Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers have filed a response in support of various media outlets' application to televise his upcoming trial in D.C. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.260552/gov.uscourts.dcd.260552.19.0_2.pdf Unsurprisingly, it reads more like a whiny political screed than a legal brief.

Trump nowhere discusses Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which expressly prohibits the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom. While the media applications assert that Rule 53 is unconstitutional as applied to this trial, Trump does not discuss numerous federal decisions that have upheld Rule 53 as a constitutionally valid time, place and manner regulation of speech.

Congress, if it chooses, can authorize broadcasting of federal criminal trials or grant federal district courts discretion to permit broadcasting by statute. Perhaps Trump should encourage Republicans in Congress to support enabling legislation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who actually wrote these rules?

[not guilty]

The U. S. Supreme Court, acting through the Judicial Conference, with the approval of Congress. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072-2074. Why do you ask?

[Dr. Ed 2]

With the exception of rules “creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege”, Congress never approves any of these rules — Congress has ceded this power to SCOTUS and the Judicial Conference. It’s sort of a Chevron issue, kinda….

§ 2073 lays out how the rules are “prescribed” and while I am not an attorney, I’d figure that would be the way to get a new rule “prescribed” — or to get SCOTUS (which essentially wrote them) to agree that one rule is somehow unconstitutional, unjust, or something.

It would be really messy for Congress to amend § 2072 to then say “except in the case of cameras, where you must do X, Y, & Z.” It would be viewed — correctly — as a politically motivated grab of judicial authority, and the Judicial Conference is free to “prescribe” a new rule on cameras if it wants to. It would also set a really bad precedent because you’d then see others wanting to do the same thing.

You wrote that “Congress, if it chooses, can … grant federal district courts discretion to permit broadcasting by statute” — I’d argue that’s what § 2072 already does, except that it follows protocol and lets SCOTUS exercise the discretion.

[not guilty]

Rule 53 by its own terms applies “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules”. Congress is empowered to modify the effect of the rule by statute. It has not done so, however.

The history of Rule 53 is set forth in the government's response to the media applications to televise the Trump trial. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.260552/gov.uscourts.dcd.260552.16.0.pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite the hard on you have for all things Trump.

[OtisAH]

Right? What is this weird obsession with a former president who is indicted on 91 charges in four jurisdictions, including his attempt to overthrow the government while in office and his theft of national security docs, and who is increasingly publicly announcing his totalitarian plans for the nation while running as the leading candidate for the MAGA Party presidential nomination? I mean geez, guys, get over it already!

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot two failed impeachments and colluding with Russia to win in 2016.

[OtisAH]

No, I didn’t.

[Commenter_XY]

The legal process in federal court is hard enough (according to many posters here), even with good people in it. Why make it a circus?

I cannot recall ever seeing a federal district court trial televised. Has one?

[not guilty]

No. Judicial Conference policy prohibits broadcasting of all trial proceedings and witness testimony, in both civil and criminal cases. Ceremonial proceedings, such as investitures and naturalizations, may be televised, but these are ceremonies, not trials, and therefore do not implicate the government’s compelling interest in ensuring a fair trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 bars photography and broadcasting in criminal proceedings. Broadcasting of proceedings is prohibited by policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. This encompasses the use of all audio or video recording devices of any kind. No journalist or member of the public may photograph or record any court proceeding under any circumstances.

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/media/court-rules-affecting-the-media/

[Armchair]

So, your view is that if a trial was televised, it wouldn't be fair?

[not guilty]

I didn't say that at all. I was accounting for the distinction that federal courts make between broadcasting ceremonial proceedings and broadcasting civil or criminal trials.

I think that televising criminal jury trials is a good thing. Several states have permitted that for quite some time now, and the results have been good.

I have participated in several televised jury trials in state court. I don't recall any occasion where the presence of cameras made a bit of difference as to how the case was presented.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What does it do to Judges?

As a teacher, I wouldn't want someone taking 15 second sound bytes out of a 42 minute class. OTOH, some judges should have retired long ago and sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Government's brief says:

Video not only airs on television but streams and remains on the internet effectively forever.... Paired with the ever-increasing acrimony in public discourse, witnesses and others who appear on video may be subjected to threats and harassment. Were there an appeal and retrial, witnesses who were subjected to scrutiny and harassment on social media may be unwilling to testify again. Even the knowledge that their images will circulate on social media may temper a witness’s initial testimony.

Allowing video of the Trump trial could be problematic in ways that it would not be for most trials.

[GKHoff]

One only has to recall the OJ Simpson trial to realize how TV coverage can affect the proceeding. Judge Ito started channeling Henny Youngman, Marcia Clark with a new designer outfit and hairdo every few days, Johnny Darden telling witnesses he was going to aks them a few questions. It turned the trial into a circus.

On the other hand, Trump's trial is already a circus, so why not show it in prime time?

[Armchair]

The 6th amendment gives the accused the right to a speedy and public trial. This is a right granted to the accused, for obvious reasons.

A courtroom is a very limited environment, and few people can actually view the trial, essentially limiting access to the public. Cameras in the courtroom have proven no issue in many other court cases.

For other reasons, see below.

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/23-cr-f_suggestion_from_20_media_organizations_-_rule_53_0.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

I do not understand how a mere District judge can overrule the US Supreme Court and violate the criminal rules. Its not like its a vaguely worded rule.

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe judge Reinhart explained it succinctly: "They can't catch 'em all."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bob, a case can't get to SCOTUS (in most cases) without first having gone through both District and Circuit.

Of course, as I understand it, the judge can deny it, Trump can then appeal that ruling to Circuit and then to SCOTUS and I imagine that a lot of this would be expedited. OTOH, could they start a trial with his having a pending appeal on the cameras?

Could this delay all of this to after the election?

[not guilty]

The petitioners in these consolidated cases are the media outlets seeking to broadcast the proceedings. Fed.R.Crim.P. 53 expressly prohibits that, and federal courts have universally upheld Rule 53 against First Amendment attacks. The media could appeal the denial of their applications, but I doubt that the D.C. Circuit would tarry long in affirming. There would be no good reason for SCOTUS to grant certiorari.

[not guilty]

"Could this delay all of this to after the election?"

I don't think so. The media applications are separate lawsuits from the criminal prosecution. While Judge Chutkan has called for the views of the litigants in the criminal proceeding, Donald Trump is not a party-litigant here. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67861697/media-application-for-audiovisual-access-to-trial-proceedings-in-united/ Any appeal would be pursued by the media outlets, and it would not delay the jury trial.

An analogous situation occurred in the Southern District of Florida federal trial of then-Judge Alcee Hastings on allegations of bribery. The media sued seeking to cover the trial, which was scheduled to begin on January 10, 1983. The Defendant concurred in the media's request. The District Court held a hearing and denied the motion on November 30, 1982. The media appealed, and Hastings filed an amicus brief in support of the appeal. The Eleventh Circuit expedited the appeal, and the panel opinion was rendered on January 4, 1983. United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278 (11th Cir. 1983).

The media applicants sought rehearing en banc, which was denied on May 2, 1983. United States v. Hastings, 704 F.2d 559 (11th Cir. 1983), While the petition for rehearing remained pending in the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Hastings was tried in the District Court and acquitted by the jury on February 4, 1983.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then both impeached and convicted by the Senate.
Removed from the bench, he then won a seat in Congress.
Go figure....

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an interesting article.

California passed a law that requireds recognizing fake news to be taught in K-12 schools.

https://archive.li/iO4EI

CalMatters is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom committed to explaining California policy and politics.
Pushing back against the surge of misinformation online, California will now require all K-12 students to learn media literacy skills — such as recognizing fake news and thinking critically about what they encounter on the internet.
Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed Assembly Bill 873, which requires the state to add media literacy to curriculum frameworks for English language arts, science, math and history-social studies, rolling out gradually beginning next year. Instead of a stand-alone class, the topic will be woven into existing classes and lessons throughout the school year.
“I’ve seen the impact that misinformation has had in the real world — how it affects the way people vote, whether they accept the outcomes of elections, try to overthrow our democracy,” said the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Democrat from Menlo Park. “This is about making sure our young people have the skills they need to navigate this landscape.”
The new law comes amid rising public distrust in the media, especially among young people. A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that adults under age 30 are nearly as likely to believe information on social media as they are from national news outlets. Overall, only 7% of adults have “a great deal” of trust in the media, according to a Gallup poll conducted last year.
Media literacy can help change that, advocates believe, by teaching students how to recognize reliable news sources and the crucial role that media plays in a democracy.
“The increase in Holocaust denial, climate change denial, conspiracy theories getting a foothold, and now AI … all this shows how important media literacy is for our democracy right now,” said Jennifer Ormsby, library services manager for the Los Angeles County Office of Education. “The 2016 election was a real eye-opener for everyone on the potential harms and dangers of fake news.”

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe NJ just instituted something similar.

[Michael Ejercito]

So they expect children to be more skeptical of what they see and hear in the media?

Here is a conversation about a media on the newsgroup alt.rush-limbaugh on March 11, 1994.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.rush-limbaugh/c/gZg_XyptjyU/m/NiPCvQIctwUJ

Well I have to look that up for myself. I'm just going by what I see/read in the news media.

- Darryl Hamilton

That's an interesting approach, kind of like trying to determine the actual
intelligence and character of Black people by watching "Birth of a Nation"....

- Christopher Charles Morton

You can click the link for the full context.

[Commenter_XY]

1984 has arrived with a vengeance.

[Michael Ejercito]

Somehow I doubt that Berman was referring to the whole Russian collusion investigation when he spoke about people "try[ing] to overthrow our democracy".

[Sarcastr0]

Says quite a bit if that's where you immediately go when you hear 'media literacy.'

[Commenter_XY]

I figured a Progressive like you would like to 'curate' the news for our children. No thanks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well it is coming from someone who doesn't have children.

[Sarcastr0]

Not sure the relevance. Plenty of progressives have kids.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what media literacy means.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well I guess it's a good thing that the California school system is constrained by your and my view of what media literacy means.

[Sarcastr0]

Going straight to 'media literacy is 1984' is a tell.

Commenter or you making up a story about what California's gonna do is not proof of anything other than your reflexive hostility to media literacy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Going straight to ‘media literacy is 1984’ is a tell."

Yes, it's a tell that you don't trust the government to teach kids media literacy. Is there something wrong with that? Would you want the Trump administration teaching kids media literacy?

[Sarcastr0]

I do think there's something wrong with that.

Reflexive 'I hates it' if the government is doing it before even seeing what they do is the philosophy of a child.

