US source of the material, but all bets are off with an old Soviet one....

[Brett Bellmore]

Suitcase nukes tend to be dirty nukes: You keep the yield down by inefficient use of the fissile material. I'm counting fallout as collateral damage.

[Don Nico]

That is only because their detonation is on or below the surface, not because of the design of the weapon

[Brett Bellmore]

It's also because of the design; You can only push the critical mass so low, and efficient utilization of that critical mass is going to result in a certain about of energy being released. If you want to achieve a "boom" below that, you have to deliberately arrange for a 'squib' reaction, that doesn't efficiently use the fissile material.

So, with a W-54 set to minimum yield, about 10 tons TNT equivalent, almost all of the fissile material had to be left unreacted, and thus contributed to the fallout.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Does *any* nuke efficiently use the fissile material contained?

I know that it is *highly* radioactive, but if you are measuring it in pounds in terms of a cloud that goes up 10,000 feet (or more), how much of a dilution do you have to have before it becomes essentially background radiation?

Fallout is hundreds of tons of dirt becoming irradiated.

[Don Nico]

Dilution is not the issue. An airburst (the fireball does not touch the ground will minimize fallout but will spread fission fragments and unburned fuel further depending on yield, height of burst, wind velocity etc.
Play a bit with https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[Don Nico]

I cannot comment on your claim.
Suffice it to say there is a big difference in burn-up in a dial-a-yiled design and specially designed very small device

[Nelson]

"Keep in mind the scale of things here; The Gaza strip is only 6-12 km wide, you know."

To understand how small Israel and Gaza are, Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey and the Gaza Strip is roughly the size of Philadelphia.

[Nige]

I liked his 'to Ireland or the desert' remark. To Hell or to Connaught updated.

[Don Nico]

"Using a nuclear weapon against Gaza "
That is one of the stupidest ideas imaginable.
Play around with NUKEMAP and you'll see why:
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[Dr. Ed 2]

A W-54 was fired as a Davey Crockett and airburst 1.7 miles from the launch site in the Nevada desert in 1962.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea to actually do it, and you'd be writing off the hostages, but filling the tunnels full of radiation would evacuate them, one way or the other.

[John F. Carr]

A single, straight tunnel will be thoroughly cleaned out by a nuclear blast at one end. The Castle Bravo nuclear test delivered about 1/10,000 of its explosive energy to the far end of a narrow, 2 km long pipe. The Hamas tunnels will be harder to clear. Many more miles, many more corners.

[Michael P]

Even Black Hebrew Israelites deserve not to have hateful people drive cars into their buildings.

https://fox59.com/news/indy-police-arrest-terrorist-for-purposely-driving-her-car-into-home-used-by-hate-group/

[Bwaaah]

Long story short is a funny one: A pro-Palestinian sympathizer drove her car into the Israel haters' "Black Hebrew Israelite" building because of the name. It's a case of "any friend of my enemy's terminology is my enemy."

[Commenter_XY]

Karmic justice.

[Bob from Ohio]

Feel good story.

[not guilty]

The Special Counsel has filed the government's response in opposition to media petitioners' applications to televise Donald Trump's federal trial in D.C. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.260552/gov.uscourts.dcd.260552.16.0.pdf

The applicable precedents clearly favor the government, but that is not a good thing. The experience of states which have permitted real time coverage of criminal trials has been favorable. Congress, if it chose to do so, could authorize broadcast access, or grant District Courts the discretion to allow it in particular cases.

[Krayt]

"Televise it!"

Trump: "I agree. Televise it!"

"Wait, whaaa?? No, don't televise it!", the saga, continues.

[Moderation4ever]

Not hard to understand. The stars of the televised courtroom are not the defendants but the lawyers. Would Trump ever accept second billing?

[jb]

I'm fairly confident the Special Counsel was never in favor of televising the Trump trial, so not 100% sure who your made up dialogue is supposed to represent.

[Martinned]

The Farage/banking for rich people saga continues:

An apology from the ICO to Dame Alison Rose

The ICO recently investigated a complaint from Nigel Farage. The ICO's investigation was solely into NatWest's actions as a data controller.

Our comments gave the impression that we had investigated the actions of Alison Rose, the former CEO of NatWest Group. This was incorrect. We confirm that we did not investigate Ms Rose's actions, given that NatWest was the data controller under investigation.

We accept that it would have been appropriate in the specific circumstances for us to have given Ms Rose an opportunity to comment on any findings in relation to her role and regret not doing so.

Finally, we apologise to Ms Rose for suggesting that we had made a finding that she breached the UK GDPR in respect of Mr Farage when we had not investigated her. Our investigation did not find that Ms Rose breached data protection law and we regret that our statement gave the impression that she did.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2023/11/an-apology-from-the-ico-to-dame-alison-rose/

[Kazinski]

Well maybe the ICO didn't investigate her, and the apology was appropriate.

But NatWest her bank did investigate her, and they fired her, or at least forced her resignation and are clawing back some of her compensation.

And the BBC apologized to Farage for its report based on her assertions which turned out to be false.

[Mr. Bumble]

As Paul Harvey used to say: And now the rest of the story.

[apedad]

Farm bill faces battle as GOP pushes to strip climate, SNAP funding for subsidies

In 2020, 40 percent of farm income came from government payments, according to EWG.

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4292953-farm-bill-battle-gop-push-crop-subsidies-climate-snap-funding/

It would be easy to try to turn the farm bill into a bipartisan issue but it seems like there are too many intertwined issues.

I'm surprised at the sentence from the story above though.

40%?!?

[Michael P]

Nothing screams "cherry-picked data" like citing economic statistics from 2020.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael P is correct.

"Government payments are expected to comprise 8.8 percent of net farm income in 2022, down from nearly 50 percent in 2020 (the second highest level on record) due to the influx of COVID-19 aid to the agriculture sector."
https://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/usda-2022-farm-subsidies-to-decline-income-to-stay-high/

Don't know the source but the numbers add up.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why isn't Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery? Is impeachment the only sanction the government has available against members of the judiciary?

Why isn't Jim Jordan under indictment for whatever crimes the fake electors scheme implicated? The Speech and Debate Clause does not privilege felony. There is certainly probable cause to show that Jordan conspired with others now under indictment (or who have already pled guilty) to set up the fake electors scheme.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to the latest edition of questions no one cares about.

[Martinned]

There are many reasons why it might not be a question worth discussing, but I think it's silly to claim it's a question "no one cares about". Quite a few people would care a lot if a Supreme Court justice was prosecuted for a felony.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Why isn’t Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery?"
Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Martinned]

That is, of course, an entirely different response than "no one cares about" this.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whatever.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's not under indictment for bribery because nobody has produced a quid pro quo on his end.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't look really bad. I care, and I LIKE Thomas' jurisprudence. Even when I disagree with it, I can generally understand his reasoning.

[grb]

Way back during Reagan’s presidency, Clarence Thomas was just another Rightie looking for any chance to stand out (being a Black conservative alone only moves you up the ladder so far). He had a moment speaking at a right-wing event and hit on the perfect entertainment to please the smug well-fed crowd – publicly trashing his own sister :

“She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check,” Thomas said, “That is how dependent she is. What’s worse is that now her kids feel entitled to the check too. They have no motivation for doing better or getting out of that situation.”

Of course, it worked. The audience cheered and cheered. Given Thomas was offered a position in the Reagan Administration a few months later, this hatchet-job on his own sister might have been THE critical career move. And it was partial true. His sister was on welfare for four or five years—after she had to stop working two minimum-wage jobs to take care of an aunt who had suffered a stroke. Her husband had abandoned her years earlier, her father had abandoned the family three decades back, and her brother was busy at law school. But when reporters looked her up later, they found she was working as a hospital cook. Her oldest son—named after his uncle—was in the Navy, her second-oldest child was a carpenter, and the third-oldest had just been laid off from a bakery. The youngest was still in school.

After all these years, it’s ironic to discover Clarence Thomas was the true welfare queen, not his sister. He’s the shameless leech living off other’s charity without personal pride or self-regard.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not to mention him cheapening the word "lynching". Unforgivable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"cheapening the word “lynching”"

What does a Southern black man born in 1948 know about lynching anyways.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not much, in at least one case.

[Nige]

That's CRT, Bob!

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : “What does a Southern black man born in 1948 know about lynching anyways?”

In this case, as little as he knows about equal oppotunity or employment discrimination. After all, even Clarence Thomas knows he got education and job oppotunities due to affirmitive action and diversity programs.

Remember: Decades before he helped gut affirmative action in higher education, Clarence Thomas told staffers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that “God only knows where I would be today” if not for the legal principles of equal employment opportunity or measures such as affirmative action that are “critical to minorities and women in this society”

“These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years,” Thomas said in 1983. But the perception he didn’t fully earn every single opportunity or hand-up became increasingly galling to Thomas. And that pique caused him to burn down the very tools that helped him achieve success.

And so Thomas (who has already gotten his) argued affirmative action teaches racial minorities they cannot compete without help. Which was a compelling argument back when people could still buy the image of Clarence Thomas as proud man careful of his dignity.

But now that we know he’s spent decades trailing behind a series of sugar daddies with his palm out for freebies. Now we know he’s been shamelessly on the dole for hundreds & hundreds of thousands in handouts. Somehow his “proud man” shtick only looks like empty PR.

Just like all those vacations in Walmart parking lots. A good story to tell, nothing more.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably knows more about lynching than you do about Pussy.

[not guilty]

"What does a Southern black man born in 1948 know about lynching anyways."

When the Senate rejected Clement Haynesworth's SCOTUS nomination in 1969, he remained on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals until his death twenty years later. Nice work if you can get it. Likewise, when Robert Bork was rejected in 1987, he remained on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, as Clarence Thomas would have if the Senate had not confirmed him.

Having a lifetime appointment to a cushy job is not in any way comparable to being lynched. Not to mention that Thomas had made his bones as Stephen Warren at Republicans' Candyland plantation, but the minute that his nomination appeared to be in trouble, he started playing the hell out of the race card.

If in the unlikely event Clarence Thomas encounters Emmitt Till in the next life, I hope that Till beats the stuffing out of him every day for trivializing the horror of a lynching.

[Joe_dallas]

Mr. Bumble 41 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“Why isn’t Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery?”
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Better statement - Inventing facts because progressives dont like Justices following the constitution.

[Sarcastr0]

What facts are invented? The reporting thus far has been credible.

I think the baseline of fringe benefits hasn't been super well elucidated by reporting, but even so Thomas stands out.

[Joe_dallas]

Lathrop asked why Thomas isnt under indictment for bribery

My response was that progressives are inventing facts since there is absolutely no evidence that would constitute evidence of bribery.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not so much inventing facts, as misrepresenting the predicates.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, there's evidence all right.

Just not sufficient to establish proof.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 38 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Oh, there’s evidence all right.

Just not sufficient to establish proof."

Sacastro - there is no evidence of bribery. None of the evidence that is commonly cited shows any connection to parties affiliated with cases before the court.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, you’re talking about conflict of interest, not bribery. Bribery does not require establishing such a connection, just a quid pro quo. Ideological reasons work as well.

I agree I don’t think a quid pro quo has been established sufficient for a court of law.
But good lord do rich right wing idealogues with a radical conservative legal vision and who seem pretty practical in their spending love to give Thomas expensive gifts for some reason!

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 6 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
Joe, you’re talking about conflict of interest, not bribery. Bribery does not require establishing such a connection, just a quid pro quo. Ideological reasons work as well.

Sarcastro - As typical you change the subject - Lanthrop was accusing Thomas of bribery. there is absolutely no evidence of bribery

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 9 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User

Sacastro's comment - "But good lord do rich right wing idealogues with a radical conservative legal vision and who seem pretty practical in their spending love to give Thomas expensive gifts for some reason!"

Sarcastro - adherence to the constitution is only a radical legal vision to progressives.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe, YOU are the one who changed the subject from bribery to conflict of interest.

And Thomas doesn't adhere to the Constitution, in my view. But that doesn't make him illegitimate, just bad.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 6 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Joe, YOU are the one who changed the subject from bribery to conflict of interest"

Sacastro - In your typical dishonest fashion - you have to distort and lie in order to make your point.

You are the one that change the subject to conflict of interest.

[Sarcastr0]

'connection to parties affiliated with cases' is an element of conflict of interest, not bribery.

That's language from your comment, not mine.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sacastro - its also an element of bribery which was the topic - However if you need to use it for an element of conflict of interest in order to you to justify in your mind the reason to the change the subject - go ahead if it makes you feel better

[Sarcastr0]

Elements of bribery:
-A public official, either an elected official or a federal employee
-A thing of value, either tangible or intangible
-A request, receipt, offer, or promise of that thing of value
-For the benefit of the official or some other person or entity
-With a corrupt intent to influence an official act, vote, or influence of the official

As you can tell, here 'thing of value' is the nut element, and it is not so limited to switching findings in cases in which you are a party.

That is the case with conflict of interest, however. Maybe I was giving Joe too much benefit of the doubt in thinking he'd mixed one for the other and wasn't just being ignorantly legalish.

[Don Nico]

"The reporting thus far has been credible."
Somehow, that standard of evidence never applies your criticism of Democrats concerning the rightwing

[Sarcastr0]

You are correct.

Because the right wing's sources of choice have a track record of lying in a way that the NYT does not.
No matter how many cherry picked examples the right digs up the NYT and other such papers of record have transparent protocols to independently fact check their stories, verify anonymous sources, etc.

By contrast, the right can't or at least refuses to try and do better than the Breitbart and Project Veritas and Dinesh D'Souza and The Federalist.
Anyone claiming those out and out propaganda sources are no worse than the NYT is embracing ignorance, preferring to burnish their partisanship more than dealing with reality.

I think it says volumes how credibility takes a second seat for the sources the the modern conservative movement flocks to support.

[Michael P]

Why aren't you under arrest for making criminal threats?

[not guilty]

I despise Clarence Thomas. He is a corrupt and self-serving weasel. But I haven't seen evidence of a nexus to any official act as would be required for a federal bribery prosecution per 18 U.S.C. § 201.

[Biastians]

But you didn't think so about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, the "Wise Latina" or any of those pieces of anti-American garbage?

[Joe_dallas]

Since you despise Thomas - care to tell us which one of his opinions did not adhere to the constitution.

Or is the reason you despise Thomas , really just a case of you despising the constitution (but loving the living constitution)?

[M L]

Indeed, why do leftists love to hate Clarence Thomas so intensely and passionately? Must be they are racist. (This is the actual "logic" they use against others).

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect that leftists treat prominent black conservatives as more of a threat because it's vitally important to them that they keep their sky high percentage of the black vote.

Since there are some serious disconnects between left wing ideology and the median opinion of black people, to do this they have to make blacks think that going right wing simply isn't an option.

To this end, whenever a black conservative starts to get national attention, they have to be discredited or otherwise taken out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some black conservatives make it easy for others to criticize them -- by taking wads of cash, trying to conceal the receipt of those wads of cash, and becoming symbols of the need for better standards governing important public officials with shabby character and poor judgment.

[Biastians]

Are you describing the BLM leaders?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The BLM leaders were bad. Clarence Thomas is worse.

But if there is any Black man America's disgusting right-wing bigots can tolerate, it is Clarence Thomas.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like how Jerry Sandusky was "Bad" but "John Wayne Gacy" was "Worse"??
Not sure I agree with your Police work there, "Coach"

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

ML tries for satire. Brett just takes him seriously.

[Frank Drackman]

Why aren't you in Gaza, supporting your Palestinian butt-buddies? Oh, because the Israelis aren't a bunch of unarmed hipsters and are kicking their asses, never mind. But since we're talking penalties, why aren't Ra-shit-a Hijab, Mullah Omar, and Priapism Slap-a-Jap on trial for Treason?

Frank

[hobie]

All the cooperating lawyers are gonna spill on the congressmen and senators that coordinated with the White House for election crimes. You know, the ones that were screaming for pardons on Jan 7th

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Speech and Debate Clause does not privilege felony. "

In fact it does, its the privilege from arrest in the proceeding clause that excepts felony.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why isn’t Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery?

So now we can add "bribery" to the looooong (and still growing) list of words you don't know the meaning of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why isn’t Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery?

Which specific acts of his do you think constitute bribery?

Is impeachment the only sanction the government has available against members of the judiciary?

No, they can be criminally prosecuted. But there does have to be evidence that they committed a crime.

Why isn’t Jim Jordan under indictment for whatever crimes the fake electors scheme implicated? The Speech and Debate Clause does not privilege felony. There is certainly probable cause to show that Jordan conspired with others now under indictment (or who have already pled guilty) to set up the fake electors scheme.

Did you read the speech and debate clause? It contains two protections. One of them, immunity from arrest while attending Congress, contains an exception for felonies. The other, immunity for speech and debate, does not.

[David Nieporent]

Why isn’t Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery?

Because there's no evidence of bribery? He may have accepted funds that he unlawfully failed to disclose, but that omits the quid pro quo requirement to establish bribery.

Is impeachment the only sanction the government has available against members of the judiciary?

No.

Why isn’t Jim Jordan under indictment for whatever crimes the fake electors scheme implicated? The Speech and Debate Clause does not privilege felony.

It (which is actually the Speech or Debate clause) actually does (if the felony is related to speech or debate, of course). I think you're confusing it with the privilege against arrest while traveling to or from Congress. But what "probable cause" do you refer to?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He may have accepted funds that he unlawfully failed to disclose

May have?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, I brought the subject up to give myself an opportunity to say that after there is irrefutable evidence that:

1. A high government official;

2. Accepted extraordinary secret gifts and financial contributions;

3. From people positioned to be interested in what that official will do in office;

4. And that gifted official is discovered to have omitted those gifts from a legally required disclosure process;

5. And that gifted official has also failed to report to the IRS the value received;

6. Then that is evidence sufficient to justify a criminal investigation to discover in more detail whether criminal bribery, or some other crime, should be charged.

My theory to justify action in this case is that such an investigation would disclose that Thomas has been induced to coordinate with the Federalist Society the subject matter of his dissents, and his frequently published expressions of interest that the Court receive cases selected for subject matter capable to advance the Federalist Society’s legal agenda.

Perhaps something else accounts for this pattern of largesse, concealment, and public solicitation. Can you think of anything both legal and not nonsensical to explain it?

Or maybe you believe for some reason that it is important that the Justice Department remain incurious. No matter what provocative conduct comes to its attention—until publicly-available evidence sufficient to prove crime beyond a reasonable doubt gets delivered to its doorstep—the nation’s chief law enforcement agency should do nothing. That is not my view.

After asking myself if I would tolerate an investigation of a political favorite of my own under like circumstances, I conclude that doing nothing in such circumstances takes prosecutorial complacence too far.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, first off.
1. Granted.
2. Granted
3. EVERYBODY is similarly positioned, so that's a wash.
4. There was a dispute over whether this applied to Justices.
5. It's only speculated that this happened, not established.
6. Perhaps, but just ask the IRS to look into #5, they'll have the relevant records. Until you identify some action on Thomas' part in response to the gifts, I think you've got no basis for further action.

[David Nieporent]

6. Then that is evidence sufficient to justify a criminal investigation to discover in more detail whether criminal bribery, or some other crime, should be charged.

Anybody can investigate anything at any time for any reason or no reason. But the careful reader will note that your question was why he wasn't "under indictment" for bribery, not why he wasn't he being "investigated for" briber.

[Drewski]

"Anybody can investigate anything at any time for any reason or no reason"

This is not an accurate statement of the law.

[David Nieporent]

Sure it is. The manner in which one can investigate is, of course, constrained. (You can't get a search warrant without probable cause, for instance.) But "investigate" is a broad term that comprises many different levels of behavior.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why isn’t Clarence Thomas under indictment for bribery?

Then that is evidence sufficient to justify a criminal investigation

So you also don't know the difference between the words "investigation" and "indictment". You know, as long-winded as you are one would think you'd have a much better grasp of basic English.

[Tom for equal rights]

Stephen Lathrop 5 hours ago (edited)

"5. And that gifted official has also failed to report to the IRS the value received;"

lathrop - the receipt of a gift is not taxable income. Its only income if it is in payment of services or in payment of property, which if so, then it is not a gift.

The donor is the individual subject to an excise tax on the transfer of property, not the recipient of the gift. The gift and estate tax which is separate and distinct from the income tax.

US 26 subtitle B chapter 12

[Biastians]

https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2023/D11-03/C:23-1825:J:Brennan:dis:T:fnOp:N:3126507:S:0

The bad faith from the left wing judiciary doesn't end. It will never end, and they will never stop resisting, until the Supreme Court does summary reversals or requires preclearance. These people hate the Constitution, hate our way of life, and hate everything that constrains their sick ideology.

[mse326]

I don't know where I fall on this legally yet, I think it is closer than either side wishes to admit.

But calling Easterbrook a leftist doesn't help your cause in the slightest

[Biastians]

It's not close at all if you actually read Bruen.

Easterbrook, on guns, is a leftist. He wrote the decision in McDonald that was overturned by SCOTUS. He held in the Highland Park case in 2015, pre-Bruen, that making people feel safer is an important enough benefit to justify infringing on the 2nd Amendment, even if it doesn't actually make people safer.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I don’t know if Easterbrook is a leftist in general, but he seems to have a leftist’s ignorance of the subject matter on which he’s expounding:

Everyone can also agree, we hope, that a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy Crockett system, with its 51-pound W54 warhead, can be reserved for the military, even though it is light enough for one person to carry.

First off, the M388 designation refers only to the projectile, not the Davy Crockett “system”. That was actually one of two versions that were designated M-28 and M-29, and it was a crew-served weapon that was not even remotely “light enough for one person to carry” in combat. The warhead itself weighed 51 lbs, but the projectile it was a part of (what "M388" designates) weighed 76 lbs. And again, that was just he projectile. The launcher for the M28 variation weighed 185 lbs, and the much larger M29 launcher weighed in at 440 lbs. Plus there would be added weight from cases, tools, etc. So you’re looking at a total weapon system weight of at least 261 lbs or 516 lbs, depending on the version. There’s a reason the weapon was served by a crew of at least 3 men, and more typically 5.

[Moderation4ever]

All that is happening in the Middle east right now has raised my curiosity about what happened in 1947, maybe even before that time with the dissolution of the Ottoman empire. Can anyone suggest good non-fiction books covering the history of this period. I know that there are a variety of opinions on this topic, and I would most like to find a balanced history that doesn't favor either west or locals to the region but more centers on facts. Any suggestions?

[Longtobefree]

I'm sure any British reference would be totally unbiased - - - - - - - - - - -

(at least they had the honesty to declare the place ungovernable and get out)

[Martinned]

I read this one earlier this year, about the Sykes-Picot pact and the subsequent developments: https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1847394574/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Ed Grinberg]

"either west or locals to the region"
Let me guess: Arabs are the "locals to the region," Jews are interlopers from "the West," right? Yes, you definitely should read up on this subject!

Here's a book I've read that certainly "centers on facts." I am not aware of any convincing refutations of any factual assertions made there. I highly recomment it.
A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time (by Howard Sachar)

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for the suggestion. I struggled to define the competing sides in the formation of today's Middle East. You have the western countries who really had the power to define the region. The other side is less well defined as there are Jews, Christian and Muslims.
Each of these religious groups can be further broken down into sects. In terms of nationalities, you have the Arabs, but also Persians in Iran and many smaller groups, like Kurds. So, I was left to say the western powers and the local groups. Imperfect but the best I could do.

[Commenter_XY]

I mean, we Jews were in the region a couple thousand years before Mohammed was even born. Locals to the region, LOL.

The palestinians are a fake, invented people. Golda Meir called herself a palestinian.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The palestinians are a fake, invented people.

You figure belittling the Palestinians makes the Israelis and their supporters look better, or incline people to be more sympathetic to Israel's right-wing shittiness?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is plotting revenge -- I can't say I blame him.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-allies-plot-revenge-justice-department-control-in-a-second-term/ar-AA1jpyY0

[SRG2]

Perhaps not - but does that change your support for him?

[Bob from Ohio]

"does that change your support for him?"

Not Ed but no, it makes me more in support. DOJ deserves it.

Alas, he won't follow through, he never does.

[Moderation4ever]

It good for people to remember that when authoritative leaders come to power there first victim are their opponents and their second victims are those who supported them. Many revolutionary leaders ended up in prison or worse after their own leader came to power. The true leader knows that yes men are plentiful and need not be spared.

[Sarcastr0]

The better angels of our nature are for suckers according to today's GOP.

And I don't mean the fringe, I mean the mainstream. This is an opinion piece so take it as it will but it provides some pretty good facts on the rise of 'the Dems want you all dead' nuttery that allows people well less nuts than Ed to rationalize some awful stuff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/04/opinion/sunday/conservative-intellectuals-republicans.html

[Ed Grinberg]

Speaking of "authoritative" (I think he meant authoritarian):
Some (not you, obviously) would say that "some [pretty] awful stuff" is already happening:
https://policestatefilm.net/

[Sarcastr0]

Linking to Dinesh D'Souza's latest mountain of bullshit?

Not doing a great job disproving my thesis about the GOP radicalizing towards the system being evil and liberal and all means being on the table to take it down.

This guy you believe, he lies, Ed.

[Ed Grinberg]

"the system being evil and liberal"
Mr. D’Souza vigourously disagrees with the claim that the modern Democratic Party is "liberal." In fact, he has made a convincing case that it is the very opposite:
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

[Nige]

Dinesh D'Souza couldn't make a convincing loaf of bread.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Dinesh D'Souza is a bigger asshole than the average Volokh Conspirator or Volokh Conspiracy fan. He is a liar, a conspiracy theorist, a convicted (then pardoned) felon, a bigot, and an un-American, hypocritical (yet another adulterer for Christ) religious kook.

The people who like Dinesh D'Souza are lousy people. The entites that have associated with Dinesh D'Souza -- Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution -- are shitty, too.

Carry on, clingers.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, I have a question. If D'Souza is a bigger asshole than the average Volokh Conspirator or Volokh Conspiracy fan, then who is the biggest asshole? 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not know who the biggest asshole is. D'Souza is high on the list but not likely the apex asshole. Do you have a candidate?

[Frank Drackman]

Well if there's anyone who knows the In's and Out's of Klinging Assholes (and Felonies) it's you!

[Sarcastr0]

Read the NYT article - you're soaking in exactly what they discuss.

And it doesn't end with 'vote GOP but extra hard this time.'

[M L]

https://policestatefilm.net/

I watched the trailer and it looks interesting. It looks like it will tell some real life stories that need to be told.

[Bob from Ohio]

"mountain of bullshit?"

You linked to the NYT. Its no better.

[David Nieporent]

It is, and you know it. You just don't like the fact that the facts aren't on your side.

[Bob from Ohio]

Both just propaganda.

[Sarcastr0]

As they say, anyone who claims they believe nothing will fall for anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

Worship the NYT if you want dude.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, that's what I do.

I worship the New York Times.

Because I think it's a better source than Dinesh D'Souza.

Well spotted, Bob.

Go back to cheering for a stated policy of partisan revenge, because fuck the country all that matters is the right people are immiserated.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Relax, Sarcastr0. Bob from Ohio's side of this debate has lost the culture war -- not quite over, but it has been settled -- and will continue to recede as America improves against conservatives' preferences.

Most of his argument are just middle fingers from a sore loser.

[M L]

But one is "better" at being propaganda. So that makes it . . . better. I think.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sarcasto thinks an opinion piece is valid solely because its in the Times. It wasn't even an alleged fact piece he linked to.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob's reading comprehension is once again incredible.

My explicitly calling it out as an opinion piece was me admitting my weakness and how I always believe the NYT and quote it all the time and love it.

Noting that it has some good facts in it just shows what I don't know that opinion pieces can't make factual assertions.

[Frank Drackman]

Meir Kahane's
"They Must Go"

[Ed Grinberg]

My understanding is that, at the time, the Israeli establishment did to him what our establishment is now trying to do to Trump -- declare him "disqualified" and keep him out of politics.
In light of the recent events, I bet many in Israel are reevaluating Mr. Kahane's ideas.

[Aunt Teefah]

Which ideas of fascist and convicted terrorist Kahane do you think warrant reevaluation?

[Frank Drackman]

All of them

[Commenter_XY]

Namely, that Gaza, Judea and Samaria are Israel. And if palestinians wish to stay, it will be under Israeli law.

That beats the hell out of these policies: Oslo, two-states, disengagement and conflict management.

Kahane believed a lot of other stuff that I do not. Fortunately for palestinians, Kahane did not plan a form of Jizya (common in muslim countries).

I remember when Kahane got bumped off in NYC.

[Aunt Teefah]

"that Gaza, Judea and Samaria are Israel."

From the river to the sea?

[bernard11]

Namely, that Gaza, Judea and Samaria are Israel. And if palestinians wish to stay, it will be under Israeli law.

Maybe these deserve reevaluation, but the evaluators shouldn't take more than a few minutes to reject them.

And what do you mean by "Israeli law?" Suppose the Arabs in your hypothetical Israel come to outnumber the Jews, so that "Israeli law" is determined by them? Now what?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, roughly 20% of Israel are Israeli arabs, a good portion of whom are not even palestinian. They are Israelis, fully participate in society, are not interested in Judeocide, and live rewarding and enriching lives as Israelis.

The demographic bomb you evidently think exists is a dud. You assume every palestinian in Israel today will never leave. That is a very questionable assumption. Why? Post war, the biggest question to confront is what to do with an entire people steeped and stewed in a toxic brew of Judeocide. And btw, that includes the palestinians in Judea and Samaria - they're no better.

What I would tell you is the policies that got us here are failures: Oslo, two-states, disengagement, and conflict management. If you don't see that those policies spectacularly failed, there is not much to talk about. Unfortunately, POTUS Biden seems wedded to those failed policies (and the Iran Project, from his old boss); that is easy to understand, POTUS Biden was there at the inception. POTUS Biden, an old man, is wedded to the past.

Israeli law = Israeli sovereignty

[Brett Bellmore]

But Bernard has an excellent point here. At present Israel is a Jewish state, not just in law, but in demographic reality. There are certainly Arab citizens, Muslim citizens, with full voting rights, but they are too few to significantly influence policy.

Israel presently has a population of about 9.7M, of which 7.2M are Jews. Most of the rest are Muslims.

The West bank and Gaza strip have a population of about 5M, of which 5M are Muslims, because they kill anybody else.

Add them together in one state, and you've got a country of 14.7M, with Jews slightly under half the population.

Even if the Muslims don't automatically vote in a Sharia state on day one, things will start trending that way if half the population is Muslim. And everybody knows that.

So, no, I think it's just flatly infeasible for Israel to integrate the Palestinians into Israel as full citizens. One state is dead, it never even was alive.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if the Muslims don’t automatically vote in a Sharia state on day one, things will start trending that way if half the population is Muslim.

While the demographic/democracy issue is absolutely driving Israel's decisions about the franchise, this goes too far.

Muslins are not actually inevitable Sharia theocracy machines.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's nice to think that, and as individuals, it's even often true. As an aggregate? Where most of the aggregate are from the West Bank and Gaza, which are effectively Islamic states already?

Yeah, these Muslims would be inevitable Sharia theocracy machines.

There are a few sorta-democracies with Muslim majorities. To quote a highly ironic line from Wikipedia, "Today, a number of Muslim-majority countries are Islamic yet secular democracies.[citation needed]" Citation needed, indeed! So, let's look at the record. Oh, yeah, three "flawed democracies", and that's about it.

Yeah, generally, if a majority Muslim state isn't an Islamic state, it's because it's not really much of a democracy, and the authoritarians running it don't want to cede power to the religious authorities.

And the odds of Gazans voting for religious liberty are somewhere between negligible and nil.

[Sarcastr0]

First, your statement was generalized to all Muslims. And then you switch the thesis from Sharia to being pro-democracy.

I agree with your new thesis. But you went farther than you needed to, in a pretty telling fashion.

The return of the dumbass trope of the Muslim Hive Mind is not something I'm looking forwards to around here.

[Brett Bellmore]

My comment was, specifically, in the context of Israel attempting to merge with the West Bank and Gaza.

Yes, I know you want to pretend that the world is a very different place than it really is, and demand that nobody mention things that burst that bubble. I've no intention of obliging you.

[Sarcastr0]

Bullshit, Brett.

This statement is not specific to Gaza, it's a bigoted generalization about Muslims in general once they get 'critical mass:'
"Even if the Muslims don’t automatically vote in a Sharia state on day one, things will start trending that way if half the population is Muslim. And everybody knows that."

I said I get the issues with Arabs in Israel getting the vote, Brett. I acknowledge the difficulty. You bigot it away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Arabs in Israel DO have the vote, Sarcastr0, if they are citizens. The objection here is to demanding that Israel make citizens out of a hostile adjoining state which has been at war with them for a decade or more, which would result in nearly half of Israel's population consisting of people who want Israel destroyed.

"it’s a bigoted generalization about Muslims in general once they get ‘critical mass:’"

That's what I mean about you not being entitled to demand we pretend the world is a different place than it actually is. There is not one solitary example of a majority Muslim liberal democracy, in the entire world. In the entire freaking world.

You want to pretend that's just some bizarre coincidence.

Nope, not playing that game. It's no coincidence.

[Sarcastr0]

You admit the issues with expanding the franchise (and I agree), so I don't know why you pretend the franchise is broad. It is very much not.

There is not one solitary example of a majority Muslim liberal democracy, in the entire world
This isn't wrong, though there's a ton of history beyond Muslimness to occlude your causal implication.

But you've shifted the goalposts. Your old goalpost was Sharia law. That's what I took issue with. And I still do. And you still haven't backed down, just pushed new goalposts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This isn’t wrong, though there’s a ton of history beyond Muslimness to occlude your causal implication."

Precisely what I said: You want to pretend it's just a coincidence.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to pretend it’s just a coincidence.

I think it's rare for something to have a single cause.

You don't give a fig about actually establishing causality. Because you like your bad guys pure.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, a couple of points. Extending Israeli sovereignty over Gaza, Judea and Samaria will necessarily mean that there will be a transitional period; years, not months.

I would not assume that all palestinians will stay. I mean, they'd love the higher standard of living, but sadly want to kill the very people who provide that higher standard of living through a vibrant economy. That won't work. The Judeocidal elements of palestinian society need to go, period; into the ground, or to another place.

If you have been following my comments, you know I would immediately implement an incentivized, voluntary emigration plan with generous relocation grants over a 10 year period. There is a sizeable swath of palestinian society who would jump at the chance to relocate outside of Israel because they hate Jews, want nothing to do with them, cannot stand the thought of living under Israeli authority. Encourage them. There is no reason they cannot have rewarding and fulfilling lives elsewhere. I don't need every palestinian to take the grant and leave, just about a third. Seems do-able over 10 years.

If the palestinian dead-enders in Judea and Samaria want to duke it out, I think they will find an armed Jewish populace who is not in the mood to turn the other cheek. Those palestinians will die, unlamented and unmourned.

Jews have no place else to go, Brett. I don't think people quite appreciate what that entails, and how it changes the perceptions of people. The Simchat Torah pogrom changed everything; there is a new rulebook being written.

[bernard11]

Post war, the biggest question to confront is what to do with an entire people steeped and stewed in a toxic brew of Judeocide. And btw, that includes the palestinians in Judea and Samaria – they’re no better.