[Harvey Mosley]

If I may jump in, I don't go straight to "media literacy is 1984". As a California resident I do go straight to "if California is doing it I can expect a liberal bias that may have similarities to 1984".

[Sarcastr0]

I used to live in Cali. If the implementation gets captured by Cali Dems, you flatter them that they would have the subtlety of Big Brother.

[Harvey Mosley]

"If the implementation gets captured by Cali Dems"? Seriously? Do you really expect any other result?

And I said similarities. I didn't say they would be subtle.

[Nige]

The right depends on fake news and zany beliefs so much that of course it's anti-media literacy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You prefer the "curation" imposed by conservatives on the campuses they control?

Dogma.

Censorship.

Nonsense.

Loyalty oaths.

Conduct and speech codes.

Statements of faith.

Rejection of academic freedom.

Suppression of science to flatter superstition.

Carry on, clingers. But only so far as substandard education could carry anyone in modern, improving (against your wishes) America.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hmmm. I suspect that, if the DeSantis administration were to launch a "Media Literacy" campaign in Florida public schools, you might wonder if he has the same idea of "Media Literacy" as you do.

I mean, maybe you wouldn't, but you should.

[Sarcastr0]

Counterfactual hypocrisy is always the most pure.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not calling you a hypocrite. Just suggesting you might see things differently if Desantis were the one trying to teach "media literacy"

[Sarcastr0]

I would say 'it's probably gonna suck.'

I would not say 'here comes 1984!'

Do you see the paranoia differential there?

[Nige]

'Media literacy by Prager U' would certainly require some scrutiny.

[Nelson]

"1984 has arrived with a vengeance."

Teaching the skills necessary to identify false information in the media is ... 1984? That seems counter to the point of the lessons.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the argument would be that they wouldn't really be teaching the skills necessary to identify false information, but instead teaching students to ignore unapproved sources of information.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bingo!

[Sarcastr0]

That's less an argument and more ipse dixit.

'The media literacy...it burns!' is not a good look, even if it's coming from 'I believe everything California does is evil and partisan.

[Joe_dallas]

considering how much government agencies such as the CDC , pushed low quality studies, many outright academic fraud level, on such things as the effectiveness of masking, it would seem the objective is indoctrination instead of developing critical skills to ascertain the scientific validity and or accuracy of the information.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe 'I take this one random blog as gospel' speaking out against media literacy is extremely on brand.

[Joe_dallas]

Are you denying the extent of Government sponsored disinformation which was exceptionally prolific during covid.

[Sarcastr0]

I absolutely am denying that. Being wrong is not the same as disinformation.
I’d think you’d realize your point of view is far from indisputable, given the conversations you’ve had on a whole host of subjects on here with a whole host of people.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 48 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
"I absolutely am denying that."

Of course you are denying the extensive amount of disinformation provided by government agencies during covid.

perhaps this comment hits home - very appropriate for those getting their information from the left wing bubble"

California schools should be concentrating on solid math , science and history curriculum. Developing skills and knowledge in those subjects is what is required to have the critical skills necessary recognize the misinformation they claim they are wanting to fight

[Nige]

‘perhaps this comment hits home’

This is the standard we’re trying to get away from, the ones that ignore the sheer numbers of people who became convinced the vaccines are poisons designed to cull the human population.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I absolutely am denying that."

You're denying that Trump provided disinformation during COVID?

[Joe_dallas]

Typical Nige - distort or flat out lie about my statement -

I specifically addressed the distortions and academic fraud associated with the effectiveness of masking as promoted by the CDC and other government agencies.

[Joe_dallas]

TwelveInchPianist 13 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“I absolutely am denying that.”

You’re denying that Trump provided disinformation during COVID?

The vast majority of disinformation came from the CDC and other government agencies.
Trump made the mistake of stating very early in the pandemic that Hx had potential. There were quite a few that claimed ivermectin had significant benefit which was wrong. The being said the vast majority of false and disinformation came from government agencies, specifically the CDC. I havent looked recently, but as of the end of 2022, the CDC still listed approx 20 discredited studies claiming that masks worked.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump was an idiot, but his admin did not distribute disinformation that I'm aware of.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 9 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Trump was an idiot, but his admin did not distribute disinformation that I’m aware of.

Sacastro - That explains why you are part of the target audience for the disinformation.

Anyone with basic math and science knowledge was aware of the extensive promotion of false information by the CDC during covid.

As others have pointed out, the CDC and other government agencies were a prime source of disinformation, especially with the discredited masking studies and the effectiveness of the covid vaccines. Limited duration of effectiveness and very low reduction in transmission.

[Nige]

‘I specifically addressed the distortions and academic fraud associated with the effectiveness of masking as promoted by the CDC and other government agencies.’

Yes, people need to be able to critically read media that makes claims like yours

'The being said the vast majority of false and disinformation came from government agencies,'

And this. People spread the belief that the vaccine was poison being used to cull the human population.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige 15 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User

"And this. People spread the belief that the vaccine was poison being used to cull the human population."

Nige - the only person making that statement is Nige - A typical lie by nige

[Nige]

'the only person making that statement is Nige'

Rewriting history - always trust guys who rewrite history when they claim other people are spreading misinformation.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige 37 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
‘the only person making that statement is Nige’

Rewriting history – always trust guys who rewrite history when they claim other people are spreading misinformation.

Nige - Making a false accusation does not absolve you of making a false accusation.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone with basic math and science knowledge was aware of the extensive promotion of false information by the CDC during covid.

Joe_dallas, still under the delusion that high school algebra makes him a virologist.

[Nige]

'Making a false accusation does not absolve you of making a false accusation.'

Stop making them, then.

[Nige]

'I think the argument would be'

An argument would require some basis in fact, an examination of what the course actually consists of. Immediate invocations of 1984 aren't that.

[Nelson]

"I think the argument would be that they wouldn’t really be teaching the skills necessary to identify false information"

But that would be a knee-jerk, baseless argument. How would that go? "I think California is awful, so any class they offer is pure propaganda"?

"but instead teaching students to ignore unapproved sources of information"

Examples of the ways in which false information is manufactured and distributed, using real-world sites like InfoWars and groups like Project Veritas, would be highly informative.

So would sites about issues that are saturated with false information, like GMOs and nuclear power.

It's a bad idea to assume that everyone in the world is a dishonest partisan hellbent on manipulating people. It also sounds pretty paranoid.

[Randy Sax]

Depends on how it's implemented. We had something similar when I was in high skool. If it's straight up "learn our propaganda" then I agree with you, but if it's teaching a more general skepticism then I think it can be beneficial. In AP statistics we had a lesson on how to lie with poll results.
ex. Do you like ice cream?
a. fuck ya. 56%
b. yes. 12%
c. no. 32%
Headline, "When asked 20% more said no, rather then yes when asked if they liked ice cream"

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the odds of it being a general skepticism in California of all places are somewhere between nil and none. If they were to teach general skepticism it would immediately blow up in their faces, given how much crap they're teaching that would be subject to it.

[bernard11]

IOW, you're paranoid.

[bernard11]

1984 has arrived with a vengeance.

I don't get the objection.

Why is teaching children to think critically about what they see in the media bad idea?

I mean, you might take the Bellmore view that anything a liberal government does is part of a left-wing plot to subvert democracy, but that's pretty crazy.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you mistake me: I think government schools in general, not just left-wing ones, are indoctrination centers. Mandatory government schools were introduced in America for that very purpose, and explicitly so.

Teaching children to think critically about what they see in the media is a great idea. I just don't see government schools in general, and left-wing government schools in particular, to want actual skeptical reasoning sills in children.

[Nige]

'I think government schools in general, not just left-wing ones, are indoctrination centers.'

I think making education and indoctrination synonymous is going to be used as justification for some ridicuously awful private education.

[bernard11]

As I said, this is really irrational.

Do you want children to just sop up whatever they read, or hear on TV? Or in class?

Because that's what you are asking for.

[shawn_dude]

Since when is teaching applied critical thought to students "1984?"

[VinniUSMC]

Schools are removing upper level courses, limiting access for students to move ahead, lowering requirements, etc in the name of "equity". But sure, they're definitely worried about teaching "critical thought".

A "Fake News" class in California is going to sound like most of the broken commenters here chanting "Faux News!"

[Sarcastr0]

Are schools doing this? Or are a few schools across the country doing something kinda like that and you've read an opinion article tying it to DEI?

[Nelson]

"Schools are removing upper level courses, limiting access for students to move ahead, lowering requirements, etc in the name of “equity”."

Where, exactly, are schools doing this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think history will show that Israel was too reliant on technology and that the US military has the same vulnerability. Take GPS and all the weapons that rely on it -- take out three (maybe even two) key satellites and they are useless. The orbits are known so you know which ones and both Russia & China can do this.

Same thing with all the digital communications, etc.

People under the age of 30 can't even read a map -- let alone draw one...

[Mr. Bumble]

Just curious; what do Russia and China use to guide their weapons?

[Michael Ejercito]

It is not even a matter of taking out the satellites themselves.

Signal jamming can work wonders.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought Hedy Lamar solved that problem during WWII.

[Brett Bellmore]

GPS satellites use absurdly low power levels. (About 50W, I believe.) That's why you lose your reception so easily.

Spread spectrum is jamming resistant, not jamming proof: Put out enough noise in the band where it's operating, and you can overwhelm it. Thanks to the low power level, it's perfectly feasible to locally jam it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does Musk's StarLink constellation have GPS capabilities?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not precisely, last I heard, though researchers have demonstrated that you can use the signals to replicate GPS functionality, without actually having an account; Just using the signals themselves as data.

Now that Starlink has actually achieved a positive cash flow, Musk might reconsider and add that capability directly.

[Michael P]

No, although using "signals of opportunity" like those for location is an area of active research.

Europe operates the GPS-comparable Galileo constellation. China has BeiDou. Russia has GLONASS. India and Japan have regional systems. US military systems presumably don't use Galileo, and technically Americans need USG permission (that has only been granted for Galileo) to use any of them. https://www.gps.gov/spectrum/foreign/

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, the advantage of spread spectrum is that as it involves jumping between multiple frequencies, it is very difficult to intercept as you have no idea which frequency will be used when.

The vulnerability of it is that if you just jam one of the frequencies, you can corrupt the transmission because the portions that are sent on the jammed frequency won't get through. That might be missing words in an analog transmission, but in a digital transmission, you might not get *anything* through.

Something similar happens with marine VHF radios in very rough weather -- the antenna, on top of the pitching boat, is moving so violently that it isn't in the same place when the wave finishes coming off the antenna -- this changes your wavelength. It's analog so you get most of what the person is saying, and there are protocols knowing this is going to happen.