And so your proposal is to integrate them into Israel as full citizens? "Let's bring a few million murderers into the country." Somehow that doesn't seem like a good idea.

Now, I don't actually agree with your blanket condemnation - I doubt either of us has a very strong basis for our views - but yours look wildly inconsistent to me.

OTOH, do the Palestinians really have no grounds to dislike Israel?

Do you think Netanyahu's policies over the years have treated them justly? If you don't see that those policies have been ill-considered, unjust, and likely to provoke hostility rather than amicable relations, then there is not much to talk about.

[Commenter_XY]

If one state, Israel, is the solution....then yes, palestinians who remain after the transitional period become Israeli citizens.

What condemnation? I spoke the objective truth: palestinian society has been steeped and stewed in a toxic brew of Judeocide. Not a word of condemnation regarding the Simchat Torah pogrom from Israel's peace partners.

Netanyahu (and Hertzog, and Barak, and Sharon, and Peres, and Bennett, and Gantz, and Begin) formulated and executed bad policy: Oslo, two-states, disengagement, and conflict management. These bad policies (paired with bad execution) lead to bad outcomes, and a lot of unnecessary misery for palestinians.

Post war, those policies will be abandoned. What remains bernard11? How to make 'Israel' (one state) work. That is where my focus is....what will make it work, given that Jews are not leaving (they have nowhere else to go).

[darkknight9]

No evidence, no proof, I put this out there as a whaddya think?

Did Russia do something to assist Iran in arming Hamas so that this attack/conflict could happen to draw money and support directly away from the Ukraine? And if so, how long have they been at it?

Whaddya think?

[Longtobefree]

I think it was planned before Russia invaded, and it for sure was planned before Russia figured out it wouldn't be a walkover.

[Michael P]

I think Iran, their proxies in the region, and maybe other countries like Qatar were part of the preparation for October 7th. It would not surprise me if Russia was also involved, but I would guess operational security kept them from any details and probably the whole plan. I also don't think Russia had any support to provide that Hamas saw as important, so there would have been no reason to include Russia in the planning.

[shawn_dude]

Why would Russia need to do anything to assist Iran or Hamas here? Russian, Iran, and China all gain by stretching the Western allies thin on funding multiple wars. Iran is perfectly capable of providing equipment, funding, training, planning to various terrorist organizations.

[Krychek_2]

I just want to say that it is my fervent hope that tomorrow the Ohio voters will kick the butts of the pro-forced-birth crowd, and maybe the people running the GOP will start to figure out that banning abortion is not a winning issue for them.

[Biastians]

It's not a winning issue as long as you let women vote. Get rid of the female vote, and get rid of mandatory child support, and put responsibility for pregnancies back with women, where it belongs.

[Krychek_2]

She didn't get pregnant all by herself.

[Bwaaah]

Who are you to say? She might identify as "self-impregnated."

[Krychek_2]

In which case she wouldn't be suing for child support, now, would she?

[Biastians]

They get "free" birth control, because of female lobbying. They also get "Free" Plan B.
If they get pregnant, it's 100% their fault.

[Estragon]

Plenty of places to get free condoms in Ohio too though

[Brett Bellmore]

Women's opinions on abortion have taken a weird turn lately.

"Legal under certain circumstances" has dropped only 5% in the last 4 years, from 50% to 45% among women.

But in 2019 "Legal under all circumstances" and "Illegal under all circumstances" were both at about 24% among women.

Since then, "Legal under all circumstances has gone up 16% to 40%, while "Illegal under all circumstances has gone down by 9% to 15%. More than half the gain among the pro-abort absolutist faction of women seems to have come from former anti-abortion absolutists!

Among men, OTOH, while "legal under only some circumstances" has gained over the same period, it has been men abandoning the extremes for the center.

The center seems to be holding among men, with the extreme positions declining. Not so much among women.

[grb]

Brett : “The center seems to be holding among men, with the extreme positions declining”

I wonder how you – who distrust all polls and the subtle variations baked in their questions – interpet these results. For instance, how many of the “pro-abort absolutist faction of women” would answer “yes” if asked about third tremister abortions?

Here’s how many: nearly zero. Almost absolute zero. Because there isn’t a center with two opposite opposing extremes. There is only the center, which wants the protections of Roe restored, and the Right, who seeks to ban all abortions and will use any legal mechanism or trick to further their ends.

You want the symmetry of two opposing extremes because that gives you rhetorical cover. But it doesn’t exist. You are the extreme.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree: Damn few people actually hold the "legal under all circumstances position. Maybe 5-10% of the population, tops.

And they're running the pro-choice organizations, just like the "illegal under all circumstances" people are running the pro-life orgs.

The problem is that multiple states have enacted what amounts to elective abortion right up until the moment of birth, and decided to even avert their gaze for an indeterminate period after that birth, under the guise of "restoring Roe".

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “The problem is that multiple states have enacted what amounts to elective abortion right up until the moment of birth, and decided to even avert their gaze for an indeterminate period after that birth, under the guise of “restoring Roe””

Uh huh. So where are these abortions occuring? Answer: nowhere, because they’re nothing more than a crude lie the Right constructed to pretend that they – and they alone – aren’t the only extremist faction here.

How many dozens of times have you posted this phony shit about abortions at the moment of birth or even after? So provide one example of a legal abortion performed that late. Provide one example of a late third-term abortion not driven by medical emergency. Provide one example of a major pro-choice orgination specifically demanding the right for abortion at birth.

You can get anyway with peddling the same tired worthless lies forever, Brett….

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I've already cited the case of an abortion clinic in DC that does post viability abortions, and comes right out on their website to say, "we don't care why you want it".

NY repealed all their legal provisions intended to prevent babies delivered alive from being left to die.

Even the Guttmacher institute doesn't pretend most late term abortions are medically necessary! "But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

[grb]

Repeat : How many dozens of times have you posted this phony crap about abortions at the moment of birth or even after? So provide us one example of a legal abortion performed that late.

Provide. One. Example.

Don’t try and weasel away with some smokecreen of “post-viability abortions”. What’s that? Week 25? You’ve told bullshit lies about abortions at the moment of birth over and over. You’ve used this fairy tale as “proof” you’re not the extremist one. So time to pony up: Just give us an example of a legal abortion that meets this treasured fantasy of yours. Just one.

Provide. One. Example.

[David Nieporent]

NY repealed all their legal provisions intended to prevent babies delivered alive from being left to die.

Of course, they did no such thing. Laws against homicide remain on the books in New York.

[Brett Bellmore]

Does that actually matter, when they repealed the provisions that were in place to discover such homicides?

[Sarcastr0]

How is this coverup going to go, exactly?

Woke Hospitals gonna start murdering already born babies?

[David Nieporent]

"Do laws against homicide matter?", Brett asks.

[Magister]

The same concern would apply with Supreme Court justices, where any requirement to discover corruption is steadily opposed.

[Nelson]

"and decided to even avert their gaze for an indeterminate period after that birth, under the guise of “restoring Roe”."

No, they haven't. There are exactly zero states in America where killing a baby that has been born alive is legal. Zero. It is called murder and it isn't allowed anywhere.

Unless, of course, you have some actual, factual data that shows that it happens? No the normal weasel words you use to pretend it would be legal.

Has it ever happened? Yes or no.

[Both Sides]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be!), but aren't you the poster who has on more than one occasion said that "single-issue polls are worthless"?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think I've ever said exactly that. What I've said is that polls on topics people mostly don't care about are worthless, because people tend not to say they're undecided, they just tell the pollster whatever they think is the answer that's being looked for.

That's why on many topics the response is so variable depending on how the question is asked.

I don't think abortion is such a topic, though to be sure you need to do some serious probing to get at exactly what the typical person actually thinks.

[Both Sides]

Ah, I had (apparently) falsely recalled that you said something like that about abortion. Apologies. And I certainly agree that "how the question is asked" is very important in these (and other types) of polls.

To be fair to both sides, the "anti-choice" side has certainly become more extreme, with several states passing statutes (of questionable constitutionality) that purport to bar out-of-state travel for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its me!

Not only "single-issue" but all issue polls are garbage. Completely dependent on language.

[Both Sides]

Ah, I knew it was somebody. Apologies to both you and Brett for my mis-remembering.

[David Nieporent]

That's mostly Bob from Ohio who says that, but of course only when he doesn't like the results of the polls.

[Biastians]

Could it be as simple as women changing their minds when something is a potential reality, versus the abstract only?

[Both Sides]

I personally believe that it could, in fact, be exactly that simple.

[Biastians]

Yeah, I'm just thinking of people who keep saying "As soon as Teslas are no longer in short supply, I'll buy one," but then get cold feet when they actually have the opportunity.

[Magister]

More than half the gain among the pro-abort absolutist faction of women seems to have come from former anti-abortion absolutists!

Not necessarily; if 9% went from "illegal in all circumstances" to "legal in certain circumstances" and 14% from "legal in certain circumstances" to "legal in all circumstances", with the 2% undecided joining "legal in all circumstances", the totals would be as described without anyone going from "illegal in all circumstances" to "legal in all circumstances".

[jb]

I think this is unsurprising. Once Roe was overturned and women started to see laws actually meaningfully interfering in the doctor/patient relationship and their bodily autonomy, they decided that was really not a reasonable role for the government. So even though they might not be supportive of late-term abortions per se, they may also be convinced that legislatures have proven themselves incapable of crafting laws that prohibit "bad" abortions without putting way too much burden on women in the process.

[Nelson]

"More than half the gain among the pro-abort absolutist faction of women seems to have come from former anti-abortion absolutists!"

That seems like a weird assumption to make. It makes more sense to assume that there was a shift across the board to support a less-restrictive position. It makes sense, given the extremism of cultural conservatives regarding abortion.

If you trust that the consensus of the American people (legal until viability) will be considered by anti-abortionists now that individual choice has been replaced by government coercion, you would likely keep the same opinion.

If, on the other hand, you fear that an extreme position will be forced upon people in defiance of a reasonable consensus, your opinion is much more likely to shift away from the extremist position.

If you don't trust the extremists to consider anyone else's opinion, you will shift over even further. This is what cultural conservatives have caused to happen.

Many people have concluded that the only way to make sure abortion bans aren't set at irrational points in fetal development is to make sure there can be no restrictions placed at all. This is a direct result of the actions of cultural conservatives.

Americans are realizing that cultural conservatives can't be trusted to respect the opinions of their constituents. They can't be trusted to be reasonable. Their words and assurances can't be trusted because they will lie and obfuscate and gaslight until they have banned abortion in America.

Men haven't changed their opinions because they aren't personally impacted by abortion bans like women are. They will be allowed to continue to abandon their responsibilities with impunity either way, just like now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get rid of the female vote,

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of America's Conservative Misogynists

[David Nieporent]

Dude, a good troll requires either (a) subtlety, or (b) hit-and-run tactics, so that people don't realize you're just a troll. You've got neither here. (Changing your username to seem like a hit-and-runner only works if you change up your style or post very sporadically, so that people don't catch on that you're the same guy who's been posting this stuff for years.)

[Biastians]

When you and the Rev. Kirkland use the shower together, who is on top?

[David Nieporent]

Yawn.

[Frank Drackman]

Must be really sad to fervently hope more women will be able to kill their unborn black/hispanic babies before the Police get a chance to kill them. I know, white/asian womens kill their unborn babies also, just not in the same proportions. See, I hope for happier things, like Auburn knocking Alabama out of the SEC Championship/CFP picture, the Braves learning how to hit in the Post Season, Atlanta getting an NFL Team….

Frank

[Michael P]

I guess if you are in favor of killing babies, it makes sense to call the people who disagree "pro-forced-birth" no matter how much that distorts their position.

[Krychek_2]

So if life begins at conception, is that when child support starts? What about visitation if the parents have already split up; can the father-to-be insist on visitation with her pregnant belly? Can a pregnant woman get a life insurance policy for her fetus and then collect if she miscarries? How about the fact that the fetus is an unwelcome squatter; can the pregnant woman sue for a writ of possession and ejectment (and if so, how would she effect service of process)?

If you spend a few minutes seriously thinking through all the ramifications of conferring legal personhood on the fetus, the places we will necessarily go as a result are just too ridiculous. Pro-forced-birthers simply resolve those issues by refusing to deal with them, but that's them being dishonest about where their premises necessarily lead.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, those are all really original arguments I've never heard before.
Why not ass-ume your mom wanted to abort you, but couldn't, and make everything "Square"???

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Because even if that were true it would have nothing to do with whether legal abortion is good policy.

[Life of Brian]

So if life begins at conception, is that when child support starts? What about visitation if the parents have already split up; can the father-to-be insist on visitation with her pregnant belly? Can a pregnant woman get a life insurance policy for her fetus and then collect if she miscarries? How about the fact that the fetus is an unwelcome squatter; can the pregnant woman sue for a writ of possession and ejectment (and if so, how would she effect service of process)?

Not a single one of those Very Clever questions goes away if life begins at any point prior to birth.

[Krychek_2]

Which is why birth is the appropriate dividing line for legal purposes.

And the issue isn't life. The issue is personhood. "Of course" the fetus is alive; the question is whether it's a person.

[Life of Brian]

And the issue isn’t life. The issue is personhood.

OK, but your comment I quoted/responded to said: "if life begins at conception" so I used your term. If "personhood" is now your preferred term for the point when a living human acquires the right not to be murdered, we can use that.

Which is why birth is the appropriate dividing line for legal purposes.

Ouch. Thanks for your candor. But why is the instant of emergence any better of a line than some period before (or, just to acknowledge the elephant in the room, some period after)? Why do you ascribe personhood to, e.g., a 24-month preemie in a NICU, but not a 24-month-old still in the womb?

[Krychek_2]

"Life begins at conception" is a quotation from the anti-abortion movement; I didn't say I agreed with it myself.

In answer to your question about where, precisely, to place the dividing line (and this is in response to Bob's comment below as well), there is no such thing as a bright line, but the law has to set one anyone. That's true of any law that draws lines; some 16-year-olds are capable of holding their liquor and casting informed ballots, and some 50-year-olds are not. But we can't do an individualized assessment for everyone and decide that this, specific, 14-year-old is mature enough to have sex but this immature 22-year-old over here isn't. That's not the way it works.

I think the question is what distinguishes a human person from other living things, and the answer is consciousness and self awareness. That usually kicks in around the time of viability, so if I were a policy maker I would set the line at viability. I would allow unlimited abortion for the first trimester, some regulation in the second, and only in extreme circumstances in the last.

That, of course, will satisfy the extremists on neither side, which makes me think it's probably right.

[M L]

Huh, a minute ago you argued for birth and now you're disagreeing with yourself.

"I think the question is what distinguishes a human person from other living things, and the answer is consciousness and self awareness. That usually kicks in around the time of viability, so if I were a policy maker I would set the line at viability."

No, "consciousness and self awareness" does not kick in upon viability.

[Krychek_2]

No, I argued for birth in one context and viability in another. It's possible to not see the world in simplistic binaries.

[Life of Brian]

No, I argued for birth in one context and viability in another.

Right. I mean, birth was in the first comment, and viability was in the second comment. Totally different!

[Krychek_2]

Did you actually look at those comments to see the differences in what was being discussed?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Which is why birth is the appropriate dividing line for legal purposes."

So the baby is due June 1, then the woman can abort that morning?

[Krychek_2]

Bob, tomorrow Ohio will join the ranks of the states that protect abortion rights. Congratulations on living in such an enlightened state.

[Bob from Ohio]

" enlightened "

You misspelled "dystopian".

[Krychek_2]

Bob, if Ohio passes abortion rights tomorrow, it will be the continuation of a pattern that started in deep red Kansas and Kentucky. Abortion rights is passing wherever it's on the ballot, in states red, blue and purple. This is not a hiccup or an aberration; this is a pretty clear indication of where the American people are.

I strongly suspect that if it were possible to put abortion rights on the ballot in Texas it would likely pass even there. GOP voters simply are not the wild-eyed crazies that are now in charge of the party.

[Bob from Ohio]

Save your gloating until it passes, you ghoul.

The American people often makes mistakes. I guess we will have to extend 14th amendment protections to the unborn.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, I'll be surprised if that radical position has three votes on the Supreme Court. In fact, my bet would be that it doesn't even make it to the Supreme Court because the lower courts would all reject that argument and the Supreme Court would have the good sense not to grant cert.

But I've been surprised before; I guess we'll find out.

[Bob from Ohio]

"three votes on the Supreme Court."

Took 50 years to get rid of Roe but it worked in the end.

[Krychek_2]

Roe was overturned because of a whole long chain of unlikely events that probably won't be duplicated. And I'm not sure we've seen the end of Roe.

[Nelson]

"Took 50 years to get rid of Roe but it worked in the end."

Taking away individual liberty and giving the state the power to coerce people is ... a good thing?

I will never understand the reverence for government coercion that anti-abortionists have.

[M L]

"The issue is personhood."

Personhood means the status of having legal rights/protections. So that is the issue, just stated in different words.

"the question is whether it's a person"

Right, the question is whether it does/should have legal rights/protections.

To some, the answer is all human lives should be protected. To others, only some.

[Nelson]

It depends on when a fetus is capable of being considered an independent life.

It isn't just about being alive. An individual can only have individual rights if it is capable of being independent. As long as a fetus is incapable of existing outside the womb, it isn't a person. There is no reasonable way to claim it is.

[M L]

This is not accurate. Newborns and children aren't capable of being independent, either. They will die and their parents will get charged with criminal neglect.

[Nelson]

"This is not accurate."

It absolutely is. That isn't in dispute by rational people.

“Newborns and children aren’t capable of being independent, either”

Ah yes, the most gaslight-y of gaslighting arguments of the anti-abortionists.

Independent meaning separate or able to exist on its own.