[Brett Bellmore]

There’s more than one version of spread spectrum. You’re describing “frequency hopping” spread spectrum.

We went over the various approaches to spread spectrum in my Fourier analysis class yearsdecades ago, and did Direct Sequence in detail. It’s a perfect illustration of the technique. (My bro, who was an Airforce avionics technician at the time, really freaked out that I knew how it worked; He’d thought it was top secret!)

[Bwaaah]

"The vulnerability of it is that if you just jam one of the frequencies, you can corrupt the transmission because the portions that are sent on the jammed frequency won’t get through."

Wireless digital protocols include "collision detection" and retransmission, if necessary. In frequency hopping protocols, they tend to retransmit on a different frequency. Retries continue until the "packet" gets through, ultimately relying on verification of receipt in a confirmation message from the receiver.

[Michael P]

Navigation signals are one-way broadcasts, with forward error coding but no retransmission schemes.

(An older version of BeiDou required users to submit their observation data to Chinese servers which would calculate the position and send that to the user. I suspect they've changed that in the current version, but even then there was no retransmission.)

[Voize]

Ed writes:

Something similar happens with marine VHF radios in very rough weather

followed by blaming poor reception on Doppler-effect detuning of the transmitted signal due to antenna motion.

A fine opportunity to exercise the skepticism being discussed elsewhere in these comments. Aviation VHF radio uses similar frequencies and channel widths and those antennae routinely move at 0.7 Mach or better without the claimed detuning effect, so I doubt this explanation. A much more likely one is that the whip antennas used for marine radio radiate and receive most strongly at 90° to the antenna axis, and when the antenna pitches well off vertical in a rough sea it can be much less effective in the horizontal plane.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The airplane is traveling at 0.7 mach in a straight line... -- can you imagine what would happen if it were randomly moving in all three dimensions? Forgetting the ability to remain airborne, it would rip itself apart -- and the G forces would kill everyone inside...

A better example is a police car going 90 MPH down the road, it's tall whip antenna is bent backwards and likely not as efficient, but it's not moving so the place where the antenna was when the wave started coming off the antenna is the same as where it is when it ends.

Now I will grant two other things -- first, moisture (including rain) sucks radio waves out of the air -- I know there is a more scientific term for it, but it happens. And while FM isn't bothered by lightning the way that AM is, if there is enough lightning close enough, it does.

Second, you can't transmit through water, and if you are in a troth, you are going to have a wall of water in all four directions. First time I saw it, it was freaky as hell -- in all directions, all you could see was a mountain of blue water. I was going by a bell bouy, which was banging away like a demented banshee -- I could hear it over the wind, but never saw it -- and I was maybe 75 feet away from it.

I remember one situation where we had to send up an airplane because waves were such that the boat in trouble (two idiots in an outboard) couldn't communicate directly with the boats we sent out to rescue them. Everyone could talk to the airplane, which was a straight line of sight upwards, and it could talk to everyone via a straight shot downward. But none of the boats could talk to each other.

Yes, you are right about the antenna axis, but the reason why I say frequency is that the marine band is between what used to be TV Channels 6 & 7 -- and we'd cause interference there, so we weren't always on the frequency we were supposed to be on....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I thought Hedy Lamar solved that problem during WWII.

That's HEDLEY!!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem with signal jamming is that you are telling the enemy where you are -- we've had missiles that home in on electronic signals since Vietnam.

[Michael P]

Is launching an anti-satellite missile stealthier than jamming a low-power signal?

[Dr. Ed 2]

My guess is that it will be a lot healthier for your personnel, particularly if you have either a mobile rocket launcher or evacuate the site after launching. Even without that, it won't be like having a signal for a missile to follow all the way to the ground.

As to stealth, my guess would be about the same. The other side would be able to pick up the jamming...

[Krayt]

Late 1990. "Saddam has six GPS jammers in Bagdhad. US weapons won't work! Oh no!"

War starts. Six rooftops immediately blow up as brodcasting shit is easy to track.

US weapons will always be better and there are many ways other than GPS. It wouldn't surprise me if dead reckoning still existed. That was how Nav sysems in cars ran. Still do in concrete canyons.

[John F. Carr]

Inertial navigation was around long before GPS. The disadvantage is cost. The one inertial navigation module I found available for sale was around $4,000 per unit while GPS is embedded into devices that retail for a tenth as much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Version I heard was that our cruise missiles back then used TV cameras and that we had to fly them over Iran to get a navigational fix off the Iranian mountains before going to Bagdad. Not sure if that is true but it makes sense -- they were testing the then-new cruise missiles in Maine in the late '80s.

As long as there is redundancy, we are OK -- my fear is that it is way cheaper not to have it, and hence we don't....

[Dr. Ed 2]

During WWII, everyone used math. Calculate where an artillery shell should land, have your forward observer tell you where it *did* land, and then "walk" it back. (You would initially intentionally overshoot the target.) Bombing was woefully inaccurate, and the attitude with the initial ICBMs was that a nuke can be off by a few miles and no one is going to notice.

Starting in the late 1970s, we and the Soviets went in two different directions. The US approach was to hit the actual target while the Soviet approach was to take out the grid square -- destroy *everything* in the general vicinity of the target, including the target. In part this is because we had the technology they didn't and in part it was a different attitude towards collateral damage.

[John F. Carr]

Karl Schwarzschild is famous for producing the first exact nontrivial solution of Einstein's field equations. He went on to serve in German army doing artillery calculations.

[Michael P]

GPS doesn't have "key" satellites like you describe -- if three quasi-adjacent satellites all failed, some polar areas might have reduced availability but the bigger effect would be a patch of decreased accuracy that constantly moves as the satellites orbit. And the Space Force has on-orbit spares, anyway. https://navcen.uscg.gov/gps-constellation shows the constellation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GPS_satellites lists what is available. They promise 24 satellites 95% of the time, but now use a "27 slot" configuration that actually has 31 normally active. (PS: You can go read the GPS SPS PS if you want statistics.)

[Zarniwoop]

Per usual, Ed's imagination-knowledge about the US Military is a decade (or more) behind reality (emphasis added):

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

In 2011, GPS jamming at the civilian level became a governmental concern.[11] The relative ease in ability to jam these systems has motivated the military to reduce navigation dependence on GPS technology.[12] Because inertial navigation sensors do not depend on radio signals unlike GPS, they cannot be jammed.[13] In 2012, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory reported a method to merge measurements from 10 pairs of MEMS gyroscope and accelerometers (plus occasional GPS), reducing the positional error by two thirds for a projectile. The algorithm can correct for systemic biases in individual sensors, using both GPS and a heuristic based on the gun-firing acceleration force. If one sensor consistently over or underestimates distance, the system can adjust the corrupted sensor's contributions to the final calculation.[14]

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
From an interview with Mr. Taibbi:
I was raised as a traditional journalist, so I’m not supposed to care about which way the facts break. My job is supposed to be narrowly focused on, “Is this true? Can I prove that? And if so, I’ll put it out there.” And then the public can figure out what to do with that information. But now there is a new idea, which is we have to think about how the public is going to perceive this information. Is it going to cause them to vote for the wrong person? Is it going to cause them to avoid being vaccinated? So they call information that is true but has a so-called adverse consequence malinformation, which is an Orwellian idea. We found countless examples of this in the files.

[Sarcastr0]

At this point, those that cite to the twitter files as proof of twitter colluding with the government have not actually read the twitter files.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but of course, you have?

[Sarcastr0]

The lion's share, yeah.

The Taibi, Weiss, and Lee Fang ones.

They don't establish any kind of government collusions. It's all breathless winding up and then no payoff.
The later ones even show government requests getting shut down all the time.

[Heedless]

So only most of the time?

Did you know that the government is also suppressing all knowledge of existence of true Scotsmen?

[Sarcastr0]

No you are being dumb.

When you ask Twitter to take something down and they sometimes comply does that make them an agent of you?

The revelation that the government asks Twitter to do things and they consider it is not sinister or surprising and was not the promised revelation of the Twitter files.

[David Nieporent]

A "traditional journalist" would not have acted as a stenographer for Elon Musk.

[Absaroka]

My wife was a teacher. There are a couple of minutes at the beginning of class when you can't teach ... bell hasn't rung, kids still arriving, taking roll, etc. She would put up some current affairs article on the overhead display. Most would be more or less legit, but she'd slip in the odd article from The Onion or similar. It was amazing how many kids came to her class completely credulous. They left at least a little less so.

And 'How to Lie with Statistics' ought to be required reading.

[Mr. Bumble]

Figures lie and liars figure?

[bernard11]

Exactly.

Which is why students should become statistically literate.

Personally, I think a year of probability and statistics should be required, at least at the university level, but most would consider that overkill. I'd settle for a basic one-semester class designed to teach what some of the (many) misleading ways of using those topics are.

[Absaroka]

"probability and statistics should be required"

I agree. I tutored a neighbor kid through high school (algebra/trig/precalc). My sense was that stats/probability would generally be more useful than, say trig.

And, specifically, not a dry 'here is how to do a t-test'. A practical course on how to read that article saying "New Study Shows...", covering p-hacking, sample size, biased samples (inadvertent of cherry picking), etc.

[Randy Sax]

One of my favorite questions is:
Ask the first 100 students through the door at skool if they think that being late should come with harsher punishments.

If you can't point out the flaw here, then I think you shouldn't be able to graduate.

[bernard11]

Very good example.

[bernard11]

Yes.

A few simple things they should learn:

Once you are past very small numbers Population size doesn't matter in choosing sample size.

Samples should be rando, and explain all the ways they might not be.

Making a biased sample bigger doesn't fix the bias.

Polls that the media say show a "statistical dead heat" do not in fact show a statistical dead heat (unless the numbers are equal, of course.)

The dice have no memory. Nor does the coin. Sometimes the cards do, but not always, and not after a shuffle.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glad we could agree on something. Now if we could just get schools to teach reading and math rather than DEI we might get somewhere.

[jimc5499]

I had to take a Statistics class for my Engineering degree. We primarily looked at data collection for Statistical Process Control. One thing that we looked at was erroneous or miss-represented data. This is where we touched on “How to Lie With Statistics”. Another subject was defining data by the accuracy of the equipment or process that collected it. In my opinion this is the biggest reason that I think the Global Warming bit is BS. They are talking about tenths or hundredths of a degree when the equipment to measure temperature that accurately, has only been in wide spread use for the last 40-50 years. Hardly time to get an accurate baseline.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even a couple XKCD cartoons would help.

Maybe start by discussing this one.

Then this, to remind the students you can be a bit too skeptical.

[Joe_dallas]

"Gov. Gavin Newsom last month signed Assembly Bill 873, which requires the state to add media literacy to curriculum frameworks for English language arts, science, math and history-social studies, rolling out gradually beginning next year. Instead of a stand-alone class, the topic will be woven into existing classes and lessons throughout the school year."

California schools should be concentrating on solid math , science and history curriculum. Developing skills and knowledge in those subjects is what is required to have the critical skills necessary recognize the misinformation they claim they are wanting to fight

[shawn_dude]

Since when is critical thinking, especially of media, not useful for science and history?

One of the most useful classes I took in college was graduate level marketing course that described marketing strategies and how to recognize the ways marketers try to manipulate their audience.

Why would conservatives not want all citizens armed with the ability to critically consider information rather than take it with blind faith?

[Joe_dallas]

shawn_dude 33 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Since when is critical thinking, especially of media, not useful for science and history?"

Shawn - that was my point - develop better math, science and history skills first so that you have the knowledge to ascertain the reasonableness of claims, whether is from the media or supposedly scientific studies.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For years, I have been trying to sell critical analysis of historical methods on this blog. So far, almost zero takers. And that's by the standard of calling someone engaged if they ask even one cogent question, or offer any insightful critique at all. Right wingers especially seem to think critical analysis of history is some kind of trick.

[VinniUSMC]

You seem to be entirely incapable of critical analysis. That's why nobody is buying what you're selling.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 15 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
For years, I have been trying to sell critical analysis of historical methods on this blog."

Lathrop - you would have considerably more credibility in you method of historical analysis if you didnt follow Stevens approach to history in his heller dissent which is where Stevens denied the existence of considerable historical evidence of both the common defence and self defence. Halbrook has documented considerable contrary evidence.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The question of whether Georgia's electronic voting system has major cybersecurity flaws that amount to a violation of voters' constitutional rights to cast their votes and have those votes accurately counted is set to be decided at trial early next year."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/voting-machines-georgia-lawsuit/2023/11/12/id/1141994/

The case goes back to 2017 and Judge Amy Tottenburg has set Jan. 9 as the date for a bench trial.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their total freakout over Trump's people getting a look at the software tells you everything you need to know: They're relying on security through obscurity. That's where you use a system you know isn't secure, and try to simply keep people from knowing enough about it to hack it.

Security through obscurity never works for any system of significant scale, not the least because you never manage to retain the obscurity. These machines are all over the place, the idea that the software has actually been kept secret is absurd, to the point where it's actually insulting that they expect people to believe it.

They're just trying to keep it secret enough to maintain the illusion that it's secure. They'd have already lost that war if the media hadn't decided that "voting machines can be hacked" is disinformation, officially false even if objectively true.

[Brett Bellmore]

Expert report fuels election doubts as Georgia waits to update voting software

"Halderman was was given access to the voting machines by the federal judge in the case, and he argues in his report that the state’s ballot-marking devices are vulnerable to election fraud, including vote switching.

The warnings are stark, suggesting that Georgia’s voting machines could be manipulated by bad actors in mere minutes. Halderman argued that attackers could alter the QR codes on printed ballots, and install malware on individual voting machines “with only brief physical access.” They could attack the broader voting system if they have the same access as certain county-level election officials, his report said."

Georgia and Dominion's response is that nobody would have the level of access needed to pull this off. Well, nobody but the election workers themselves... They intend to run next year's election under the existing insecure system, and just demand that people trust it.

[Moderation4ever]

You are imaging a vast conspiracy of election workers to change thousands of machines and yet keep the conspiracy silent. Go back to Benjamin Franklin, a man considered the first American, who said "two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead".

[Mr. Bumble]

The GA 2020 election was decided by less than 12,000 votes.
No "vast" conspiracy necessary.

[Sarcastr0]

Just a bit of time travel is all you need.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 thinks we don't remember how long it takes to count votes in these Democrat strongholds.

[Sarcastr0]

At that point why deal with the voting machines?

[Michael P]

At what point? The point where you know approximately what the votes are in the rest of the state? One would tamper with the canonical records in order to not easily be caught out with fabricated counts. That's not a function of when one tampers with the records.

[Sarcastr0]

How would you get caught? Seems one conspiracy is as good as another at this point.

Unserious.

[Michael P]

Yes, we know you are.

Among other ways, one could get caught by submitting counts that disagree with the underlying records. With all-digital voting machines, the underlying records are much more malleable than paper ballots.

[Brett Bellmore]

Really, nobody has yet found a system that beats scantron. Media marked directly by the voter, individual voting stations are dirt cheap, the ballot gets scanned as you insert it into the ballot box and kicked back out if you made a mistake like double voting an office. And the ballots remain a durable record of actual voter intent, capable of being human read with minimal technical assistance.

But electronic voting machines have become a big business with a lot of money available for kickbacks.

[Sarcastr0]

I did some checking around, Brett, and I have a hard time disagreeing with you on this point.

I'm probably not as dramatic as you as to the upshot of using voting machines, but I think we agree as to where the best policy lies.

[Absaroka]

"nobody has yet found a system that beats scantron."

That's what we use!

For our mail in voting :-).

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’m probably not as dramatic as you as to the upshot of using voting machines, but I think we agree as to where the best policy lies."

I think where we probably disagree is less the voting technology, than the relative weight that ought to be put on chain of custody; I think we're under-investing in making sure the ballot you're counting was actually filled out by the person whose vote it supposedly represents, and that ballots filled out by voters actually get counted.

I'd be happy to spend a lot more on election administration if it bought more chain of custody, and fewer questionable voting machines.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Michael P: "With all-digital voting machines, the underlying records are much more malleable than paper ballots."

Even if that were true, in 2020 only 4 states used that type of voting for all voters: Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, and South Carolina. Some states use all-digital voting in a few precincts, and a handful of states use similar type systems for accessibility. I think everyone will be using paper ballots and optical scanners in a few years. You get the quick results, and the written ballots for recounts or audits.

[Michael P]

Alpheus, it's no coincidence that we were discussing one of those states in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

Really, nobody has yet found a system that beats scantron. Media marked directly by the voter,

As the Sharpie 'controversy' in Arizona proved, when people want to make bad faith arguments, no system will forestall them.

[jimc5499]

The PA 2020 election was decided by 80,555 votes. Take that and look at Philadelphia precincts that reported over 100% turnout and some of them didn't have a single vote for Trump. The documentary "2,000 Mules" had over half of those 2,000 in Philadelphia alone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Typically when you see "over 100% turnout" it's due to permitting election day registration.

And there genuinely are a fair number of precincts in the country that return no Republican votes. I don't think it's because they're faking the election returns. Maybe it's because they've made it REALLY clear that Republicans aren't welcome, and drove them all away?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

2,000 Mules was garbage. I cannot believe anyone would actually use that for reference. It was made-up bullshit, start to finish.

[David Nieporent]

There were no precincts anywhere in the United States that reported over 100% turnout. "2000 Mules" was no more a documentary than Guardians of the Galaxy was. And there were not more than 1,000 precincts in Philadelphia where Trump got 0 votes. (There were some, which happens every election cycle. But note that Trump did better in Philadelphia in 2020 than he had in 2016; that's pretty weird if elections officials there were rigging the vote for Biden.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am not imagining a vast conspiracy. The report actually says that the way the machines are set up, you can propagate malware through the system from a single location.

You're imagining that election workers are uniquely trustworthy.

You have to set up election systems so that the people running them don't NEED to be trusted! And if Trump getting his hands on the software is a cosmically dangerous thing, reflect on the fact that every election worker could do the same, with less chance of detection.

That software is already compromised in terms of distribution, it's crazy to think otherwise; Too many people have been in a position of access to it for it to be otherwise.

[jimc5499]

In the 2016 election I was asked to witness a Poll Worker change a woman's ballot. She had selected a straight Republican ticket, yet her vote for President showed her selecting Hilary. This happened in several locations and was explained away as a "calibration error". The strange thing was that this "calibration error" only gave votes to Hilary. A true "error" should have worked both ways. In the 2020 election I selected Trump and it showed Biden. I had to play around a bit before I could select Trump. The selection area for Biden was four times the size as the area for Trump. I've programmed touchscreens, there's no way that was an error. That's how this works. A little bit here, a little bit there. That way if it is caught, the excuse that it wasn't bad enough to affect the election. It isn't until you add it all up that you see the big picture.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, the report I linked to pointed out that there was a known tendency to treat voting machines registering the wrong vote as "user error", so you could actually get away with a fairly heavy thumb on the scale without red flags going up.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

None of that tracks with the type of voting equipment PA was using in 2016. I believe you are a liar.

[Moderation4ever]

The propriety of commercial product is an honored tradition in this country and includes software. The machines are tested against hand counts and in the State of Georgia against a complete hand count, so the suggestion that something was done to alter the count has been disproven. The question is not seeing the software but rather do we have means to check what the software is doing to confirm it is working accurately. I believe we have that check.

[SRG2]

Can you recall a single conspiracy thinker who changed his mind about Georgia's election system after hand counts and audits confirmed that the original computer totals were OK?

[Brett Bellmore]

Such counts were irrelevant to my complaints about altered election procedures, but as noted below, not all hacks are detectable by audits, since you're auditing records the machine itself generated.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying that accessing the software wasn't technically illegal, but if it were actually secure, they'd not have been as horrified.

" The machines are tested against hand counts and in the State of Georgia against a complete hand count, so the suggestion that something was done to alter the count has been disproven."

Security Analysis of Georgia’s ImageCast X Ballot Marking Devices (Redacted)

Some of the hacks could not be detected by such a hand count, because you'd be hand counting records that were actually generated by the machine, potentially without an actual voter's participation. Other hacks wouldn't technically change the vote totals, but would eliminate ballot secrecy, telling the attacker in detail how each voter had voted.

Seriously, the use of general purpose computers for voting machines is just irresponsible.

[Sarcastr0]

You have a decent case for fixing things going forwards, but you gotta look back which is a harder case to make since it involves waving away lack of evidence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lack of evidence is always going to be an issue when you're talking about abuses that can destroy or falsify evidence. But I AM primarily concerned about fixing things going forward.

It's worth noting that Georgia doesn't plan to until AFTER the 2024 election. A lot of their denial of the system being insecure is motivated by a desire not to be forced to fix it in a hurry. So they're just going to do next year's election pretending their aren't any problems.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Isn't worrying about this preventing you from devoting adequate attention to the search for Obama's Kenyan Muslim communist birth certificate, Mr. Bellmore?

Where is your patriotism?

[Sarcastr0]

The lack of evidence means your urgency is not based on much.