You know this, and all of your fellow travelers know this. Are you actually too stupid to know what independent means or do you assume everyone else is too stupid to realize you are gaslighting?

“They will die”

Immediately? Because that’s what viable means. That’s what independent means. If you put a newborn in a safe place, it will continue to exist. It will not cease to exist if it isn’t connected to its mother.

If you put a fetus that hasn’t achieved viability in a safe place, it will not continue to exist. It is literally incapable of existing if it isn’t connected to the mother (and in the womb).

This is the most blatant dishonesty of anti-abortionists. And there is a LOT of competition given anti-abortionists’ inherent dishonesty.

[M L]

Wow, that's a lot of projection from you.

"An individual can only have individual rights if it is capable of being independent."

Again, wrong.

"that’s what viable means. That’s what independent means."

Ah, shifting goalposts to viability. No, these words aren't the same. But ok, moving on.

"As long as a fetus is incapable of existing outside the womb, it isn’t a person."

And when it is capable of existing outside the womb (viable), then it is a person? Your own link that you posted in this thread disproves that - at least for purposes of federal law, a viable, unborn baby is not a person. So what are you talking about here? Do you even know what you're talking about?

"If you put a fetus that hasn’t achieved viability in a safe place, it will not continue to exist. It is literally incapable of existing if it isn’t connected to the mother (and in the womb)."

Of course it will continue to exist, it just won't continue to live. Did you think the dead fetus just disappears?

"If you put a newborn in a safe place, it will continue to exist. It will not cease to exist if it isn’t connected to its mother."

It will continue to exist. But it will also die if not cared for.

But OK, I see your point. If your dividing line is viability, then I can count on your support for banning abortions after 22 weeks, right? Thanks and welcome to the pro-life cause.

[Nelson]

“Again, wrong.”

OK, I’ll bite. Why wouldn’t it be necessary to be an individual to have individual rights?

“Ah, shifting goalposts to viability.”

Not at all. Viability is the first point where it could reasonably be argued that a fetus is independent, since it no longer requires the womb (or a living mother) to survive. Claiming a fetus is an independent organism when it isn’t viable is called “telling a lie”.

“And when it is capable of existing outside the womb (viable), then it is a person?”

That is what I have come to believe over the years. That’s the point at which biology, philosophy, and the law part, in my mind.

Philosophically (and morally, in my opinion), once a fetus achieves the minimum biological requirements for life, it is a de facto independent individual. It no longer requires the mother (although it will benefit from remaining in the womb).

Personally, I lean a little more conservative. I think that the line is the earliest point that any fetus has ever been delivered and survived. However, that is my personal belief. I don’t necessarily think it should be legislated that way.

So while viability is usually about 26 weeks (mostly due to lung and brain development), a baby has been born at 21 weeks and survived. Therefore I think, morally, you have to take an “if even one has survived” approach. But legally? That’s a little extreme.

“at least for purposes of federal law, a viable, unborn baby is not a person”

Correct. As of now, the only ones that are considered a “person”, “baby”, “individual”, or “human being” under the law are those that have been born alive.

“So what are you talking about here?”

That there is a hard line regarding when something is legally a person and it’s after live birth. I don’t think that should change. As much as I, personally, believe that a viable fetus should be treated as a person, it’s a tough standard to legislate since it requires some pretty sophisticated medical tests to determine.

That’s why I prefer an abortion ban that begins at a set point. Viability is roughly 26 weeks and that’s just short of the third trimester, so that would be a sensible point for any ban.

Personhood and legal rights would be determined by live birth. And if a ban was set at the moment the chance of a fetus surviving outside the womb becomes more than 0% (as in a single fetus has survived), I wouldn’t oppose it. I wouldn’t advocate for it, either, though.

I also believe that exceptions for rape, incest, and the health (not just life) of the mother (mental and physical) should be included.

“Of course it will continue to exist”

Did you honestly think that I meant it would magically disappear? Really?

“But OK, I see your point. If your dividing line is viability, then I can count on your support for banning abortions after 22 weeks, right?”

Viability is generally considered 25 or 26 weeks. As I mentioned, I lean towards 21 weeks. And that is much more pro-choice than pro-life. Pro-choice doesn’t mean no restrictions, just like pro-life doesn’t mean a complete ban. The only thing that has less support than no restrictions is a complete ban.

If you take the four typical polling categories (illegal in all cases, illegal in most cases, legal in most cases, legal in all cases), I am in the moderate pro-choice category. I think abortion should be legal in most cases.

But I wouldn’t push for a 21 week ban. That’s just the first point that I wouldn’t actively oppose a ban.

One of the things anti-abortion people don’t seem to be able to understand is the difference between what you, personally, believe and what you think should be forced upon others.

My personal belief is slightly more conservative than the general point of viability, but I believe that laws should always be wary of restricting individual liberty, especially in medical issues.

What about you? What are your personal beliefs, why do you believe it, and at what point in fetal development do you think a ban should start?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This seems like a good time to remind the class that K2 has repeatedly argued that if an unborn human (substitute whatever other terminology you prefer there) were to be considered legally a person for purposes of a right to life, it could be found guilty of "Trespass Against the Person" for occupying it's mother's womb against her will.

That's the level of cognitive sophistication you're dealing with.

[Krychek_2]

This might also be a good time to remind the class that I did not "repeatedly" argue any such thing. I stated once that that that was the logical consequence of arguing that it's a person, which it is. As I said earlier, pro-forced-birthers simply will not face up to the necessary conclusions to their premises. Wuz obviously finds it disturbing enough that months later it's still taking up space in his head.

You don't get to pick and choose which aspects of legal personhood apply. It's all or nothing.

[Life of Brian]

I stated once that that that was the logical consequence of arguing that it’s a person, which it is.

Seems like your point-not-really-a-point proves way too much, though. If unborn humans are persons just like born ones, then there's no reason to stop applying silly legal theories at the completely arbitrary time of birth.

For example, if my 4-year-old is driving me up a wall and I just don't want to deal with it anymore, then I should be able to order him to leave the house and then take him to court if he doesn't. That's the logical consequence of your line of thinking, right?

[Krychek_2]

No.

There's a fairly significant difference between having an annoying person inside your house versus having an annoying person inside your body causing you lots of unpleasant side effects. I could not force you to let me crash on your couch for nine months, so how much less should I be able to force you to let me seize your body for nine months? And that's the context in which all of my "silly legal theories" must be evaluated -- a forced seizure of someone's body is a fairly brutal event, so if you're going to assign personhood to the fetus, it gets all the bad stuff that comes with being a person too. It's not a one-way street.

In the case of your four year old, you can certainly take steps to reduce his annoyance level, but by not terminating the pregnancy you assumed some responsibility for his well being. In my paradigm, either viability or birth is the cutoff point for you to make that decision; in your paradigm it's conception. We both agree that there is a cutoff point; we just disagree as to when it is.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, such a delicate dance. I'd say "but by not terminating the pregnancy you assumed some responsibility for his well being" is a world-class try at squaring the circle, but you can (and people do!) apply the same exact reasoning to the sex act itself.

And you're absolutely correct that "I could not force you to let me crash on your couch for nine months" -- it's generally 18 years. Not quite the distinguishing argument you were after I think, but again, I suspect the flailing signals that it's dawning on you that your cutesy "cause of action against loitering womb bum" theory resoundingly fails due to lack of any real limiting principle.

But in brighter news, you actually scooped the Bee! https://babylonbee.com/news/planned-parenthood-says-proper-term-for-unborn-baby-is-womb-colonizer. If only you were being satirical as well.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And here you're going to learn that K2 doesn't grasp basic concepts that are absolutely critical to legal issues like trespass, such as "entry" and "knowingly", and having a choice in the matter, the ability to do anything about it, etc.

[Krychek_2]

Wow, that comment of mine was months ago and you're still letting it take up space in your head. It must have bothered you a lot.

[Nelson]

"That’s the level of cognitive sophistication you’re dealing with."

Google Walter Block and evictionism. I don't find it compelling as an argument, but the idea is espoused by a libertarian economist and thinker. It's not K2's idea, it's a libertarian perspective on abortion.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Google Walter Block and evictionism.

I'm already well aware of it.

I don’t find it compelling as an argument, but the idea is espoused by a libertarian economist and thinker.

Meaning...what, exactly? Someone else making a stupid claim doesn't make it any less stupid.

It’s not K2’s idea, it’s a libertarian perspective on abortion.

That he's regurgitating someone else's idea doesn't make his argument any less stupid.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

[Nelson]

"Are you seeing a pattern here?"

What, that you've crowned yourself arbiter of what is or isn't stupid?

We're aware. You write a lot of stupid things and somehow don't notice, so it's clearly not a merit-based system for you.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I would also point out that phrases like....

"So if life begins at conception"

...betray a fundamental ignorance of even basic biology, and what the notion of "life" really means in that area of scientific inquiry (which is not simple, to say the least).

[Krychek_2]

Well, for once we agree, which is why I wish the pro-forced-birth side would stop making the nonsensical claim that life begins at conception.

[Don Nico]

"So if life begins at conception, is that when child support starts?"
Yes it does. Even the zygote is alive.
No, it doesn't. Under US law the zygote is not a legal person

But you already knew those things K_2.

[Bob from Ohio]

We could make support start earlier. There have been proposals.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

One of the issues is that the phrase "life begins at..." in and of itself does not distinguish between simply "life" and "a distinct human life". By most biological metrics the sperm itself is "alive", as is any other living cell. But it is not a distinct developing organism with it's own human genome (nor even a complete human genome), whereas a fertilized ovum is. But most uses of the term in this context (especially by those with an anti-abortion position) generally is shorthand for "human life begins at...", which is the biologically critical event. By any meaningful biological metric a successfully fertilized ovum is a "human life".

The use of terms like "zygote" vs "embryo" vs whatever other stage(s) is disingenuous obfuscation, as those terms are used (by biologists) as nothing more than convenient shorthand for time periods that lie along the developmental continuum. There is, for instance, no event at which a developing organism transition from being a "zygote" to being an "embryo", just as there is no bright line between being an "infant" and a "toddler", or "middle-aged" and "elderly".

[Krychek_2]

Which then raises the question of why, of all the places to declare legal personhood, it should be at conception. Why conception rather than viability?

[Nelson]

Because self-righteous moralizers who are incapable of accepting that other people have valid moral codes, too, and therefore want to force the vast majority of people to live by their beliefs say so. It’s not any more complicated than that.

Viability makes sense if you are rational, logical, and accept the idea that morality isn’t a single set of beliefs that people either accept or reject.

Conception makes sense if you are emotional, erratic, and believe there is only one valid moral code in the world. And if people won’t accept that, by God, they’ll force them to!

[M L]

"can the pregnant woman sue for a writ of possession and ejectment (and if so, how would she effect service of process)"

Can she do that with the newborn in her house? No offense but you're not smart.

[Krychek_2]

No offense taken as that would imply your views merit the necessary trouble to take offense.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“can the pregnant woman sue for a writ of possession and ejectment (and if so, how would she effect service of process)”

So he's STILL making the same braindead argument I spoke of earlier?

Can she do that with the newborn in her house?

I'd bet dollars to donuts that's not going to be answered.

[Krychek_2]

You’d lose that bet because I already responded to that point in response to a question from Life of Brian. And I see you still don’t understand the argument any better than you did the first time I made it.

Wuz, Halloween was last week. Go find a house to haunt.

[Nelson]

"So he’s STILL making the same braindead argument I spoke of earlier?"

https://mereliberty.com/lci/what-is-evictionism-blocks-response-to/

Read about it if you want to learn something new. But be warned, it won't conform to your priors.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You really are a moron. I've read that before (K2 tried to use that as a backup as well, and it was just as useless then as it is now). It's just an opinion by an economist (not even a legal expert), and the argument is just as stupid when it comes from him as it is when it comes from someone who claims to be a lawyer.

But hey, just keep on with your "See, this other random clown holds this opinion too, therefor you're wrong" approach. I'm sure you think it's quite compelling.

[Nelson]

"It’s just an opinion by an economist"

I agree it isn't a convincing argument. I've said that repeatedly. But the anti-abortion argument is far, far more stupid.

It literally has no foundation except the faith of its adherents and the bizarre belief that "one day it might happen" is a relevant argument against abortion.

"this other random clown"

In a comparison of relevance between a lifelong libertarian, Mises member, Austrian school economist, and respected intellectual and a random anonymous commenter, I think it's pretty clear who the clown is.

[Nelson]

“Can she do that with the newborn in her house? No offense but you’re not smart.”

Yes, it’s called adoption. If I’m not mistaken, you can legally remove your children from your home at any point. Parents aren’t required to be responsible for their children if they don’t want to be.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If I’m not mistaken, you can legally remove your children from your home at any point. Parents aren’t required to be responsible for their children if they don’t want to be.

If there’s anyone in your home with an IQ that’s north of room temperature, have them explain to you the difference between a minor child and an adult child, and the legal impacts of those differences on the parent-child relationship. Also, please put all of our minds at ease by telling us that you've never reproduced and have no plans of doing so.

[Nelson]

"the legal impacts of those differences on the parent-child relationship"

And that's relevant to my point about adoption ... how? There is no legal responsibility for a child that can't be voluntarily severed by the parents.

The parents of a newborn are not obligated to continue to accept legal responsibility for a child. Is that somehow untrue in your world? Or do you not understand what adoption is?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The parents of a newborn are not obligated to continue to accept legal responsibility for a child. Is that somehow untrue in your world? Or do you not understand what adoption is?

You really are as dumb as a stump. The legal process of adoption is not simply a matter of someone saying, "I'm not responsible for this child anymore". That's child abandonment, and is a criminal offense in every jurisdiction in the U.S. that I'm familiar with. Adoption requires that a third party accepts transference of legal responsibility from the mother (which must be done in a way that satisfies various requirements depending on jurisdiction). It's not as if that legal responsibility simply doesn't exist.

[M L]

No, an adoption is not a writ of possession and ejectment. Yes, you can put your child in some else's care, such as through adoption. But in the interim, until you complete that process, you have a duty to use your body to work and care for and feed and clothe the child or else it will die and you will be charged with criminal neglect.

[Nelson]

Yes, once a live birth occurs there are different laws. Because, you know, it's actually a living human being at that point.

Your problem is that your foundational belief, that a fertilized egg has individual rights, is a conclusion that requires proof, not a premise to base other beliefs on.

Your belief is false, as proved by the inability to support it without ridiculous (il)logical arguments like "one day in the future a fertilized egg might become a fully-formed human being, so it has to be treated as such right now".

Also, almost no one believes that a fertilized egg is a person, but it isn't because they all haven't considered the issue or all lack a moral code. Even a majority of religious people, with the notable exception of evangelical Protestants, believe abortion should be legal.

It's not reasonable or rational to assume that the vast majority of people are incapable of making valid moral determinations. It's also hubris of the first order by the small minority of people who think a fertilized egg is a person.

[M L]

Wrong yet again.

"a living human being"

An unborn baby is (a) living, (b) human, and (c) a being. Therefore, it is a living human being.

The question up for debate is whether and to what extent living human beings that have the misfortune of being too young and too small to be born yet should have rights or be protected.

I believe you already staked out your position above - that at the point of viability (about 22 weeks) an unborn baby is a person and should be protected against intentional, unjustified killing. Thanks for your input.

[Nelson]

“An unborn baby is (a) living, (b) human, and (c) a being. Therefore, it is a living human being.”

Legally, you are incorrect. “Human being” is one of four phrases that are specifically limited to after live birth.

When you have to make nitpicky semantic arguments, you’ve already conceded the point.

“I believe you already staked out your position above – that at the point of viability (about 22 weeks) an unborn baby is a person and should be protected against intentional, unjustified killing. Thanks for your input.”

First, viability is generally set at about 26 weeks, not 22 weeks.

And I absolutely oppose legislation declaring a fetus a person before live birth. That shouldn’t change.

But I wouldn’t oppose it if an abortion ban were to start at 21 weeks (for reasons listed in my other post). I would actively oppose any ban that started before that.

And I don’t believe that it is “killing” (or murder or any similar thing) until after a live birth. That is way, way, way too far (and intentionally inflammatory language).

Please stop trying to restate my position to make it seem like I support fetal personhood. I absolutely oppose fetal personhood.

[grb]

Michael P : "I guess if you are in favor of killing babies, it makes sense to call the people who disagree “pro-forced-birth” no matter how much that distorts their position"

1. Nobody is in favor of "killing babies" since abortion doesn't kill a baby. A zygote, blasocyst or embryo isn't a baby.

2. The anti-choice movement demands the State power be used to force women to give birth.

So who's distorting who here?

[Frank Drackman]

A Sea Turtle Egg isn't a Baby Sea Turtle (yet) but is protected under Federal Law (16 USC 35) with pretty stiff penalties.
See how ridiculous your argument is?
You should take the honorable way out and do what your mother didn't.

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Give it up, Frank. The law explicitly protects eggs. If it didn't explicitly protect eggs and people were being prosecuted for taking eggs anyway, then it would be a little more analogous to abortion.

[Frank Drackman]

You give it up, Unborn Sea Turtles are valued more than Unborn Humans, and when I look at the Human(?) Detritus supporting Ham-ass, maybe that's a good thing.

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Frank, your position on abortion is so hypocritical I don't see how you make it with a straight face. Based on your previous posts, you would happily exterminate the entire population of Gaza and are fine with adult blacks being shot by the police, but zygotes must be protected.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't want the entire population of Gaza exterminated. Some of them are Israeli spies/Double agents. I do want violent Adult Criminals of any skin hue shot, by police or who(whom?) ever.

Frank

[apedad]

And yet you have no problem with people using weapons against the US government....