I am convinced that there are vulnerabilities; I'm not convinced they are easy to exploit and get away with at scale.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not convinced that people who don't want to replace the machines after vulnerabilities have been proven are the best people to rely upon as to how easy they are to exploit at scale. People always downplay the importance of doing things they don't want to do.

Like I said above, I think there would have been much less of a freakout over Trump having access to a copy of the software, if they were confident that wouldn't enable large scale exploits. This clearly is not a case of, "Well, darn, we have to update our passwords."

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett - the vulnerabilities being pointed out are hard to exploit at scale; they are machine-by-machine for the most part.

Since the Trump folks didn't actually find something, falling back to the 'freakout' is a weak second-best. Lots of reasons a private company might not be thrilled with that other than your very specific scenario.

[Brett Bellmore]

The report I linked to specifically said that, no, it was actually possible to push an exploit out to the whole system. Read section 9, "Installing Malware Remotely".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

As usual, you jump to a ridiculous conclusion. Allow me to offer a more rational one:

The concern that if a candidate happened to discover a vulnerability, they would keep that information to themselves and use it to cheat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The concern that if a candidate happened to discover a vulnerability, they would keep that information to themselves and use it to cheat."

Well, duh. Of course that's the concern. But, like I said, that's security through obscurity, and security through obscurity doesn't work for large scale systems.

Anyway, if it is rational for others to be concerned that Trump might, knowing the software, use it to cheat, why is it not rational for Trump supporters to believe this has already happened, to his disadvantage? Because we're pretending that they had actually kept the software super secret before that 'breach'?

As if: It's been rolled out at way too large a scale to actually be that secure.

[Nige]

'Their total freakout over Trump’s people getting a look at the software tells you everything you need to know'

Yes, that it was incredibly illegal. Also, we know that Trump was willing to engage in fraud and conspiracy to overturn the election. That you think it's odd to freak out about those things tells us everything we need to know about you.

'if the media hadn’t decided that “voting machines can be hacked” is disinformation'

Oh dear, going from the particular lies of Trump and co, to the general does so much heavy lifting for you guys.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you missed it: Tim Scott drops out of Republican primary race.

[Bob from Ohio]

He went to all that trouble to get a girlfriend!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yesterday's Boston Globe had Bibi N's niece badmouthing him.
She claims to be pro Israel and yet does this in time of war.

My grandmother framed Franklin Roosevelt with a toilet seat -- but once we were attacked and the war started, everything changed.

The woman's a dual citizen and professor at Providence College in RI, she has every right to do this (as I do to condemn her for it), and if the Globe leaned any further to the left, it'd fall over. Why is t relevant that she's related to Bibi N's wife???

I'm sure if we dug deep enough, we'd find someone with a similar degree of kinship to Biden who'd condemn him. Maybe someone related to his first wife or something. The woman is a professor at a Catholic college most famous for a fatal dorm fire back in the 1970s, yet she's at the top of Section B1 leveling quite personal attacks at Bibi N because she's related to his wife.

[Martinned]

Trump agrees with her: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/politics/trump-criticizes-netanyahu-hamas-attack/index.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is losing it....

[Brett Bellmore]

I've thought he was losing it for a year now. It's a shame, I thought he was a pretty good President, and would have done good things with a second term.

But he's on the same road as Biden, I think. Just a little ways behind him. Remember how we actually amended the Constitution to add Presidential term limits after FDR finally died? Maybe we can add an upper age limit, once Trump and Biden are out of the way.

[Martinned]

Like many such changes, including ones that are much more desirable than an upper age limit for office holders, it may well be possible to introduce one as long as they don't kick in for a sufficiently long time.

For Presidents you might have the rule enter into force in 2036, say. For the Supreme Court, you'd have to push it further into the future still.

[Brett Bellmore]

FDR stroked out in April of '45, the 22nd amendment emerged from Congress in just under 2 years after. So you can pull something off quickly if there's widespread agreement.

I suspect you'll have that agreement on age limits after the 2024 election; Either Biden or Trump would be term limited out, and we're temporarily at a lack of popular ancient geezers coming up behind them.

[Martinned]

There will be a lot of "ancient geezers" in Congress and governor's mansions in the next few years who won't want to vote in favour of an amendment that prevents them from running for President.

[Brett Bellmore]

The answer is fairly straightforward: The left's current horror, a constitutional convention to bypass Congress.

[Martinned]

It doesn't really matter. Either way you need a significant supermajority, which you're not going to get if you're trying to get turkeys to vote on whether to have turkey for dinner.

[Brett Bellmore]

You don't need a supermajority in Congress for a constitutional convention. A simple majority could vote that enough states had called for one. The supermajority is needed on the ratification end, but that happens at the state level. And it's Congress that is currently the bottle neck for constitutional amendments, not the states.

[Martinned]

I think that's the wrong way to think about it. No amendment that isn't supported by at least the leadership of one major party and a substantial minority of the other will pass. State parties aren't that independent.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's easy to say they're not that independent, when it hasn't yet been tested. Let's test that proposition.

[Krayt]

I don't want a constitutional convention.

"This convention will come to order, bang bang."

[Looks out at the delegates.] "Aren't these supposed to be the states? Why is it all federal power mongers, the exact people we do not want doing this?"

[Sarcastr0]

Reasons why this won't happen
-status quo bias
-how much of our nationalism is caught up in the genius of our Constitution
-partisan fear of the strength of the other side
-advocates like you calling it 'the left's current horror'
-advocates positing it's as a sliver bullet which smells like overreach

[Stephen Lathrop]

You left out:

After the first gavel falls to convene the assembly, everything in American governance goes up for grabs, including the question who may qualify as a delegate, the agenda of the convention, and the standards for ratification.

Maybe it makes sense to be cautious about that.

[bernard11]

The answer is fairly straightforward: The left’s current horror, a constitutional convention to bypass Congress.

I don't know about the "current horror."

I do know a convention would be an utter disaster.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is a geezer; Mick Jagger or Mitch McConnel?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think McConnell is much of a threat as a Presidential candidate at this point; They keep having to reboot him, one of these times he's just going to stay locked up.

[Martinned]

It depends on where you want to set the age limit. You may well be able to get a 100 year old limit through. But not a lot of Senators over 70 are going to vote for an age limit of 80, for example.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd go for 70, actually. Remember, we want them to still have a mind after 8 years in office, not just at the beginning. And 70 is, conveniently, twice 35.

Over two thirds of the Senate aren't over 70, though.

[bernard11]

Remember, we want them to still have a mind after 8 years in office,

Then make it 74. A 71-year-old could still run once, but would be age-limited out of a second term.

[Randy Sax]

I don't think age limits will address the underlying problem. The current two-party winner takes all system will keep producing widely disliked candidates. Regardless of age.

[Brett Bellmore]

That doesn't mean we have to allow senile widely disliked candidates.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're in favor of removing half of the Congress?

[Randy Sax]

I'm no fan of senile politicians either. But I think you end up playing game of whack-a-mole. Age limits solves the senile problem, but what about stoke victims? Other cognitive disabilities? How far do you go? In the end it is up to the voters to decide who they want to represent them. If you don't like old people in charge, don't vote for them. Maybe convince other people not to vote for them. And for the love of god, institute congressional term limits.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the end, you look at which problems are frequent, and which are rare. I'd say senility in Congress is a bigger issue than stroke victims, though we might consider regular cognitive testing if it could be assured to be unbiased.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, this is interesting:
Jacob Chansley, the Jan. 6 "Shaman" is planning to run for Congress.

[David Nieporent]

I don't quite understand how you went from "let the voters decide" to " term limits" in the space of two sentences.

[Nige]

[Dan Schiavetta]

It seems to be only conservative politicians who have family who consider them classless whores.

There's Trump (Mary) and Paul Gosar.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you count the Kennedys as conservatives.

[Michael P]

Also Malik Obama. And perhaps George Clinton.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its the family members who are "classless ".

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators...Tomorrow (Tuesday 11/14), there is a 'March for Israel' on the National Mall in Washington DC (1-3). Wear your blue and white, and loudly and proudly support Israel in their ongoing war against Judeocidal terrorists. Hope to see you there. 🙂

Weather: A little chilly (58 is forecast high), a little windy (10-15mph). Dress warmly, bring a light jacket.

Commenter_XY doesn't mind paying for good, quality food. Any good places 'off the beaten path' near the National Mall for breakfast or lunch? What's a good place to nosh? I tend to organic, and protein...not so so much on carbs (I might have a piece of toast with eggs). Suggestions?

[Mr. Bumble]

Good luck. Hope the police keep the thugs at bay.

[Ed Grinberg]

This. The people who run Washtington DC belong to the same political party as the people who run Charlottesville VA. In 2017, the latter stood by while Antifa thugs violently disrupted a "permitted" rally (see here). If the former like "anti-Zionists" as much as the latter like Antifa, the marchers tomorrow will need lots of luck...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Downstairs at Union Station might be an option.

[Michael P]

The National Mall environs are pretty much the definition of "beaten path". There are a lot of good places in Penn Quarter and at The Wharf, but they're all going to be busy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hear Suella Braverman will be free to join her fellow wingnuts.

[Mr. Bumble]

The love of money is the root of all evil.
Please forgive the long post taken from PowerLine:

Posted on November 12, 2023 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Anti-Semitism, Protests, Riots
Why Didn’t MIT Expel Violent Students?

Some of the worst anti-Semitic campus outbursts of recent weeks have been at MIT. Pro-genocide activists physically prevented Jewish students from attending classes, and refused to disperse when ordered to do so by university officials. Normally you would assume that a student who engaged in such barbaric conduct would be expelled. Yet MIT has treated its anti-Semites with kid gloves. Why?

MIT’s President Sally Kornbluth has now made a statement that apparently explains MIT’s inaction:

“After exhausting all other avenues for de-escalating the situation, we informed all protesters that they must leave the lobby area within a set time, or they would be subject to suspension,” wrote Kornbluth.

“Many chose to leave, and I appreciate their cooperation. Some did not. Members of my team have been in dialogue with students all day.

Anyone who uses the formula “in dialogue with” should be fired for abusing the English language.

Because we later heard serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues, we have decided, as an interim action, that the students who remained after the deadline will be suspended from non-academic campus activities. The students will remain enrolled at MIT and will be able to attend academic classes and labs.”

There you have it: the pro-genocide students (or many of them, anyway) are non-Americans, most likely from the Middle East. They have brought their unAmerican attitudes with them to this country. MIT doesn’t want them to be deported, likely in part, at least, because they are rich kids who pay full freight. Foreign students are a cash cow for universities, often being nearly the only ones who pay the university’s sticker price. So for MIT, left-wing ideology and financial interest probably go hand in hand.