Du Arschloch! (Max Giermann)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O96B4cij10

[Frank Drackman]

Gotta refresh that Tree of Liberty with something

[Bob from Ohio]

When does the unborn human become a "baby"? Only outside the birth canal? If before, then what day, 270? 269? 200?

[not guilty]

"When does the unborn human become a 'baby'? Only outside the birth canal?"

A fetus delivered by C-section never passes through the birth canal, but becomes a baby when it is delivered.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A fetus delivered by C-section never passes through the birth canal, but becomes a baby when it is delivered.

Because....?

[Nelson]

"When does the unborn human become a “baby”? Only outside the birth canal?"

Yes. Or more specifically outside the womb, since deliveries happen by c-section all the time. That's why "fetus" is a different word than "baby", with a different definition.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I see you're one of the idiots who has absolutely no comprehension of basic biology, and what the words you're tossing around actually mean.

[Nelson]

Which part of what I said was wrong?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Which part of what I said was wrong?

All of it.

[M L]

1. Yes, it is a baby. Whether you're a prescriptivist or a descriptivist, unborn humans are undoubtedly babies. (Just for example, until a short time ago Oxford Languages/Google provided the following definition of "fetus" : an unborn human baby.)

2. No, women will give birth to the baby regardless of whether they kill it first. Granted, the power of the State is used to prevent killing, that is its most basic function.

[Sarcastr0]

Semantics ain't going to get you there. It's telling how many end up settling there to argue about matters well beyond vocab choice.

To be fair, I don't think Krychek_2's pronouncements have any more unique insight to The Truth of the matter either.

Anyone who asserts they've got the inside scoop on the universal moral moment of abortion across all pregnancies is blinded by pride.

[M L]

"Semantics ain’t going to get you there."

Yeah, I don't know why grb and so many others keep insisting on barking up this tree and making this the point of argument. Just drop the semantics, it's not helping you and there's simply zero plausible argument that it's not a baby.

"Anyone who asserts they’ve got the inside scoop on the universal moral moment of abortion across all pregnancies is blinded by pride."

Well, it's a good discussion to keep having. The same thing has always been said about moral busybodies throughout history when they claimed that a class of humans should be treated as persons when the culture said that they should not. For me, having a moral position is unavoidable, the practical side comes in as to who decides for who when and where and by what force.

[Sarcastr0]

Just drop the semantics, it’s not helping you and there’s simply zero plausible argument that it’s not a baby I know you’re not this stupid. So you’re trolling.

Making an analogy to slavery is, again, begging the question.

You can have a moral position, what you can't expect is that repeating it over and over again will really engage anyone. Especially if you use your semantic mode.

[M L]

"Especially if you use your semantic mode."

Right. Which is why I don't know why grb and the pro-choicers always do that. Especially when they have no plausible argument on the semantics of "baby," it's a slam-dunk for the other side. But even if it weren't, as you said, semantics probably won't be convincing, it's better to just agree on definitions for the sake of argument.

"Making an analogy to slavery is, again, begging the question."

I did not make an analogy to slavery specifically, it's interesting that's what you imagined. There have been many different forms throughout history of denying personhood to certain classes of humans. But making an analogy to slavery would not be begging the question in any way. It is simply pointing out that in both cases, you are taking a certain class of humans based on some categorization, and conveniently denying that they are persons or deserving of rights. This is an entirely reasonable and valid point, to which a pro-choicer must respond and can respond in a number of ways.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not making an argument. Semantics is not an argument. Words stand for ideas, and you're really not getting at the ideas at all - you're just stamping your foot and insulting people.

I kinda understand. This isn't an area especially amenable to argument. There are bad arguments, and no real slam dunks.

There are other appeals one could make than to semantics or logic. And it's telling this is where you ended up.

[M L]

"You’re not making an argument. Semantics is not an argument. Words stand for ideas, and you’re really not getting at the ideas at all – you’re just stamping your foot and insulting people."

No, that's what grb and others are doing. I wouldn't say it's insulting or stomping your foot, more like spinning your wheels.

"I kinda understand. This isn’t an area especially amenable to argument. There are bad arguments, and no real slam dunks.

There are other appeals one could make than to semantics or logic. And it’s telling this is where you ended up."

No, you apparently don't understand the argument about humans being treated as persons or not, or you just have no response to it, so you ignore it. This is a separate topic from the semantics of "baby."

[Sarcastr0]

No, that’s what grb and others are doing.

Haha it's exactly what you're doing, and it's kind of incredible you can't see that.

Switching your semantics from baby to human is not actually suddenly coming upon an argument. And insulting me won't change that.

[Josh R]

there’s simply zero plausible argument that it’s not a baby

If it is a baby, then a woman who has an abortion is a first-degree murderer. So too are the IVF clinician and stem-cell researcher who destroy embryos. I find each of those conclusions to be absurd and hence it’s not a baby. Perhaps you disagree and think each of those cases involve first-degree murder. But it eminently plausible to think otherwise.

[M L]

Please show me a murder statute that uses the word "baby."

Millions of people worldwide use the word "baby" every day to refer to living, unborn humans. There's really no argument on this point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"baby bump", "baby shower", "I'm having a baby", many other examples in everyday speech.

No one but medical people in hospitals and pro-abortion ghouls say "fetus".

[M L]

Even most doctors have long called it a baby. Probably less today.

[shawn_dude]

"having a baby" is future tense. It will be a baby when it's born but isn't one now. Baby showers are also future tense since the purpose is to equip the family for the coming baby. Only babies need the diapers; zygotes do not.

[David Nieporent]

"I can feel the baby kick." "Do you know the sex of the baby?"

(The latter one is both anti-abortion and transphobic, I believe.)

[Josh R]

Doesn’t “baby” imply it is a person? Does anyone say a woman, IVF clinician or stem-cell researcher killed a baby?

[M L]

Yes, I think it does imply that in a general sense, but not to any legal effect.

Something might seem "absurd" simply because it is very different than what we are accustomed to. To the Incas, the idea that they should not continue the ritual sacrifice of children would have seemed absurd. We should think a bit more rigorously, rather than rejecting something out of hand just because it doesn't align with our cultural programming, emotional stimuli, or perceived conveniences and benefits.

I saw something the other day about a social media post that asked, If you had a button that you could push as many times as you wish, and each time you would receive a million dollars but somebody somewhere would die, would you push it? And there were thousands of comments almost all saying they would push the button, and a few saying the only reason they would not is because of the chance that the person who would die could be them or their loved ones. It was just a social media post, but maybe a large majority of society really would? Just a thought.

[Josh R]

OK. I’m just saying it is eminently plausible to consider a fetus/embryo to not be a baby. That’s my opinion, and as you hinted at, the majority think as I do.

[M L]

Understood. And I disagree. For most of its development, a fetus has a heartbeat, is capable of experiencing pain, has brain activity, is already learning language from its mother, knows its mother's voice, is developing a relationship with its mother and other individuals in close contact with the womb, the list goes on. I don't think it's plausible to consider that this living human is just a clump of cells whose life means no more than a housefly or a bacterium on your countertop.

[Josh R]

It’s a false choice to say a fetus is either a person or a clump of cells.

How about the embryos in an IVF clinic and a stem-cell research lab? Are they persons?

[M L]

I'm not saying that the only possible choices are between a person or a clump of cells. I'm saying the latter is the choice that abortion advocates make. And it's the choice that has been enshrined in American law generally, though now Dobbs has put a small dent in that. And it's a broadly unpopular choice, before Dobbs it was clear that significant majorities disagreed with the pro-abortion extremes that prevailed in the U.S. You may be able to claim that the majority doesn't support the pro-life extreme but that's even more apparent of the pro-choice extreme.

If that is not the choice you would make, then please explain the ways that you would legally protect the life of a fetus, treating it differently than a clump of cells, for example at 6 weeks when it has a heartbeat, 13 weeks when it can likely feel pain, 18 weeks when they hear, taste, react to light, temperature, etc.

With embryos, it is more plausible that people don't think of it as a baby. I understand it. They don't have these markers, like learning language and enjoying Mom's voice, that feel human to us and tug at our emotions. However, upon closer examination and thought, there is little rigorous justification for differentiating based on size, or level of development, or attainment of cognitive functions. For example, medical circumstances exist where born people are not conscious, can't hear, feel pain, can't live independently, etc., yet we don't consider them disposable at will.

I know you always like to point out that pro-lifers have line drawing problems, and that a significant portion of that constituency does not actually support treating all human life in the manner that some pro-life rhetoric would suggest is appropriate. But pro-choicers have all the same line drawing problems and hypocrisy to a far worse degree.

[Josh R]

I agree the majority don’t think of the fetus as a clump of cells (I don’t). I would permit abortion up to viability for any reason and thereafter only if the life or grievous health of the woman is at stake, or the fetus will not survive after birth. I understand some believe “grievous health” is an invitation to abortion for any reason. I’m open to good-faith discussions on how not to make that not the case.

I don’t think I got a straight answer as to whether you think the IVF clinician or stem-cell researcher is a first-degree murderer.

Certainly, pro-choicers have to draw lines. But we have an advantage (that is also a disadvantage) over the pro-life position. We can draw those lines based on practical considerations rather than morals. In contrast, the pro-life position is personhood begins at conception which results in a rigid line. The pro-choice lines are squishy (a disadvantage from a moral perspective), but flexible in response to practical considerations (an advantage that doesn’t lead to absurd results).

And no, I don’t think the pro-choice lines result in greater hypocrisy. To the contrary, it is the pro-life side that exhibits hypocrisy in not punishing the woman, IVF clinician and stem-cell researcher. And in addition, there is hypocrisy in supporting abortion for rape and incest (more absurd results that personhood at conception results in).

[Sarcastr0]

ML: "I’m not saying that the only possible choices are between a person or a clump of cells."

Also ML: "Yes, it is a baby. Whether you’re a prescriptivist or a descriptivist, unborn humans are undoubtedly babies."

I'm missing any limiting logic here. Seems like you need to sit down with yourself and hash out some stuff.

I'm also not sure you are correct as to what's popular unless you're taking a maximal view of what the pro-Choice movement thinks (which...what are the odds).

Finally, personal choice via a Constitutional right is not enshrining a worldview into the law, it's allowing people to choose their own.

[M L]

Josh R - I note that your position would be characterized as solidly pro-life by abortion advocates, and is an anathema in blue states. And of course would be thoroughly unsatisfactory to pro-life advocates as well. Although I'm inclined to the pro-life position, I think it's reasonable to adopt middle ground and compromise to prevent some killing of humans.

A few thoughts. First, the line of viability moves up with advancing technology. It could diminish further or even disappear with artificial wombs. Second, as this first point perhaps helps illustrate, the line seems to be quite arbitrary. The intentional termination of human life is perhaps not a great thing to be arbitrary about. It may be an area where we should err on the side of respect, dignity, value, and worth. Third, the idea of an abortion to protect a mother's life or health, while justifiable in theory, does not seem to be supported by medical science. It doesn't exist. Here, abortion means the procedures done to terminate the life, and not an early delivery/removal which can be necessary even though it will have the side effect of ending a life. Even Planned Parenthood acknowledged on their website for example that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not the same thing as an abortion.

No, I don't think that intentionally killing embryos is first-degree murder. It self-evidently is not, under current law. Should it be? Perhaps, one day in the future, possibly coinciding with advancements in technology and scientific understanding, people's views of things will evolve on this just as they have on countless other matters throughout history. It's entirely plausible that one day the intentional, unjustified killing of an embryo might be considered murder. For now, I would settle for honestly considering such issues and any incremental increases to valuing unborn life generally.

[Sarcastr0]

NPR makes a pretty good case that the viability line is arbitrary and unclear and basically a bad standard to use:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/part-1-viability-line

[Josh R]

Your answer on embryos is a cop out. I didn't ask about current law. I didn't ask about anyone else's view besides your own. I didn't ask what you think was politically possible, either today or tomorrow. I asked a question to test whether you are a hypocrite. And, I got a spin-room non-answer.

[M L]

I believe that an embryo is a unique human life. I think that much is irrefutable. Beyond that, I think that ideally, all human lives should be respected, treated with dignity, and legally protected to some degree.

Does this mean I think IVF should be outlawed? To the extent that it involves the intentional destruction of embryos, probably yes. I'm not very familiar with IVF and I haven't thought about this issue very closely. My understanding is that there are excess embryos that are discarded in this process. After a bit of googling however, I am not sure that is necessarily always the case, maybe you just have one embryo. If technological advancement continues, the supposed need to create excess embryos destined for destruction will evaporate. I hope this answer is a little bit better.

Separately, it seems to me that a person could hold a position favoring a certain policy, while also adopting an approach of persuading more of their fellow citizens of this view, rather than forcing the policy while it is unpopular. I don't see why this doesn't make sense, in theory. I often use the example that I think women in Afghanistan should have more rights, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go over there and enforce it. However I understand assuming that a politician who said something like this, especially about abortion, is being politically expedient and not genuine, I think that is what pro-life advocates do with conservatives who don't follow through on pro-life agendas.

[M L]

The reason I mention technological advancement, by the way, is that in invokes hypothetical scenarios that may help clarify the issues.

Suppose technology has developed so that infertility can be treated in easier and more effective ways, and IVF becomes obsolete, a relic of the past. But now there's a fellow who still enjoys fertilizing human eggs in vitro, not for transferring to a womb but just because he likes to put embryos in his morning omelette. If human life before the point of "viability" is treated as no more important than a housefly or a bacterium on your countertop, that easily includes embryos of course. So, no problem?

[not guilty]

I can understand why some people oppose abortions, but I have never understood the "pro-life" objection to stem cell research derived from embryos which have been aborted. The abortion has already occurred, so there is no prevention or reduction of abortions there. OTOH, stem cell research to prevent disease can preserve or prolong lives.

It seems to me that stem cell research is pro-life in the same manner as a person donating organs after death is pro-life.

[Josh R]

I think your answer is the IVF clinician and stem-cell researcher are both first-degree murderers, but you would only attempt at this time to persuade people to agree with you without yet supporting a law that matches your position.

I do not think human life before viability is on par with a house fly. I think it takes a backseat to a woman's liberty to abort a pregnancy but not to a person's desire to have embryos for breakfast.

[M L]

“I think it takes a backseat to a woman’s liberty to abort a pregnancy but not to a person’s desire to have embryos for breakfast.”

In the case of creating and destroying embryos in IVF, the liberty to abort a pregnancy is not at issue, but rather the liberty to try to start a pregnancy. I assume human life before viability also takes a back seat to a woman’s (or a man’s, or a couple’s or some other group’s?) liberty to create embryos for potential use in attempting to create a pregnancy, in your view? How about the liberty to select among embryos for sex, hair and eye color, or hypothetically more rare traits?

Regarding the liberty to abort a pregnancy, is it ever relinquished by intentionally creating a pregnancy, if an embryo and pregnancy is created through IVF, you can still always change your mind later? Up to the shifting and seemingly arbitrary line of viability?

"I think your answer is the IVF clinician and stem-cell researcher are both first-degree murderers, but you would only attempt at this time to persuade people to agree with you without yet supporting a law that matches your position."

I'm not sure about first-degree murder or the specific penalty, but I think the intentional, unjustified killing of a human life (including an embryo) should be outlawed. I don't think this would preclude all IVF and certainly not all stem cell research.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I find each of those conclusions to be absurd and hence it’s not a baby.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity

[Josh R]

How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So you're committing two fallacies. Congratulations?

[Josh R]

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It’s a basic form of formal logic.

“A” is the fetus/embryo is a baby and “B” is the woman, IVF clinician and stem-cell researcher are first-degree murderers.

Claim: A is true.

Formal logical argument against A being true:

#1. If A then B is true.
#2. Not B (B is false because it’s absurd – as a matter of opinion).
#3. If not B then not A is true (contrapositive of If A then B).

and therefore combining #2 and #3, not A (A is false).

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It’s a basic form of formal logic.

Yes, I’m aware of that. It’s your construction of it in this instance that is fallacious as that construction relies on a false premise. Namely, that considering an unborn developing human organism growing within its mother’s womb to be a “baby” (those semantics are largely meaningless, but that’s the term that was being used) makes IVF and stem cell research technicians “first-degree murderers”. It does not, unless and until legislation is enacted making the disposal of viable unimplanted fertilized ova such an offense. And taking the view above most certainly does not mandate any such legislation. It doesn't even preclude a legal system that allows for abortion under some circumstances.

[Josh R]

It makes them logically first-degree murderers whether or not there is a law that formalizes it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It makes them logically first-degree murderers whether or not there is a law that formalizes it.

"First-degree murderer" is a legal concept, not a logic one. If a state enacts a law banning abortions (defined as the termination of a pregnancy) that in no way means that IVF and stem cell research techs are murderers of any degree.

[Sarcastr0]

But see:

"Krychek_2 45 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
No, I argued for birth in one context and viability in another. It’s possible to not see the world in simplistic binaries."

So he's at least got some nuance, even if I still think he's too essentialist on this issue. Maybe it's the Unitarian in me, but seems to me the truth on this is intensely personal and that's sometimes how moral questions are.

[Krychek_2]

Sarcastro, I will be the first to acknowledge that the issue isn't black and white, nuance exists, and different people will reach different conclusions. And I make no pretense at being the final word on morality.

All that said, I am having a discussion with people who (at least some of them) would ban all abortions from the moment of conception on. And sometimes arguing with people who don't accept the concept of nuance requires not being very nuanced in return.

I suspect that you and I are not that far apart on this issue. My bottom line belief that it's not the state's business stems in large part from an unwillingness to turn morality over to the state, and a recognition that this is a deeply personal issue. I also think the suffering imposed on women breaks the tie to the extent it is a close call. But my essentialism takes the two of us to pretty much the same place: It's her choice, not Bob's not Drackman's, and not ML's.