[ThePublius]

I read this when published, with great interest. The part that stood out to me was the president's statement "Because we later heard serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues, we have decided, as an interim action, that the students who remained after the deadline will be suspended from non-academic campus activities." Excuse me? So, while their conduct deserved expulsion, you're looking at what happens to expelled students and softening your response? She should have expelled them and let the chips fall where them may. Such horsecrap.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hear, hear.

And if any US citizens were expelled, they now have a very strong discrimination suit. Supported from the mouth of the school president.

[Don Nico]

No one was expelled. No one was suspended.
Why don't you get facts before speaking.

[Michael P]

Before I saw President Kornbluth's comment, I wondered whether MIT had incurred liability under Title VI, and if not, what would trigger such liability.

Her statement makes it look like MIT is complicit in antisemitism.

[Don Nico]

Which statement by Kornbluth (which date)?
I don't know of any liability under Title VI, but she was warned about such possible liability.

[Michael P]

The statement that Mr. Bumble quoted above, where Kornbluth explained that MIT wasn't actually going to enforce any meaningful sanctions against these students because it cares more about their money than about Jewish students being excluded from participation in MIT's educational programs.

[Don Nico]

"Her statement makes it look like MIT is complicit in antisemitism"
Why complicit?
Do you care to explain further based on what you don't know about last Thursday's demonstration?

[Zarniwoop]

Anyone who uses the formula “in dialogue with” should be fired for abusing the English language.

As a MIT alum, I can assure you that no matter what the context, politics or otherwise, “abusing the English language” is not a disqualifier at the ‘tvte.

You may be thinking of Hahvahd.

[Ed Grinberg]

Because we later heard serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues, we have decided, as an interim action, that the students who remained after the deadline will be suspended from non-academic campus activities. The students will remain enrolled at MIT and will be able to attend academic classes and labs.”

compare (Wall Street Journal, 2017):

Manhattan D.A. ... to Stop Prosecuting Subway-Fare Evaders
The Manhattan district attorney’s office says it has...stopped prosecuting subway-fare evaders... The move, announced this summer, has ignited a citywide debate about how to handle a minor crime once central to New York City policing. ... State Sen. Jesse Hamilton and Assemblywoman Tremaine Wright, both Democrats, introduced legislation in March that would decriminalize turnstile jumping under state law. For the NYPD, thwarting fare evasion since the early ’90s has been a cornerstone of broken-windows policing, the idea that focusing on minor offenses prevents more serious ones. But decades later, things have changed, [Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus] Vance said. “We can’t ignore what’s going on around us and prosecute using the same policies that we used in the 1980s,” he said in an interview. Today, officials are more attuned to the fact that some of these offenders suffer from mental illness, and furthermore, convictions could lead to deportation for undocumented immigrants, Mr. Vance said.

Of course, a murder conviction would also "lead to deportation for undocumented immigrants." I don't know whether Mr. Vance refused to prosecute foreign murderers, but apparently they're safe from being expelled by MIT!

[Don Nico]

“but apparently they’re safe from being expelled by MIT!” A snide comment that is more BS.
Ed, why didn't you cite what other disciplinary action remains under consideration. That spoils your propaganda.

[Don Nico]

"MIT’s President Sally Kornbluth has now made a statement that apparently explains MIT’s inaction:"
Explains inaction is a typical propaganda ploy.
Her letter explained what happened and what was done.
I note that the cases of students who dis not obey the order to disperse has been handed to a disciplinary committee. But Bumble and Powerline don't tell us that.

[Don Nico]

For those who wish to read an unedited version of letter:
Dear members of the MIT community,
I want to describe some events that occurred at MIT today and reflect briefly on what they mean for our community.
As many of you know, starting at 8:00 this morning, Lobby 7 and the opening of the Infinite Corridor were the site of significant protest and eventually counterprotest. I am deliberately not specifying the viewpoints, as the issue at hand is not the substance of the views but where and how they were expressed.
Yesterday, Vice Chancellor and Dean for Student Life Suzy Nelson sent a letter to all students reminding them of the boundaries for protest on our campus, including the prohibition against the use of Lobby 7 for demonstrations, and making clear that it is not acceptable to disrupt the work of the Institute. Those guidelines were also personally conveyed to the organizers.
Today’s protest – which became disruptive, loud and sustained through the morning hours – was organized and conducted in defiance of those MIT guidelines and policies. Some students from both the protest and counterprotest may have violated other MIT policies, as well.
In late morning, the face-to-face confrontation between the protesters and counterprotesters intensified. We had serious concerns that it could lead to violence. To prevent further escalation and protect the physical safety of everyone present – including both student protesters and passers-by in our busiest lobby – the administration felt it was essential to take action.
After exhausting all other avenues for de-escalating the situation, we informed all protesters that they must leave the lobby area within a set time, or they would be subject to suspension. Many chose to leave, and I appreciate their cooperation. Some did not. Members of my team have been in dialogue with students all day. Because we later heard serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues, we have decided, as an interim action, that the students who remained after the deadline will be suspended from non-academic campus activities. The students will remain enrolled at MIT and will be able to attend academic classes and labs. We will refer this interim action to the Ad Hoc Complaint Response Team, which includes the chair of the Committee on Discipline, for final adjudication
Note that MIT has also received additional complaints about conduct by individual protesters and counterprotesters, and will be following up on those promptly.
As I have affirmed many times, MIT staunchly supports the right to free expression for everyone at MIT. However, as the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom makes clear, “the time, place, and manner of protected expression, including organized protests, may be restrained so as not to disrupt the essential activities of the Institute.”
We have set that boundary to protect the safety of our community, so that all of us may express our views in places and ways that do not interfere with MIT’s essential mission. In that spirit, I’m especially heartened by an effort from faculty to develop a Day of Dialogue, which we would expect students involved in the protest and counterprotest to attend.
I know this is a time of great strain for many of you. I feel it too. I appreciate every effort to practice compassion, to exercise self-restraint and to respect each other’s humanity.

[Don Nico]

Bravo for France.
"More than 100,000 demonstrators in Paris and cities across France took to the streets on Sunday to show their solidarity with the country’s Jews and to deplore antisemitic acts that have multiplied across the nation since Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7."

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a contrast to Great Britain.

[Michael P]

In most of Europe, they would have been outnumbered by pro-Hamas counterprotesters.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/11/israels-response-to-october-7-massacre-triggers-virulent-antisemitic-pro-hamas-demonstrations-across-europe/

[Martinned]

If you think "pro-Hamas" is the only other option, that says more about you than about the world in general.

[Michael P]

And your comment says more about you than me.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Martinned is right. Pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine are two things that can be wildly different, regardless of your ignorant proclamations.

One of them can even be different than anti-Israel.

Maybe save the bigotry for later in the week.

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, we can call the antisemitic bigots like you out now. No need to wait.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I've called you out for your hatred, but I don't support Hamas. Your slur is out of line.

It's unfortunate that you're too far gone to imagine any perspectives other than a false dichotomy. You've never bothered to ask my position on the matter, yet you arrogantly assume to know it.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right: I hate Judeocidal Hamas terrorists. Not a bit sorry about that. I hope they all die -- slow or quick, doesn't matter. They're still dead.

You're still an antisemitic bigot.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Since you seem to have problems comprehending, I will repeat myself:

I don’t support Hamas.

I think you're a callous asshole full of hatred and delusions, but you thankfully don't represent anything or anyone other than yourself.

I have nothing against Jews or Judaism. You specifically however, can go fuck off.

[Michael P]

Sadly, we are getting very vivid lessons in who today's little Oswald Mosleys, Vidkun Quislings, and Adolf Eichmanns are.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I agree. Commenter_XY's crazy-Ivan towards genocide and authoritarianism has been illuminating.

Anything short of "Israel can do anything and everything it wants without repercussion or judgment" is reflexively met with idiotic accusations of anti-Semitism.

It's odd that you're both so insistent on trying to make enemies.

[David Nieporent]

Martinned is right. Pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine are two things that can be wildly different, regardless of your ignorant proclamations.

"America First! We're not pro-Nazi; we're just pro-Germany."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You appear to be claiming that someone cannot support Palestine without also condoning terrorism. Are you also ignorant enough to think that 'pro-Palestine' implicitly and exclusively means 'anti-Israel' too?

Does someone who approves of the two-State solution support Hamas, since one of those two States is Palestine and you just implied Palestine cannot be supported without also supporting Hamas?

When was a vote taken on those phrases to where your narrow, ignorant definition of them was deemed the only possible interpretation?

The only term around here that should have a universal understanding is that "pro-Hamas" means approving of terrorism. Thankfully I haven't seen anyone here supporting that.

[David Nieporent]

It is reasonable to distinguish, even in wartime, between the government of a country and the people of a country. It is not reasonable in wartime to distinguish between the government of a country and the country itself. (But of course Hamas is the government (de facto) only of Gaza, not the West Bank.)

Of course, being against Germany in the 1940s did not mean one wanted to see the country wiped off the map. But it did mean one wanted to see the country utterly defeated. And I would find it passing strange to describe that as "pro-Germany."

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly, their leader Macron seemed morally confused over the weekend.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yeah, he seems bothered by the bombing deaths of Palestinian children.

Guys like Commenter_XY will have none of that.

For a while, anyway . . .

[Commenter_XY]

He came to his senses. Arthur, you going to be in DC tomorrow? Commenter_XY would actually buy you a drink (or a bagel). 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am scheduled to attend a charitable event on Tuesday. I will not have an opportunity to observe whether that rally is a partisan warmongering event celebrating civilian deaths or (let's hope) something better.

[Commenter_XY]

That is too bad Arthur, because this Clinger would have enjoyed bending an elbow with his replacer. 🙂

[Ed Grinberg]

For a while, anyway . . .

Is that more of your exterminationist rhetoric, Arthur? The U.S. progressive version of “From the river to the sea…”?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I refer to the likelihood that partisan warmongers will be begging the American mainstream to reconsider soon enough, promising to change their ways (and abandon immoral positions) in exchange for a resumption of subsidies.

[shawn_dude]

The US version of that was "manifest destiny."

[Michael P]

NBC reports that Ron DeSantis has not taken a second job as a pilot shuttling people back from Israel: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/11/12/flight-risk-nbc-warns-viewers-that-desantis-did-not-personally-fly-back-americans-from-israel/

[Michael P]

It's always "too soon" to talk about the cause of a majority of murders in the US.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/las-vegas-teen-beaten-death-mob-attackers-outside-high-school

[OtisAH]

The majority cause of murder in the US is being beaten to death by a mob?

[Michael P]

You are as brilliantly insightful as ever.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps you'd share with us the cause you're positing? Because I didn't see any cause jumping out from that article.