[Sarcastr0]

The sort of pro choice I am is 'it's an intensely personal moral decision' not 'it's never a baby' or even 'freedom of choice is vital to women's freedom.'

And I also think there is room for a line of increasing state interest.

[M L]

No, he just straight up backtracked on his previous statement, first it was birth, then it was viability. Then claims different contexts, but it wasn’t, it was the same context (views as appropriate for legal purposes, vs what I would set as policy for legal purposes – same thing). Maybe he has or is developing some nuance in his mind that he did not express accurately, Idk, but either way, too gibberish to be worth responding to.

“the truth on this is intensely personal”

The truth is something that’s true, regardless of anyone’s feelings on the matter, and regardless of human capacity or incapacity to perceive it. So your statement is gibberish.

“that’s sometimes how moral questions are”

As stated, it is not possible for the “truth” to be “personal.” And yet, at least someone will disagree with any conceivable moral truth claim. Thus, there are a number of possibilities: (a) there simply is no moral truth generally, or no true answer with regard to at least some moral questions, (b) humans have no intrinsic capability to determine moral truth (e.g., perhaps the entire construct is an evolutionary adaptation), nor any extrinsic authority for reference, and therefore nothing that any human says, thinks, or feels should be taken as bearing any relationship whatsoever to moral truth or even truth of any sort, or (c) something in between, there may be some moral truths but human capacity for outwardly identifying it and/or inclination to comply with it is limited and unreliable for some reason.

[Krychek_2]

No, I did not straight up backtrack. When I said birth, I was specifically responding to a comment about one set of line drawing (when is personhood) and when I said viability I was responding to another (at which point does the state begin to have an interest in not terminating a pregnancy).

I mean, for someone who claims I'm not very smart you sure don't seem able to follow an argument.

[M L]

You said:

"birth is the appropriate dividing line for legal purposes"

vs.

"there is no such thing as a bright line, but the law has to set one anyone . . . if I were a policy maker I would set the line at viability."

Those statements are contradictory, and the rest of the your statements don't do much to help resolve this apparent contradiction. If one strains, depending on the definition of "extreme circumstances" one could read the latter part of the second comment as reverting back again to birth as a dividing line.

I don't doubt you have or intend to have a "nuanced" or at least a middle ground position on abortion. There's just too many inaccuracies, ambiguities, conflation of life vs. person, etc to make much sense of it here. But I have long said some similar things to what you are saying, that a middle ground would be a good step, that the US could be far more restrictive as most EU countries have been historically.

[Krychek_2]

No, they're not contradictory, and if you don't get it, then you don't get it and I'm not going to spend any more time after this comment explaining it.

Birth refers to legal personhood. Viability refers to when the fetus has developed to the point where the state has an interest. Those are two separate issues with two different standards. If you honestly don't get it, then you just don't get it. Sorry.

[M L]

So, are you talking about conlaw now, or what? You are conflating a lot of different things. A state banning 3rd trimester abortions might pass a law that says, “No killing of unborn persons after the gestational age of 27 weeks.”

I don’t know what definition of “personhood” you are working with. In general, person just means an individual (or a corporate entity) that is recognized for some legal purpose. If someone is a person for one legal purpose, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are a person for another legal purpose.*

To me, this is another example of how semantics get in the way. A pro-lifer says, “A baby in the womb should not be killed, because it is a person.” A pro-choicer says, “It should be legal to abort a fetus, because it is not a person.” Both the pro-lifer and the pro-choicer are making circular arguments, because a person is just a legally recognized entity, in this case for the purpose of legal protections against being killed.

*For example, the S. Ct. in Roe v. Wade held that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." [Emphasis added]

[Nelson]

"In general, person just means an individual"

Not true, legally. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

And before viability, a fetus is not an individual. If it can't maintain its own existence outside the womb, it isn't an individual.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If it can’t maintain its own existence outside the womb, it isn’t an individual.

The stupidity of that comment is impossible to overstate.

[M L]

"Not true, legally. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8"

It is true, legally. I said that person means an individual or entity recognized for a legal purpose. You responded by noting that for purposes of federal law, the unborn are neither persons nor individuals. I'm of course well aware of that. It does nothing to refute my statement.

"And before viability, a fetus is not an individual. If it can’t maintain its own existence outside the womb, it isn’t an individual."

Then a newborn isn't an individual, either.

[Nelson]

"Then a newborn isn’t an individual, either."

I guess I missed the part where newborns still have interconnected biological systems with the mother.

I was under the impression that at birth, they cut the umbilical cord. Maybe they do it differently where you live.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I guess I missed the part where newborns still have interconnected biological systems with the mother.

You missed a lot of things, like the line where brains were being handed out.

I was under the impression that at birth, they cut the umbilical cord. Maybe they do it differently where you live.

Here's your claim that he responded to (he even quoted it for you and everything, apparently in the mistaken belief that even you weren't stupid enough to miss it):

“And before viability, a fetus is not an individual. If it can’t maintain its own existence outside the womb, it isn’t an individual.”

Even ignoring the stupidity of equating biological individuality with "maintaining one's own existence", a newborn baby cannot maintain its own existence outside the womb. Neither can a coma patient. Neither can those with any number of severe disabilities. So per your definition, none of them are individuals.

I'd say at this point that even you aren't so dim that you can't see the idiocy of your argument, but your posting history to date prevents any such generosity.

[Nelson]

"Just for example, until a short time ago Oxford Languages/Google provided the following definition of “fetus” : an unborn human baby"

No, it didn't. That definition is from the Free Dictionary, a site that can be edited by literally anyone if they have the desire. No reputable English language dictionary has ever defined "baby" as an unborn anything.

"No, women will give birth to the baby regardless of whether they kill it first."

That will come as a shock to anyone who has had an abortion by taking a couple of pills. Which is a large number of people.

Pretending an abortion requires surgery or a delivery is just propaganda, an extension of the whole falsehood about the commonness of elective third-trimester abortions and laws allowing the killing of babies after live birth.

How can you tell an anti-abortionist is lying? Their lips are moving.

[M L]

"No, it didn’t."

Yes, it did.

"That will come as a shock to anyone who has had an abortion by taking a couple of pills."

No, it will not come as a shock to them, because they will have received literature and advisement regarding the process of expelling the dead fetus from their body, and more importantly they will have gone through that experience, which is generally described as horrific. It will only come as a shock to you, probably a male, and ignorant fool who confidently spouts off about things he doesn't know.

[Nelson]

"Yes, it did."

And they just suddenly changed their definition for no linguistic reason? Yeah, that's totally what reputable dictionaries do.

Like I said, you are referencing the Free Dictionary, which is as accurate about definitions as Facebook is about that one little pill that will make the pounds melt away.

"which is generally described as horrific"

Only of you restrict your reading to anti-abortion literature.

If you want to educate yourself from a reliable source, discussing the procedure and complications in clinical and accurate ways: https://www.healthline.com/health/types-of-abortion#surgical

If you want to stick with your hysterical anti-abortionist disinformation, no one can stop you from maintaining your ignorance. We can just try to help you learn.

[M L]

"And they just suddenly changed their definition for no linguistic reason? Yeah, that’s totally what reputable dictionaries do."

Yes, they suddenly changed their definition. Whether for "no linguistic reason" I leave as an exercise for the reader.

"no one can stop you from maintaining your ignorance. We can just try to help you learn."

I'm still waiting for that. You apparently were ignorant of the fact that an aborted baby must be delivered and expelled from the mother's body. It doesn't just dissolve.

[Don Nico]

"embryo isn’t a baby"
Ipso dixit.

[Josh R]

True. But as I noted above, otherwise an IVF clinician and stem-cell researcher that destroy embryos are first-degree murderers. That strikes me as absurd. How about you?

[Ben_]

Is "forced birth" worse than "murder"?

Does anyone think making up stupid new extremist terms for simple things is persuasive?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd like to call for the death penalty for begging the question this hard.

[Ben_]

Does anyone think Sarcastr0's empty meta-argumentation is persuasive?

[Sarcastr0]

You just post white noise these days, so I doubt many care. But I have a good time shooting your posts like fish in a barrel sometimes.

[Ben_]

Using racist dog whistle terms like that isn’t persuasive either.

[Michael P]

It's no less persuasive than any of his other arguments!

[Bob from Ohio]

Low turnout issue elections give little guidance on what is a "winning issue" for elections. DeWIne signed the current law, got 60%+ in 2022.

Ohio will remain a GOP state no matter the outcome tomorrow.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ohio is a poorly educated, somewhat rural state with plenty of Whites. clingers, and can't-keep-up backwaters, making it prime Republican territory (unless and until it improves).

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

The amendment is poorly drafted. Instead of two doctors, not in business with each other, finding that the life of the mother is threatened, or that there is a a serious risk of substantial and irreversible harm to a bodily function, only one doctor, possibly with pecuniary interest, can find that there is risk to the mother's health. "Health" has no specified lower limit, and it is likely it would be read to include mental anguish. No statute can redress flaws, as this would be a constitutional amendment.

All this is to say nothing of the fact that infants can feel pain before viability, and exhibit recognizable facial expressions from around that time.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not poorly drafted. It's very well drafted to achieve what is really intended: Elective abortion at all points during pregnancy without any parental involvement, and not just that.

"However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health."

It's well known that "health" without any qualifiers, is a hole an abortionist can drive a truck through. Just the fact that the woman wants an abortion, and might be upset if she doesn't get one, is enough to claim a 'mental health' basis for an abortion, and courts have so ruled.

Given the language of the amendment, you'd say goodbye to any parental rights, too; It makes no distinction between adults and minors.

Arguably, it could be applied to any medical treatment even vaguely related to reproduction, such as sex change surgery, too.

[Bob from Ohio]

What is a "treating physician"? A PP so called doctor?

Its an abortion on demand without limitation amendment.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Exactly. It allows abortions that even Roe and Casey didn't. But most Ohioans probably have no clue that that's the case because they either haven't read it or aren't familiar with how written law is read. Also, as Brett said, it's slyly worded.

The only parts of Ohio abortion law that contradict Casey are the heartbeat act and the pain-capable law. And both of those contain language excepting abortions necessary to prevent the death of the mother, serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a bodily function, inevitable abortion, and in imposing various procedural requirements, have a broad exception for medical emergencies. (The Casey-consistent, post-viability statute has these same exceptions.)

If Ohioans are worried about what the General Assembly might do, and want to use the constitution to constrain it, they would be far wiser to adopt an amendment requiring that Ohio's abortion laws may only be changed by referendum or supermajority, than they would be to adopt Issue 1.

[santamonica811]

Perhaps. Or perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to use the 50 states as laboratories. Some states will have draconian and restrictive laws (my opinion, obviously), and some states will have overly permissive laws (your opinion...I think). And let's see what happens. We've already seen examples of horrible results (albeit not in huge numbers) in states with severe restrictions. Now, we'll see if there are horrible results in Ohio, if Issue One wins. A few years should tell the tale.

[And, of course, nothing stops Ohio voters from taking away new pro-choice rights in subsequent elections, if they do end up with bad results.]

[Nelson]

Wish granted. Do you think anti-abortionists understand that their push to outlaw abortion has been rejected by Americans? Or do they just not care?

[not guilty]

Proof in the Colorado bench trial regarding Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on that state's ballot has concluded, and the matter has been taken under advisement. This will likely be the soonest adjudication of Trump's eligibility or lack thereof, and the statute provides for a speedy (discretionary) appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. If that Court declines to exercise jurisdiction, the trial court's decision becomes final, such that the matter would be a final judgment as to which a petition for writ of certiorari could be filed with SCOTUS under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

Trump had the right to testify and explain his conduct, but he elected not to do so. The petitioners had sought to take an evidentiary deposition from Trump, but the court disallowed that. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24083707/10_22_2023-order-petitioners-motion-for-permission-to-conduct-a-trial-preservation-deposition-of-donald-j_-trump-publicly-filed-1.pdf

For Trump to testify or not was a high risk proposition either way. He is indicted in D.C. for the events at issue in the Colorado action, and testimony he gave in the civil proceeding would likely have been admissible against him in the criminal trial. OTOH, the court is permitted (not required) to infer that had Trump testified, his testimony would have been harmful to him. See, Baxter v. Palmingiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319-20 n.5 (1975); Asplin v. Mueller, 687 P.2d 1329, 1332 (Colo. App. 1984).

The factual findings of the House January 6 Investigating Committee are admissible hearsay in civil proceedings according to Rule 803(8)(C) of the Colorado Rules of Evidence. "Failure to contest an assertion is considered evidence of acquiescence if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question." Colorado Department of Revenue v. Kirke, 743 P.2d 16, 19 (Colo. 1987) [ellipses omitted], quoting Baxter, supra, 425 U.S. at 319 and United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975).

[Moderation4ever]

I was amused during the trial that proTrump witnesses did not seem to have any proof of the election being stolen. Amy Kremer testified, "We don’t know who stole the election. It happened in a number of states.” Why not just admit that the only reason you think the election was stolen is because your candidate lost. It has the virtue of being true.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason for thinking it was stolen, (Well, the defensible reason for thinking it, anyway.) are changes to election procedures which would enable it to be stolen without leaving much in the way of evidence.

It's like, if your accountant burns the books, you can reasonably conclude he was embezzling, even though you now lack the account books to prove it.

I personally think that Trump actually lost, though it's not unreasonable to think he'd have won a lawfully conducted election. But we will forever be unable to prove it one way or the other due to those violations.

[apedad]

What violations?

Was anything ever proved in court?

[Don Nico]

That is moving the goalposts. Brett already described what he considers violations.
Obviously you disagree with him and hold that the rule changes were not violations.

[apedad]

Who the fuck cares what Brett (or I!) think!

Again, what violations and was anything ever proved in court?

[Don Nico]

You asked what violations. Brett had asked that.
Your question is irrelevant. Just say that you don't want to consider those items as a potential cause of changing vote counts.
I have no opinion about that question.

[Tom for equal rights]

The violations were changing voting procedures and protocols with out the required statutory authorizations which happened in numerous states.

Whether those violations changed the outcome of the election or facilitated fraudulent voting is a separate question.

[Moderation4ever]

If it is not unreasonable to think the election was stolen from Trump why did other Republicans do well in the 2020 election. The fact is that most of the election procedure in 2020 were already in place and had been used without question for years. They were mostly questioned after Trump's loss. There is as you note nothing to really suggest the election was stolen. One big thing I noted was Trump's underperformance with Republican voters. This was pointed out by many Republicans, many who supported Trump. The only real reason to believe the election was stolen was because your candidate lost.

[SimonP]

"Changing the rules in ways that could inadvertently make fraud harder to detect" is not "burning the books."

A better analogy would be: Historically, your accountant has relied on paper records that you provided, in person and in physical form, in his office. He would prepare the books and return your records, all in physical form, so that you could (if you were so inclined) review his work and check for inconsistencies.

One year, your accountant adopts an electronic process that pulls the information he needs directly from your electronic files, and produces a final report accordingly, also delivered in electronic form. The process is much more convenient for you, but deprives you of the ability to easily double-check his process and see if anything's gone wrong.

One would not infer from that change an intent to hide anything.

Now, if the process the accountant adopted was known to keep a save file where all of the accountant's work was recorded, such that (if reviewed) it would serve as an adequate safeguard against malfeasance, and if you learned that the accountant had for some reason deleted that file - then you might have a reasonable suspicion that something's amiss. But that's not what happened in the 2020 election.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“Changing the rules in ways that could inadvertently make fraud harder to detect” is not “burning the books.”"

If I unplug a cord to plug in my desk lamp, and I didn't know it would shut down the alarm system, the fact that the alarm system got disabled is "inadvertent".

If I reach for the plug, and somebody says, "Don't do that, you'll take the alarm system down!", I can no longer claim that disabling the alarm was "inadvertent", not even if I really did just want a bit of light. I becomes a considered consequence of my action.

Too many people were objecting to the changes at the time on exactly this basis, for anybody to claim it as inadvertent. At best, Democrats were actively indifferent to whether the election was secure.

[Sarcastr0]

Your analogies all suck, Brett. Because Covid was there. So there’s a pretty great reason above and beyond your tin foil on head telepathy.

And your two step of ‘ Not the *I* believe that 2020 was stolen, but I think those that do have good reason.’

I’m sure that helps your self-image, but it's not a good look to those reading your comments.

[Brett Bellmore]

Covid is a great excuse for the legislature to change the law. It's nothing like an excuse for the executive branch to decide it doesn't have to follow those laws. "I had good motives!" DNE "I have the authority!"

There was no emergency to justify bypassing proper channels by the time we are talking about. Once the legislature has had time to consider a matter, that time has passed.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, Covid will be the perfect excuse for our election stealing plan hatched between the judiciary and the Democratic Party!

For someone who doesn't think 2020 was stolen, you sure sound like a 2020 truther!

[SimonP]

Again, the metaphor is incomplete:

If I reach for the plug, and somebody says, “Don’t do that, you’ll take the alarm system down!”, [and that "somebody" happens to be someone who has no basis for saying that the lamp is connected to the alarm system, and in fact has a history of making false claims like "you'll take the alarm system down" because they personally benefit from keeping the desk lamp on]...

The one and only reason Republicans opposed these rule changes is that they perceived that the rule changes would hurt their electoral chances. They only claimed that the rule changes could make fraud easier because that's what they always say, each and every time they take steps to make it more difficult to vote. In 2020, whatever spurious concerns Republicans might have claimed to have had about "fraud," numerically speaking they were far more concerned about the larger number of totally legitimate, legally-cast ballots going to Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

The one and only reason Republicans opposed these rule changes is that they perceived that the rule changes would hurt their electoral chances.

My favorite example was that in 2019, the GOP-controlled Pennsylvania legislature dramatically expanded absentee voting, thinking it would help them (as absentee voting traditionally has for the GOP). And then in 2020, when Trump's official position — and thus that of his acolytes — was that absentee voting was evil, they sued and claimed that their own law violated the state constitution, and then screamed fraud when they lost that suit.

[David Nieporent]

If I reach for the plug, and somebody says, “Don’t do that, you’ll take the alarm system down!”, I can no longer claim that disabling the alarm was “inadvertent”, not even if I really did just want a bit of light. I becomes a considered consequence of my action.

That's not even right. Yes, if you do something intending to cause X, and you know that it will also cause Y — note that this didn't actually happen in 2020, but we'll set that aside — that does not mean that causing Y wasn't inadvertent. (Catholic thinkers call that the principle of double effect, as first described by Aquinus.)

To pick a topical example: Israel's supporters know that attacks on Hamas will kill innocent civilians in Gaza. But that's inadvertent and unintended; the intention is to eliminate Hamas. (If the intent were to kill civilians, it would be a crime.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Double effect is not inadvertence. Inadvertence implies you didn't KNOW it would be the result. Look up all the definitions you like, you'll find that the examples all share that character.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep it clear which you mean - purposeful, intentional, reckless, and negligent.

Because your varying your thesis all over the place via these janky analogies.

[David Nieporent]

You are 1,000% wrong. Foreseeability is absolutely an element of double effect. If you couldn't foresee the harm, then there's no moral dilemma at all!

A classic example Catholics give is a pregnant woman who develops severe uterine cancer, for which the only treatment is hysterectomy (removing the uterus). It is foreseeable — 100% guaranteed — that this treatment will kill the fetus. But the intent isn't to kill the fetus; the intent is to save the woman's life. It is permissible (assuming that the operation cannot wait) under the doctrine of double effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Foreseeability is an essential component of double effect, but I've been pointing out that "inadvertence" ISN'T double effect. Precisely because it does lack that element.

[Armchair]

What Waz said below.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

To pick a topical example: Israel’s supporters know that attacks on Hamas will kill innocent civilians in Gaza. But that’s inadvertent and unintended; the intention is to eliminate Hamas. (If the intent were to kill civilians, it would be a crime.)

You’re trying to claim that “inadvertent” is a synonym for “incidental”. It isn’t. Inadvertence implies a lack of intention AND a lack of consciousness/awareness/concern regarding the secondary effect in question, not just a lack of intent. The losses of civilian life in Gaza due to Israeli military actions are incidental to those actions and the motives behind them. They are not inadvertent, as Israel is well aware of them as probably (almost certain) secondary effects. In fact…

https://thelawdictionary.org/inadvertence/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

we will forever be unable to prove it one way or the other

How is that search for Obama's Muslim Kenyan communist birth certificate coming along, Birther Brett?

[Frank Drackman]

Hows that commutation package from Senator S-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-t-t-t-t-t-t-uttering J-J-J-J-J-o-o-o-o-ohn F-F-F-etterman coming along, Coach Sandusky?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Here is what Republican Congressman Luke Letlow had to say about it…oh wait, he died at 40 from Covid and so he can’t speak. Lololololol!! See, Covid wasn’t all bad. 😉

[bernard11]

changes to election procedures which would enable it to be stolen without leaving much in the way of evidence.

Care to specify? And no, state supreme court decisions don't count.

[David Nieporent]

Why not just admit that the only reason you think the election was stolen is because your candidate lost. It has the virtue of being true.

Look. Trump supporters had lots of boat parades, and Biden supporters didn't. What more proof does anyone need?

[Michael Ejercito]

https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/05/17/assorted-ethics-observations-on-the-durham-report-part-ii-the-substance/

If these people to use the resources of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to promote the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign, what woiuld they not do?

[David Nieporent]

If that were an accurate characterization of what happened, you might have a point. Of course, if that were an accurate characterization of what happened, you wouldn't have to rely on Jack Marshall's idiot take.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another brilliant piece of satire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbfccVBo9tE

[Commenter_XY]

Cute.

[Don Nico]

How can the truth be so funny?

[Bored Lawyer]

That's what makes satire funny. It shows how ridiculous the truth is.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If conservatives are known for anything (other than superstition and bigotry), it is their comedy and sense of humor.

[Don Nico]

I guess RAK has no sense of humor.
Poor troll.

[ReaderY]

Regarding U.S. v. Rahimi,

1. I think that the Court will in general find that a police power can prohibit possession for people subject to a domestic violence protection order, but will likely find that the order has to have specific safeguards including judicial findings of fact following a hearing, possibly based on a heightened standard of evidence.

2. I think that the idea that the federal government can prohibit anything that once previously passed in or could potentially be sold in interstate commerce is downright hokey, and while I don’t agree with Justice Thomas on everything, I agree that in general simple posession with no intent to distribute, by people who are not commercial manufacturers, dealers, or similarly intimately involved in interstate commerce, should not fall under the federal commerce power. It’s possible that Justice Thomas may pick up a vote or two for his perennial opposition to an endlessly expansive commerce power.

[not guilty]

An interesting profile of Zackey Rahimi:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-gun-case-zackey-rahimi_n_653fe6f1e4b0ae2dc0b4af6f

[Ben_]

Everyone already guessed why, but now we can all see why the Covenant School shooter's manifesto was kept from the public:

https://x.com/scrowder/status/1721545965402726734

Yeah, as you expected, the motive was typical leftist identity-based hatred and demonization, dialed up a little and activated.

[Ben_]

Dems came up with a term for the DEI messaging that leads to violence like this: "stochastic terrorism".

[Commenter_XY]

Whut......? Stochastic terrorism?

[Ben_]

Yeah. It’s a new pro-censorship idea that leftists made up. If you say something they don’t like, then they declare your words are likely to result in attacks against someone by some nutty people who supposedly exist.

Therefore, your words are a terrorist threat because you knew something, somewhere would maybe happen. Summary: words leftists don’t like are terrorism.

Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism#:~:text=Stochastic%20terrorism%20refers%20to%20political,the%20target%20of%20the%20speech.

Now that we have concrete information on the motive, the concept can be applied to the Covenant School shooting and guilt for “stochastic terrorism” can be inferred.

[Nige]

So that's libsoftiktok sewn up.

[Ben_]

^ And here is an example of the application of the concept.

So when leftists decide to use violence to counter words, this will be one of their bullshit justifications.

[Ben_]

The usual guys who censor stuff are suppressing this:

https://twitchy.com/samj/2023/11/06/google-censoring-nashville-shooters-manifesto-n2389476

You’re supposed to wait for the regime to coordinate a Hunter’s-laptop-style lie so the censorship platforms can link to that instead of the photos.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

That’s also why the posters of kidnapped children get torn down.

[Ed Grinberg]

"That’s also why the posters of kidnapped children get torn down."
Give it a few years, until we're fully "woke." Then, when something like this happens again, our government (and our media) will come out in favor of the attackers, and anyone caught putting up posters of the victims will be arrested. (Right now they just risk getting beaten up, with little likelihood of prosecution of the attackers, the prosecutors being "woke.")

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Not that Google et al don't routinely manipulate search results, but I don't see this being "censored" by them at all. A search on "nashville manifesto leaked" returns a lot of links to recent (within hours) content on the leak, and they're mostly at the very top of the result list.

[jb]

Yes, rather than breathlessly reposting Twitchy, why not just try the search yourself? The conspiracy theory falls apart pretty quickly when anyone can trivially disprove it.

[Sarcastr0]

On thing VC has taught me is they do not check. Not because they are lazy, but because they'd rather feel righteous than be correct.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, rather than breathlessly reposting Twitchy, why not just try the search yourself? The conspiracy theory falls apart pretty quickly when anyone can trivially disprove it.

As does the "there's no real evidence that this is real" claim.

[Kazinski]

It should be noted that this is just 3 pages from the single notebook recovered from Hale's Honda Fit, at the crime scene.

There was also a suicide note left in the school, and 20 notebooks left in her house:

"Police previously said they found inside Hale's car a yet-to-be-released manifesto as well as detailed diagrams of the church-linked school and maps of possible entry points for the massacre.

"They also found 20 journals throughout the basement, 14 videos and a Tennessee man's driver's license in a bookcase along with photographs of the Covenant School, where the killer was once a student, and five yearbooks from there."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nashville-killer-audrey-hale-slept-with-journals-on-school-shootings-under-bed-court-docs-reveal

[Ed Grinberg]

"He" was as woke as they come.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, because woke people always use "faggot" as an insult. As this thing, which is not a "manifesto," and which there's no evidence is genuine, does.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

and which there’s no evidence is genuine

Yeah, that's why the Nashville Mayor's office said it's actively working with Metro Nashville (PD) to find out how it was leaked.

Your topical ignorance is a poor basis for your condescension.

[Kazinski]

No there isn't a lot of evidence, now.

But a couple of things that may make it possible to provide some supporting evidence of its authenticity.

Its in the alleged shooters handwriting, there maybe some samples out there for comparison.

There are some background images, evidently a cop car, and a parking lot that can probably be identified, it looks like possibly either a apartment building parking lot or a school, or police department.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No there isn’t a lot of evidence, now.

?? The fact that the Nashville officials I cited have publicly said that they're looking into who leaked it isn't pretty good evidence concerning authenticity?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

That’s what I was thinking and also why I think it’s real. But the El Paso Walmart shooter was clearly an eco-terrorist and somehow the liberal media characterized him as a MAGA terrorist…his opposition to immigrants had to do with their assimilation to American culture and the fact they end up consuming too many resources just like other Americans.

[David Nieporent]

(1) There's nothing to suggest this is real.
(2) In what way was it being "kept from the public"?
(3) Why? Who was doing this keeping?

[Ben_]

You think any of those is going to work?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/first-three-pages-transgender-school-shooters-manifesto-leaked

“The Nashville mayor's office has confirmed they are working with Metro legal to determine how those images were released to anyone…"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

(1) There’s nothing to suggest this is real.

Except that there is.

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/conservative-radio-host-releases-documents-related-to-covenant-we-are-working-to-verify
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/leaked-nashville-shooter-manifesto-shows-motivation-behind-attack-kill-all-you-little-f-audrey-hale-aiden-covenant-school-march-schooting-louder-with-crowder
Etc.

(2) In what way was it being “kept from the public”?

Do you know what “leaked” means? Are you also aware that release of the so-called “manifesto” is and has been the subject of a pending bit of litigation?

(3) Why? Who was doing this keeping?

“Who” = Metro Nashville Police. As for “why”, you’ll have to ask them.

[Ben_]

"Who"

Yeah, turns out the people "keeping" it from the public were the people who had the information and hadn’t released it to the public.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Because the shooter was a homophobe.

[Michael P]

In which David Nieporent continues his evolution into Gaslight0 Part Deux.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative,
bigoted blog has operated for

ZERO (0)

day without publishing
at least one racial slur;
it has published vile
racial slurs on at least

FORTY (40)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
40 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 40 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 stale and ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

(Smokey wrote both of those -- he gave one to the Temptations, and Berry Gordy took the other one and gave it to the Temptations.)

[M L]

Should the U.S.A. undergo a restructuring, so as to devolve all or most governmental power and authority back to the States? It has been said, a house divided cannot stand, and two cannot walk together unless they agree. So maybe it would be better to let people go their separate ways.

Please add your pros and cons:

PROS:

– Allow government policies to be tailored to differing local culture, beliefs, practices, preferences, industries, climates, etc. No “one size fits all”

– Allow more freedom, liberty, and self-determination as citizens have a larger say in determining policies, “live and let live”

– Create “laboratory” dynamic for discovery of efficiencies, optimizations

– Harmful government policies or actions have a smaller effect over a smaller area and are easier to reverse

– Less gridlock and dysfunction that results from centralized rule over wildly disparate cultures and regions, including channeling of all societal/political issues into 2-party system and nationalized elections

– If limited centralized government functions remain, elections/politics surrounding such government functions could be more limited and substantive rather than all-encompassing

– If restructuring involves diminished centralized power over money, potentially a benefit to removing discretion from monetary supply

– More responsible levels of government spending

– States can agree to common defense

– States can agree to free trade and freedom of movement

- Puts human dignity and freedom over nation/empire building, industrialization and rapid growth

CONS:

– Perhaps less robust national defense apparatus

– Less ability to centrally manage the economy with nationalistic economic policies if one believes that is beneficial, including: incentivizing certain development and industry; potentially mitigating/smoothing out economic turbulence; foreign-facing economic policy (e.g. tariffs)

– Less regulatory certainty and uniformity, creating inefficiency for large megacorps and nationwide businesses

- Less focused on, and possibly less conducive to, rapid GPD growth, corporate profits, industrialization, settlement of Mars

– Puzzle as to how immigration policy works if States have freedom of movement, one option would be de facto open borders

- Potentially less decisive, energetic, and focused foreign policy vested in a single individual (the President)

– General political upheaval associated with restructuring, potential clandestine or overt use of force by those favoring nationalism or globalism

– Potentially greater government infringements on freedoms and liberties at the individual state level (but see possible freedom of movement)

– Potential threatening of SS/medicare entitlements due to funding problems (but may be an issue anyway)

– General complication and hassle of restructuring

[M L]

CON: [Insert nationalistic, emotionalistic sentiments here]

[David Nieporent]

CON: This is not slavery. There's no obvious way to divide up states. There were more Trump voters in California than in every other state in the United States. There were more Biden voters in Florida than in every state except California, and more Biden voters in Texas than in every state except California and Florida.

CON: Everyone agrees that things that they like that are unpopular nationwide should be decided by states, but that the things they like that are popular nationwide are exceptions should be decided by the federal government. (There are no honest federalists.) Republicans aren't going to say, "Oh, okay, gun control is now fine in blue states." They aren't going to say, "Oh, abortion should be legal in blue states."

[M L]

I'm going to have to object to your first point.

"There’s no obvious way to divide up states."

What are you talking about? The States have well established boundaries as we speak. We are not talking about some silly "national divorce" two-state scenario, just a return to States.

On your second point, I think that is largely true, but there are at least some honest federalists. It is true that this sort of arrangement would cut deeply in both directions. The way most Americans currently think about things, nobody would like this. Your CON is summarized as "it's unpopular," I'm not sure that is a valid CON for the hypothetical purposes contemplated, but I'll accept it.

[Brett Bellmore]

As a practical matter, since the coastal states are almost uniformly of one faction, and internal states of the other, there would be trade corridor issues.

And massive trade would be required between the factions, as most states aren't remotely self-sufficient.

The dividing lines are actually mostly between high and low population densities; Urban vs suburban/rural. They don't neatly run along state boundaries, it's more like separating the aggregate from the cement in a block of concrete.

This causes every 'blue' state to have large 'red' expanses, and every 'red' state to have densely populated pockets of 'blue'.

[M L]

Fair points. The free trade agreement aspect would be central, I think.

[ReaderY]

Why not a federal government that has power to regulate commerce among the several states – just as long as that power isn‘t interpreted to extend to regulating the positions a married couple can use to have sex if they have have sex next to a potted plant whose seeds previously passed through interstate commerce?

I don’t really see why the federal government can’t, under current interstate commerce doctrine, simply declare sex and child care to be commercial commodities, and then simply ban marriage and parents raising their own children as interfering with interstate commercial providers of these services and hence with the free flow of interstate commerce. Sex and childcare can both be bought and sold. Under current interstate commerce doctrine, if something could potentially be bought and sold, the federal can simply declare it an interstate commercial commodity and regulate its possession and use.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know where you got your idea of current CC jurisprudence, but it's about 30 years out of date. Lopez and Morrison are real limits. And the Obamacare case was also pretty restrictive.

[Brett Bellmore]

How is Lopez a real limit? It wasn't a real "enforce the Constitution" case. It was more of a "don't forget to say the magic words" case. The "gun free school zone" act was reenacted with the magic words, and is the law to this day.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s certainly not how the case reads, and given the Obamacare case, I don’t think you can argue that’s implicit the lay of the land either.

The revised law had a quite different scope. I urge you to read the decision, it is pretty brutal. You would it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did like the Lopez decision, but I'm not kidding myself about its reach. It was very much a magic words decision.

As Renquist said in the majority opinion, "The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. "

The highlighted bit point out the missing magic words. Going on to recounting the lower court decision,

"On appeal, respondent challenged his conviction based on his claim that § 922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed respondent's conviction. It held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history,"

Again, magic words were missing.

When Lopez was first issued, I thought it might mark an intention on the part of the Court to start rolling back the federal government's usurpation of general police power using the interstate commerce power as a pretext.

Well, that didn't happen. So, in the end? Yeah, just a magic words case.

"The revised law had a quite different scope."

LOL! Like I've said before, maybe you should quit your day job, you can be pretty funny at times.

From the Congressional record:

"The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.

That is the only change to the legislative language of the original bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act. "

They added the magic words, and required prosecutors to recite them. That was, literally, the only change.

[ReaderY]

Lopez was exactly a “don’t forget to say the magic words” case. All Lopez did was make Congress add the words “which previously passed through interstate Commerce.” Just add a few magic words, and everything is fine. Since virtually all guns pass through interstate commerce broadly defined, Lopez was nothing more than a magic words decision, not a substantial limit on Congress’ power.

Otherwise Rahimi would never have been prosecuted federally. In Rahimi’s case, Congress remembered to add words to the effect of “which previously passed through interstate commerce” to the statute. Abracadabra, Presto Changeo, Expecto Patronus. Lopez vanishes into thin air.

Otherwise

[Sarcastr0]

First, those 'magic words' are a pretty big restriction on a ton of stuff. Can't speak to guns, not my area. But your original post was not so limited either.

And 'which previously passed through interstate Commerce' is not by itself enough to establish a federal nexus. I did a paper in law school on that and there's a ton of appeals court work in that area.

Finally, your original post about sex near seeds went against Morrison more than Lopez, and you haven't bothered to address that.