[Defenderz]

That black males are the cause of most of our violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

Plenty of black males in my mixed race neighborhood, and we have a very low crime rate locally. I don't think it's actually race related, it's just that blacks are disproportionately members of a violent sub-culture for reasons of historical path dependence. The whites who are members of that subculture are no prize, either.

[Randy Sax]

Crime follows poverty. In the trailer park as in the ghetto.

[Mr. Bumble]

I guess that explains Biden's criminal streak.

[Martinned]

Americans discriminate against ethnic minorities and against poor people. And those two are mutually reinforcing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get your head out of your ass. Ethnic minorities and the poor are discriminated against the world over.

[Nige]

Welcome to the woke mob.

[Martinned]

I don't think that's the defence you think it is. Also, in the rest of the world we have a welfare state that aims to secure every resident a vaguely humane existence. In the US, nobody cares about providing poor people with a humane existence, because too many poor people are "those people".

[Randy Sax]

Would you include white people in majority black neighborhoods in that over-simplification?

[Sarcastr0]

I can't speak for Martinned, but neighborhood is absolutely something that can be a headwind in and of itself regardless of actual merit and other demographic factors.

[Martinned]

Policy isn't set at the neighbourhood level. At the Federal and state level, abstracted from actual realities, voters and their politicians work from the assumption that poor people are typically black or brown, and that black and brown people are typically poor. As a result, no one is willing to help either.

[Life of Brian]

I don’t think it’s actually race related, it’s just that blacks are disproportionately members of a violent sub-culture for reasons of historical path dependence.

Agree. Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" walks through this in great detail if you haven't read it.

[Michael P]

There's a slice of our society that sees serious violence as a legitimate way of settling minor conflicts. Leftists never want to confront it because they're both contributors to, and beneficiaries of, that trend.

[Sarcastr0]

Is that slice blacks, or immigrants?

Probably both; Michael seems like a broad-spectrum bigot.

[Michael P]

That slice is leftist, as I said. Other identity group membership is, as Brett pointed out, correlation rather than causation.

Your continued projection is noted.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn’t think your take would be leftism is responsible for the majority of murder in the US.

That’s both crazy and dumb. But at least not racist!

At least I think that’s your take. You are still being coy.

[shawn_dude]

Heh. Because conservatives, who fight for access to fully automatic (or similar, see: bumpstocks) rifles with large magazines, believe that even violent abusers should get to keep their weapons. And when they cannot get their way, they storm the Capitol, seek out hated politicians to hang, and smear their poo on the walls.

Come to think of it, "smearing poo" seems to be a conservative go-to here on Reason as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

The majority of murders in the US are caused by murderers. How complicated is that?

[Sarcastr0]

Why so coy?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why so coy?

He may be afraid of irritating Prof. Volokh, who likes to cover the "Black crime" beat personally around here.

[Martinned]

For the first time since the Falklands War, the UK once again has a Lord Prime Minister: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/13/david-cameron-returns-to-uk-government-as-foreign-secretary

There is probably a convention that the Prime Minister should sit in the House of Commons, ever since Alec Douglas-Home gave up his seat in the Lords and entered the Commons when he became prime minister. For the other High Offices of State it's less obvious, with the Foreign Office the least objectionable. The Foreign Secretary doesn't spend a huge amount of time in parliament as it is, since they typically don't promote much legislation, and don't tend to do things that are ideologically sensitive.

[Martinned]

Sorry, that should say "Lord Foreign Secretary" obviously. Sunak isn't going anywhere.

[Bob from Ohio]

"should say “Lord Foreign Secretary”

“Lord Foreign Secretary” is not grammatically correct. Maybe “Foreign Secretary who is a Lord” but "Foreign Secretary who is a peer" is the right usage.

DC is just a silly "life peer".

[Martinned]

Google suggests it's not very common parlance, particularly once you drop the "Lord, foreign secretary" results out of the list. But I wouldn't say it's grammatically incorrect.

[SRG2]

The convention that the PM is from the Commons not the Lords goes further back than Alec Douglas-Home. After Chamberlain resigned in 1940, the favoured replacement was Lord Halifax but the convention was considered strong enough even in a time of war for Churchill to be appointed instead.

[Martinned]

Arthur Balfour, of Balfour Declaration fame, was PM 1902 to 1905 and later returned as Foreign Secretary in 1917.

[Martinned]

Separately, someone should probably explain to the New York Times that it is not, in fact, legally required for a government minister to hold a seat in parliament. Aforementioned Alec Douglas-Home was appointed as PM 19 October 1963, gave up his peerage on the 23rd, and won a seat in the House of Commons on 7 November. Not having a seat in either house of parliament in no way prevented him from being Prime Minister.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/world/europe/david-cameron-mp-parliament-uk-lord-foreign-secretary.html

[Martinned]

In fact, between the dissolution of a parliament and the election of a new one all government ministers who are not peers hold their office without a seat in parliament.

[Ed Grinberg]

re: the "evil" colonialists and their saintly "victims"
https://vdare.com/articles/derb-s-october-diary-10-items-the-british-empire-for-and-against-orwell-in-burma-racism-against-derb-etc-etc#05

[Y]ou find "lazy and banal" my point that the [British] empire was like any long-standing state in harbouring evils and injustices. But that was merely the elementary stage in the larger argument, clearly stated in the Conclusion, which you overlooked. That concludes that the British Empire wasn’t "essentially" racist and murderous and that it contained growing humanitarian and liberal elements, which found climactic expression when, between May 1940 and June 1941, the empire stood alone (with Greece) as the only military opposition to the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi Berlin.

Today, where does the Third World (the so-called "developing countries," both Muslim and non-Muslim) stand vis-a-vis the constitutionally (Google "Hamas Charter") murderous racist regime in Gaza? Why, they're behind it all the way! Western journalists are warning that U.S. support for Israel (in its fight against Hamas) "risks eroding U.S. standing in the global south"! (see here)

[Sarcastr0]

Fucking VDare?

I'll click through to some awful shit, but don't have time for that today.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wouldn't want to contaminate your spotless mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Love it when people go after liberals who go to VC for being the closed minded ones.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In fairness to the clingers, many of them are sentient enough to recognize that we're here mostly to mock them and to enjoy watching them react to get stomped by better Americans in the culture war.

[apedad]

I dunno Rev....

They think that Trump is looking out for their interests too so let's not give them too much credit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You think I give these knuckle-draggers too much credit?

Maybe so.

[Ed Grinberg]

liberals who go to VC

You should get a medal!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Victory in the culture war is sufficient. No medals required.

[Sarcastr0]

I should, but not for that.

[apedad]

I have, but not for that.

[Ridgeway]

Derbyshire is generally worth reading. While most would view him as a "racist" in the conventional sense of the word, he is generally not mean-spirited, and he is definitely not dumb.

[Moderation4ever]

I like to revisit the Republican's position on abortion, after the November 2023 election and the last debate, especially as this is likely to be important in elections for the next several cycles. The Republicans have campaigned for years as prolife hypocrites, focusing on laws to make abortion access for poor women while leaving it intact for people like themselves. When they finally succeed in giving it back to the state, they find out people in those states liked Roe and want it back. Some Republicans respond that pure democracy is bad and what is need is democracy at the level of power we control.

In addition, a number of Republican candidates including the front runner peddle the idea that abortions can take place in the ninth month of a pregnancy. A pure falsehood. Doctors don't abort in the ninth month and the lack of a law prohibiting it does not change the fact.

The Republican stand on abortion shows the fallacy of their claim to be for less government intervention and that the party is somehow more libertarian than the Democrats.

[Defenderz]

If doctors don't abort in the ninth month, then a law prohibiting partial birth abortion would have no effect, so what's the harm?

[Moderation4ever]

So, we should make laws for things that don't happen? So much for small government.

[Life of Brian]

So, we should make laws for things that don’t happen?

We make laws for all sorts of things that we don't want to happen, regardless of whether they already have. As one straightforward example, 18 USC 832 makes it unlawful to use radiological weapons (dirty bombs) in the US.

So what's the problem with a similar measure for 9th-month abortions?

[Bob from Ohio]

They know it happens, that is why they don't want to ban it,

[Nelson]

"They know it happens"

No one knows that. Reasonable people don't even assume it.

I challenge you to identify a single case of a 9th-month abortion that wasn't medically justified. Name just one elective, 36-40 week abortion. Or 32-40 week. Or even 28-40 week.

If you're so sure it happens, it shouldn't be tough to find one.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It almost never happens and, when it does, it is very nearly always to protect the life or health of the mother given a non-viable fetus. If you think it happens with any frequency and/or involves healthy fetuses being aborted merely for convenience, you're the one with the burden. Easy access to contraceptives and prenatal care plus safe and effective early term abortion access virtually eliminates, if it would not in fact eliminate, 9th month abortions of viable fetuses.

People oppose whatever unstated 9th-month law you want because, it would appear, you just want to force women unlucky enough to be in danger of dying if they give birth to a non-viable fetus to have to give birth.

[Life of Brian]

"Almost never" . . . "with any frequency" . . . "very nearly always" . . . "virtually eliminates."

Kudos for retaining a kernel of honesty, despite surrounding it with a swirl of minimization.

Would you support a law that barred those 9th-month abortions of viable fetuses?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Would you support a law that barred those 9th-month abortions of viable fetuses?"

Without exceptions? No.

[Life of Brian]

Exceptions for what?

[NOVA Lawyer]

The life of the mother, definitely. Probably very rare with a viable fetus at 9 months, but, nonetheless, any instance where a pregnant woman and her physician were faced with the choice between saving the mother or the baby, that's a decision the mother should make.

And why does a law need to be made? Are you aware of any healthy, viable pregnancies that posed no threat to the life or health of the mother that were intentionally terminated with the assistance of a physician?

(Women do, though very rarely, kill their own newborns, which is clearly illegal, and, obviously, there are going to be similar or slightly lower numbers of women who abort late in pregnancy without medical assistance. But finding a physician to go along with that seems highly unlikely (you both have to have a woman who didn't abort earlier but now wants to abort a viable, healthy fetus and she has to find one of the very few physicians who would do that which, given the socio-economic and psychological profile of the women seeking those services, seems unlikely they'd very often have the sort of resources necessary to find and procure those services). Are you aware of any documented instances of that happening?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Guttmacher institute: Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?

Note this caveat: "Our study has several important limitations. Our data are limited by the exclusion of women who sought later abortions on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

So, every single woman they surveyed was seeking an abortion for other than medical reasons... Typically, they were women who would have had an elective abortion earlier, but just ran into some obstacle, so they had their elective abortion later in pregnancy.