[Absaroka]

Is the requirement "moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce"?

Wickard seems to say 'if there exists a market for thing X, the interstate commerce hook applies'. What's an example of some tangible thing that doesn't qualify?

[Sarcastr0]

When it comes to goods, I've not seen a lot of limits. But acts and services are another story,

Obamacare is a great counterexample.
Federal criminal law is another.

At the appeals court level the legacy of Morrison was, IIRC (and it's been a while) killing attempts to extend federal torts.

Bottom line, the Rehnquist Court made quite an adjustment to the momentum of the CC. Raiche blunted that momentum, but the position didn't really recede much.

[Absaroka]

"But ... services are another story"

To be clear, I'm asking, not arguing...

What is the services/goods distinction? Why/how is providing a commercial service (repairing a transmission, hanging drywall) distinct from selling the transmission or the drywall?

(and if there isn't a interstate commerce clause hook for services, what lets the ATF regulate gunsmiths?)

[Sarcastr0]

I just personally made the services/acts distinction looking at the precedents - VAWA, Obamacare, torts, crimes.

I think the reason you see such a distinction is because the nature of services is more localized - it happens in a place. So you lose the 'moved in' layup that goods oftentimes do.

You can still get a hook by proving your service effects interstate commerce, but that requires some proving and won't always be the case, whereas nowadays goods moving interstate is the norm.

[Josh R]

You can still get a hook by proving your service effects interstate commerce, but that requires some proving

As I understand Raich, a regulation of economic activity that in the aggregate affects interstate commerce (no matter how small the impact of one instance is) is within the reach of Congressional power. I can’t think of any service that both has zero affect on interstate commerce and does not use a product that moves in or affects (in the aggregate) interstate commerce. Is there precedent to the contrary?

Obamacare introduced a new bar (can’t be forced into commerce) and the statute at stake in Morrison didn’t regulate a service.

I agree with Orin Kerr’s take that when the Court rules in favor of federalism it’s symbolic (an “issue that doesn’t have a lot of practical importance”) However, the Medicaid expansion part of NFIB was a win for federalism that had practical importance (but was not related to the Commerce Clause).

[Sarcastr0]

As I understand Raich, a regulation of economic activity that in the aggregate affects interstate commerce

That's right. But you need legislative findings, which will be reviewed by the judiciary, to establish that.
Not an impossible bar, at all. But that's hardly an open door.

[Brett Bellmore]

You need legislative findings, which will be reviewedtreated as a magical incantation settling the issue.

[Sarcastr0]

You need legislative findings, which will be reviewedtreated as a magical incantation settling the issue.

You can be pissed at the current state of affairs without assuming everything is maximally the other way.

Have you any evidence to back this up? There isn't a lot of SCOTUS precedent in the area (unless you count dormant CC) and while it's been a while appeals courts were not rubber stamping federal laws when I was in law school.

[Josh R]

From Raich:

we have never required Congress to make particularized findings in order to legislate [...] while we will consider congressional findings in our analysis when they are available, the absence of particularized findings does not call into question Congress’ authority to legislate. [...] We need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding.

Sounds like an open door to me so long as the statute regulates economic activity.

[Sarcastr0]

Josh R - I stand corrected re: Raich. That is absolutely more permissive than I recalled. Shoulda brushed up on it, thanks for the correction.

I think the Obamacare case mitigates that at least somewhat, and Morrison is still good law, but yeah I had the scope of Raich wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You can be pissed at the current state of affairs without assuming everything is maximally the other way."

It pretty much IS maximally one way at this point. If the feds bother to make even the most pretextual claim of an interstate commerce nexus, they win on that point. They might lose on some other point, but THAT hurdle is painted on the floor, it's so easily cleared.

[Josh R]

I don't think the magic words could save the statute at issue in Morrison.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

What we're rereading:

A terrific Scottish fairy-tale for adolescents: THE WALKING STONES, by Mollie Hunter, first published 1970.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/mollie-hunter-5/the-walking-stones/

[Sarcastr0]

Finishing up Accelerando. Meh.

Before that I polished off The Power Broker about Robert Moses.

About to start The Idea Factory, about Bell Labs. Pretty excited for that.

Then, I think, The Voyage of the Space Beagle.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Did you get those books for Zoom backgrounds?? The Prize would make a good Zoom background book.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

This is a change from what I last read which was The Chemists’ War 1914-1918 by Michael Freemantle. Did you know:

At the beginning of WW1, acetone was produced by heating wood in an oxygen-free chamber until it (the wood) turned into black goo, from which acetone (and methanol, hence the term “wood alcohol”) could be distilled. The trouble was the yield was unsatisfactory – less than one ton of acetone from a hundred tons of wood (less than 1% yield), not nearly enough for Britain to make the explosives (mostly cordite) she needed to wage the war . But soon, a biochemist developed a bacterium which could ferment starch into acetone, which saved the day for the Brits. That biochemist was Chaim Weizmann, later the first President of the nation of Israel; his reward was that Britain listened to him while writing the Balfour Declaration.

And did you know that the first use of chemotherapy against cancer (leukemia) used a compound which had originally been developed as a chemical-warfare weapon in WW1?

[Dr. Ed 2]

More UMass -- and I'm not at all surprised.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/11/06/umass-amherst-student-arrested-for-allegedly-punching-jewish-student-in-latest-clash-on-college-campuses/

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the version from the student newspaper.
https://dailycollegian.com/2023/11/violent-incident-at-hillel-gathering-results-in-one-arrested/

If this had happened to a Muslim student, there would be rioting so severe that the campus would be shut down -- and everyone knows it. That campus has been anti-semetic for longer than I can remember.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Ed, not everyone knows what you think you know.

Appealing to that is about as bad as when you appeal to Joe Sixpack.

[Kazinski]

I was watching a Bloomberg report about JP Morgan's Jaime Dimon complaining about Texas's anti ESG contracting law.

Nov 1 (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) CEO Jamie Dimon said Texas risks hurting its business-friendly reputation with laws that seek to punish Wall Street banks for policies limiting work with the gun and fossil fuel industries, in an interview with Bloomberg News on Wednesday.

While Texas is a "welcoming" place for business, "I think it's a mistake to damage it even a little way," Dimon, chief of the largest bank in the U.S., told Bloomberg.

Republicans have been ramping up pressure on the finance industry over environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment practices. Texas enacted a law in 2021 prohibiting government contracts with entities that discriminated against the firearms industry.

This year, Kentucky warned 11 major financial companies, including Citigroup Inc (C.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) of potential divestment over their "boycott" of energy companies."

Looks like the law is starting to bite a little.

This seems to tie in a little to the case the Supreme Court is hearing about the State of NY putting pressure on banks to debank the NRA. Leaving banks between a rock and a hard place: face increased regulatory pressure from NY, or give up the Texas State and Muni bond business.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Texas could play hardball and state that anyone doing business with ESG banks is automatically subject to an audit.

[Krychek_2]

Only if Texas wanted to guarantee being on the losing side of a First Amendment lawsuit. That's about as blatant an example of viewpoint discrimination as one can imagine.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why doesn't NY face the same thing?

[ReaderY]

Just last week the Supreme Court just agreed to hear a thing between the NRA and New York. I believe the thing is called a “lawsuit.” And it’s over the “First Amendment.” That would make it a “First Amendment lawsuit,” right?

[bernard11]

So as I understand it, it's bad for NY to dictate business practices to the banks, but just terrific for KY and TX to do it.

That seems to be your position.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So as I understand it…

Which appears to be not at all.

…, it’s bad for NY to dictate business practices to the banks, but just terrific for KY and TX to do it.

That seems to be your position.

Well, it seems that way to you because you’re just not very bright. What he’s objecting to, quite consistently in both cases, is banks discriminating against certain types of legal businesses, whether they do so of their own accord or as the result of pressure from government.

[JasonT20]

What he’s objecting to, quite consistently in both cases, is banks discriminating against certain types of legal businesses, whether they do so of their own accord or as the result of pressure from government.

Are gun manufacturers and oil companies a protected class now, where refusing to do business with them is a violation of the Civil Rights Act?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

According to Justice Thomas the only racism in America was directed at the gun industry…it’s why there are no guns in black neighborhoods. 😉

[Kazinski]

Well actually what is happening is Texas is saying that if banks refuse to do business with companies Texas deems important to Texas values then Texas will refuse to do business with those banks.

Keep in mind this is quite different from NY and the NRA where NY threatened regulatory action against banks that didn't do their bidding and continued doing business lawful corporations.

In this case TX, KY. and FL are deciding not to award discretionary contracts to banks that are making discretionary decisions not to do business with companies that are important to Texas' values and culture.

Very similar to Arkansas anti-BDS law.

And if California or NY refused discretionary business to banks that refused to do business with Planned Parenthood, I would think that's fine too.

[Sarcastr0]

this is quite different from NY and the NRA where NY threatened regulatory action against banks that didn’t do their bidding and continued doing business lawful corporations.

Seems a pretty formalistic difference to me.

It's also pretty telling that 'Texas values' are don't do any corporate citizenship work, replacing business judgement with performative negative partisanship.
The GOP is becoming less into democracy, and the free market, every day.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It’s also pretty telling that ‘Texas values’ are don’t do any corporate citizenship work, "

Well, yeah. Corporate citizenship work? Screw that!

It's just a euphemism for "Managers violating their fiduciary responsibilities by diverting corporate resources to their personal political causes."

[Sarcastr0]

There's a ton of evidence that longer term thinking and corporate citizenship is good marketing and good governance.

In the end your business judgement is not trustworthy, since it's riven through with your paranoid liberal persecution complex. I'd prefer to trust the actual people that are paid to be good at this stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

The actual studies show that companies that don't do this have, unsurprisingly, higher profit margins. But companies that do this grow faster on account of easier access to capital from sources practicing this sort of discriminatory lending. Which lend to them despite their poorer economic performance.

Agent/principal conflicts are becoming an endemic problem in the modern economy, I'm glad to see some pushback against normalizing this sort of abuse.

[Sarcastr0]

Short term profit margins are a reductive metric to use.

You will need to support your idea that there's some kind of woke old boy's club making companies that look at sustainability look more profitable than they are.

I also think corporate citizenship is good for our economy generally.

But maybe I'm wrong! I'm not saying sustainability factors are always important, only that you don't have the expertise to say that never are.

Agent/principal conflicts are becoming an endemic problem in the modern economy, I’m glad to see some pushback against normalizing this sort of abuse.
Thank goodness government is here to save us. You're continue to be the worst libertarian.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Are gun manufacturers and oil companies a protected class now, where refusing to do business with them is a violation of the Civil Rights Act?

No, nor has anyone made that argument. Try again.

[Armchair]

Worth a repost.

"I don’t care that you sympathize with Hamas.

I know you wouldn’t tolerate any of the things they did to us if they would’ve done it to you.

I don’t care that you’re outraged by Israel’s response to the massacre more than the massacre itself.

I know you would do everything to eliminate such pure evil if you experienced it yourself.

I don’t care that this doesn’t fit neatly into your carefully constructed narrative of ‘Israel as aggressor’ and ‘Palestinian as victim.’

The truth hurts sometimes, but hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings.

I don’t care if you think we are at fault, that we had it coming, that Hamas’ actions’ didn’t occur in a vacuum (or to deny they ever happened)

If you feel that the poster of a kidnapped child hurts your cause, maybe yours is a lost cause.

I don’t care about your calls for a premature ceasefire, about your demand that we provide them with electricity, that we stop fighting for ‘humanitarian reasons.’

What of a humanitarian gesture to release our 230+ hostages – elderly, children, babies – snatched from their cribs?

I don’t care that you’ve rallied for Palestine as part of your march for LGBTQ rights, trans rights, workers rights, socialism, climate change, intersectionality, Black Lives Matter, fighting Islamaphobia and ‘all forms of racism.’

Your gullibility would be laughable if it wasn’t so hypocritical. None of those things exist under Hamas.

I don’t care that you ‘love Jewish people – just hate Israel’, that you have some friends that are Jewish, that maybe you’re ethnically Jewish yourself – and therefore you’re entitled to levy every libel in the playbook against us.

Words matter. They lead to actions. When a lie is repeated often enough it’s accepted as truth. You are laying the groundwork for more attacks against us.

I don’t care that you wave the flag of ‘human rights’, that you’ve become overnight experts in international law, that you shout fancy slogans you don’t understand such as proportionality, occupation and apartheid.

Your humanity is selective. In your mind, human rights don’t apply to us because we are undeserving. You didn’t speak up when our women and children were horribly assaulted."

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dear-world-i-dont-care/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your humanity is selective.

That is one whining, blustering, counterproductive example of lack of self-awareness.

And, from the American taxpayer's perspective, a parasitic ingrate.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I still can’t believe Republicans wanted to go Team America and kill the hostages along with Hamas…oh wait, I can because George W Bush killed twice as many Americans as Osama Bin Laden and Republicans loved it.

[Ben_]

Biden IRS partisan political audits:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/06/biden-irs-audit-aaf-nominees/

[Biastians]

Biden is a disgusting, treasonous, despicable piece of pond scum.

[Z Crazy]

What makes anyone think Brandon'll be the nominee in 2024?

[Causter]

Like Charlie Brown and Lucy's football, they believe 2024 will see free and fair elections in the United States. Under the assumption of free and fair elections, it would be completely nonsensical election strategy for anyone else to go from zero to nominee and under a year. This way of thinking is unfortunately out of date since successful election strategies going forward will have nothing to do with candidate name recognition or popularity.

[ReaderY]

As Stalin, who knew a thing or two about modern elections, aptly put it, it doesn’t matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes.

[David Nieporent]

So Jack Smith filed his response to at least some of Trump's frivolous motions to dismiss in the D.C. case. That includes Trump's claims that he had a 1A right to forge documents and that double jeopardy precludes trying him because he was impeached.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24122219/231106-response-mtd.pdf

[loki13]

I enjoyed reading that. Comprehensive, to say the least.

While there were many parts worth quoting, I particularly enjoyed this-

"The First Amendment’s prohibition of viewpoint discrimination does not foreclose the Government from charging the defendant, or any other defendant, for committing crimes through false statements. Falsity is not a viewpoint."

[David Nieporent]

Falsity is not a viewpoint.”

Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.

[Estragon]

My personal favorite was this, uhhh completely random, example they used here:

“Just as the president of a company may be guilty of fraud for using knowingly false statements of facts to defraud investors, even if he subjectively believes that his company will eventually succeed, see, e.g., United States v. Arif, 897 F.3d 1, 9-10 & n.9 (1st Cir. 2018); United States v. Kennedy, 714 F.3d 951, 958 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 280 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Chavis, 461 F.3d 1201, 1209 (10th Cir. 2006), the defendant may be guilty of using deceit to obstruct the government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified, even if he provides evidence that he subiectively believed that the election was “rigged.””

[Brett Bellmore]

That's an interesting way to phrase it.

Note that the president of the company is asserted to "knowingly" be using false statements of fact, the subjective belief in the example is that the company will succeed, not that the statements are true.

Then switching to Trump, he's supposedly guilty of deceit even if he actually did believe the election had been rigged.

"As alleged in the indictment, the defendant “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election,” these statements “were false,” and the defendant “knew that
they were false.”""

The defendant knowing that they were false is an element of the offense. You can't be deceitful by making statements you think are true, after all. So, it actually IS a defense if Trump can establish his subjective belief.

The document you linked to seems to go to great lengths about the statements having been made, and their not being true, but it's pretty conclusory about Trump knowing they weren't true. It just repeatedly asserts it.

This, on the other had, IS a valid point: "The defendant also asserts that his statements were not deceptive because he genuinely believed that “the election was stolen.” ECF No. 114 at 7. But this, too, raises a matter for trial, not a motion to dismiss."

Fair enough. I think Trump has a lousy case for just dismissing the charges, as opposed to prevailing on the merits, because the case is rather fact bound.

[loki13]

So there's two separate issues there.

The first is this- if you make a false statement, even if you have a subjective belief that the statement isn't "false" because of some other factors, it's still a false statement. To use the cited examples and extrapolate, if you say that a building is worth $10 million to secure a loan, when it's only worth $1 million, it doesn't matter that you think that you can repay the loan because the company is going to do fine- it's still a false statement.

Here, even if Trump thinks (for example) that the election is "rigged," that would not allow him to make false statements of fact. For example, let's "imagine" that he said that there were 205,000 more votes than voter in Pennsylvania. It doesn't matter that he thought that the election was rigged- that still a false statement.

Finally, the purpose of the response was to cut through the BS issues in the motion to dismiss. As correctly noted, to the extent that Trump wants to make factual defenses, he is welcome to do so- just not in a Motion to Dismiss.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

After a day of Trump testimony reported to consist mostly of grandiose lies, rants about the judge, personal attacks directed at the district attorney, and pathetic, disjointed whining, Trump's lawyer -- who once was an accomplished and respected lawyer, and was smart enough recently to get a $3 million up-front payment from Trump -- was quoted as saying he had never had a witness provide better testimony in court.

Could ridiculous superlativism be that contagious?

[Zarniwoop]

Did Kise specify if it was better for the defense, or better for the gov't?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good point.

I could understand a dope like Habba thinking it would be sensible to have Trump testify, but Kise should have known better.

[M L]

"Libertarian tipping card" you can use to for giving servers a "GIFT and NOT A TIP" . . .

Thoughts? Would this hold up?

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fxey22630oau81.jpg

[M L]

Seems like you'd be rendering questionable tax/financial/legal advice with this particular card.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It strikes me as about as legally meaningful as the people who yell, "You don't have my permission to film me" at videographers while they're out in public.

[David Nieporent]

No.

[BrotherMovesOn]

No, but they sure keep trying don't they!?

[Tom for equal rights]

definitely taxable income for services rendered, not a gift