Needless to say, the Guttmacher institute isn't a pro-life organization. But they say that late term abortions are generally for exactly the same reasons as earlier abortions, very few are medically necessary.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett with an entirely irrelevant link.

You assert: “But they say that late term abortions are generally for exactly the same reasons as earlier abortions, very few are medically necessary.”

This thread has been about very later term abortions, specifically, abortions that happened (or more likely don’t) in the 9th month. You’ve cited a study that compares abortions prior to 20 weeks with abortions at 20-27 weeks. We know this because the facilities had gestational limits past which they would not perform abortions: “Gestational age limits at these clinics ranged from 10 weeks to the end of the second trimester; 16 sites had a limit beyond 20 weeks.”

Read that again. No facilities offered abortions after the end of the second trimester which ends at 27 weeks. That’s 6.75 months, at most, not 9 months.

But the study you cite is worth noting, the most common reasons for delay were:

1. Raising money for the procedure. (Don’t like later abortions? Support funding for reproductive care including early term abortions or, as ML would have it, non-abortion inducement of delivery of a non-viable fetus (?!).)

2. Not knowing about the pregnancy. (Again, ensuring poor and socioeconomically disadvantaged women have access to health care would improve these numbers.)

3. Difficulty getting insurance coverage. (One more time: Support assistance for reproductive health care for women and you’ll see fewer second trimester abortions.)

What hasn’t been shown are women going to abortion clinics or other health care facilities to terminate pregnancies with healthy, viable fetuses in the 8th or 9th month. Citing to links that don’t have anything to do with that are irrelevant to this thread, Brett.

[Life of Brian]

The life of the mother, definitely. Probably very rare with a viable fetus at 9 months

I wondered how you were going to try to thread that needle. I suspect you'd have to do a lot of angel pinhead dancing indeed to come up with a scenario where the baby being killed and then removed would somehow save the life of the mother where removing the baby alive would not. To borrow your line: Are you aware of any documented instances of that happening?

And why does a law need to be made?

So now you're looping back to what I think is an exceptionally weak argument from M4E that I already answered before you entered the thread.

Again, we want to deter people from the monstrous, reprehensible act of killing fully viable human beings. Arguing that we shouldn't do so because I can't prove it happens very much (hints of sociopathy aside) belies your confidence in its supposed rarity.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“I suspect you’d have to do a lot of angel pinhead dancing indeed to come up with a scenario where the baby being killed and then removed would somehow save the life of the mother where removing the baby alive would not.”

Given millions of people, there has only to be a one in several tens of millions chance for there to be a scenario which justifies the exception.

The whole 9th month argument is angels on pins discussion as well. No one has shown that pregnant mothers abort healthy, viable fetuses in the 9th month of pregnancy. In fact, no one has even shown that anyone aborts fetuses of any sort in the 9th month of pregnancy.

But the reason I want the exception is precisely because I believe the sociopathic mother who waits until month 9 to abort a health fetus has got to be exceedingly rare and the one who goes to a licensed physician to have the procedure in the 9th month rarer still and the licensed physician who will do that for her likely non-existent.

Instead, the arguments likely will revolve around whether the fetus is healthy/viable. You have people in these comment threads advocating for delivering non-viable, first trimester fetuses just to let them suffer to death (because any life, however short and painful, outside the womb is worth subjecting the fetus to). These people and their ilk would happily visit pain and suffering on a mother and a second or third trimester fetus that could only live a painful, if sentient at all, week or two, or even just minutes, if delivered, rather than allow an abortion.

People sometimes discover relatively late in their pregnancy (which actually means, at the latest, week 27-28 or so) that they have a non-viable fetus that will be dangerous to deliver. Without proper exceptions for the life and health of the mother, there will people who want to prosecute mothers and their physicians in these difficult circumstances. I’d rather leave the medical decisions to the mother and her doctor, confident that it is highly unlikely that a sociopathic mother and sociopathic doctor will meet up in the 9th month of her pregnancy to abort a healthy baby. If my confidence is unwarranted, it shouldn’t be hard to produce examples of 9th month abortions of healthy babies.

What the best available stats do show is 99.98% are performed in or prior to week 26. It’s also a typical curve for the available data with the vast majority of abortions (90+%) performed at or before week 13. Meaning, the tail of the distribution is rapidly approaching zero by week 26 and it’s not plausible that there are typically any abortions beyond week 30, much less into the 36th-40th weeks (because there are also factors, such as the unlikelihood of finding a willing facility and/or physician, which likely cuts the tail off completely close to week 28. The hypothetical ban without exception for abortions in month 9 is a law in search of a problem to deter, not an actual solution to anything that is happening.

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that the law you cited, and a ninth month abortion band are both unnecessary. We already have laws that prohibit using bombs. Bombings have occurred. These general laws have been used to prosecute people and would clearly cover nuclear bombs.

[Life of Brian]

We already have laws that prohibit using bombs. Bombings have occurred. These general laws have been used to prosecute people and would clearly cover nuclear bombs.

Under that logic, we don't need those bombing-related laws at all -- just general weapons would be fine. Or maybe just "don't hurt people or else, yo" could cover it all.

To be clear, radiological weapons are different than nuclear weapons. It's a relatively low-power conventional bomb that spreads nuclear material far and wide. Kills you real slow like. I don't personally have any issue with an extra-juicy deterrent statute on the books for that, or one for the next Kermit Gosnell.

[Nelson]

So pass laws just because? I thought the idea was to have less government, not more.

Plus, of course, the "if it isn't happening, why not?" argument is disingenuous and false eveey time it's used, on any topic.

There always needs to be a reason to write and pass legislation. First, identify and quantify the problem. Then, if necessary, address it with a law.

[Jerry B.]

Well, the stated position of Republican candidates in Virginia was abortion on demand up to 15 weeks, and for rape, incest, and to protect the mother's health.

Democratic TV ads related this as a complete ban on abortion with no exceptions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Republicans will continue to be at a terrible disadvantage so long as the Democrats control most media outlets. Doesn't matter if your position is popular, and your opponents' is unpopular, if your opponent controls what the voters learn about it.

[apedad]

Not only that Brett but the federal govt also ACTIVELY promotes - WITH TAX PAYER FUNDS - voting for Democrat politicians.

On March 7, 2021, Executive Order on Promoting Access to Voting, President Joe Biden instructed every federal agency to submit a plan to leverage their agency’s personnel and assets to help turn out the vote. For example, agencies might use internal data to identify aid recipients who are not registered to vote, then use agency personnel to get them registered and ensure their ballot is cast and counted.

Anyone who criticizes GOTV efforts gets accused of wanting to suppress voting. But it’s not voting to which we should object – it’s the exclusive collection of ballots from Democratic voting blocks.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-republicans-dont-understand-about-biden-really-wins-elections

You guys are so screwed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Republicans will continue to be at a terrible disadvantage so long as the Democrats control most media outlets.

Conservatives are on the losing (racist, gay-bashing, transphobic) side of the culture war, the wrong (xenophobic, backward, misogynistic) side of history, and the weaker (poorly educated, superstitious) side at the modern American marketplace of ideas.

Messaging and media access aren't even on the list.

[apedad]

Hey Brett!

Here's another tactic Republicans are trying.

House Republicans are jumping off the sinking ship

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4304344-house-republicans-are-jumping-off-the-sinking-ship/

[damikesc]

1) Don't care
2) I wouldn't trust Juan Williams analysis on anything.

[Nelson]

"Doesn’t matter if your position is popular"

You mean like legal abortion through viability? That's the most popular view in America. Or it was before Dobbs. Now it has shifted later as people rightfully fear that Rs will keep trying to push the line back and back and back. They have shown that they can't be trusted when they say anything even slightly reasonable regarding abortion.

"if your opponent controls what the voters learn about it."

In this day and age, no one controls what voters learn. The thing you and the army of the self-righteous can't accept is that voters understand the abortion issue, they just disagree with anti-abortion positions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You mean like legal abortion through viability? That’s the most popular view in America."

That's bullshit, if by "legal" you mean elective. Poll after poll has shown that support for elective abortion craters after the first trimester, and that people who support abortion being "legal" after that point have non-elective abortion in mind.

[Nelson]

"support for elective abortion craters after the first trimester"

Yes, if you only ask about trimesters. Limiting choices slways splits the moderate cohort in any poll if the decision is too little or too much. That is one of the favorite lie-with-statistics arguments of anti-abortionists.

I personally believe that, morally, 21 weeks (the earliest any fetus has been delivered and survived) is the dividing line. So given the opportunity to support elective abortions through the end of the second trimester (26 weeks), I would respond that I oppose it.

"that people who support abortion being “legal” after that point have non-elective abortion in mind."

How could you possibly know such a thing? You don't. It's just what you want to believe.

Cultural conservatives like you have two major, possibly insurmountable, problems.

First, you are incapable of separating "this is what I believe" from "this is the point where legislation is justified". The arrogance of insisting that the most radical belief is a legitamate basis for legislation is overweening.

The second is that no one trusts you to accept a reasonable compomise. You can't accept that the beliefs of other people have any validity.

If elective abortions were allowed through viability (the dominant belief in America), the pro-choice side would leave it alone. But everyone knows cultural conservatives wouldn't ever accept such a reasonable compromise.

Just like when they said they weren't going to pass draconian abortion bans after Dobbs and then started passing no-exception bans, 6 week bans, 12 week bans, 15 week bans, etc. Texas literally put a bounty out on women and doctors.

That's why opinion has shifted so dramatically to the pro-choice side. That's why anti-abortion measures are getting their asses kicked by voters. That's why pro-choice measures are getting overwhelming support. If conservatives don't start listening to their voters, they're going to lose a lot of winnable elections.

At the end of the day, the pro-choice position is "I wouldn't make that choice for myself because I don't believe it's right, but it's not so clear that forcing someone else is justified.".

The anti-abortion side is, "Fuck you, you're evil. Or you don't understand morals. Or you've been lied to. Or you haven't thought about it. Or ... or ... or ...".

The one thing they'll never say is, "this person has a different moral belief than I do, but it's equally valid". Because they truly are that arrogant.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Jerry B.,

It’s not the “news media” that was misrepresenting, it is you.

As an example, Virginia State Senator Dunnavant (Republican incumbent) lost her seat because of her position on abortion. It did not, as you claim, provide for abortion access after 15 weeks “to protect the mother’s health.” In fact, she only supported exceptions for “rape and incest [and exceptions] when the mother’s life (but not her mental or physical health) is at risk, and in cases of severe fetal anomalies.” Read that again, only “when the mother’s life…is at risk”, not her health, as you falsely claim. Also, these exceptions, she said, would only available until viability (which she said was 22 to 24 weeks) whereas current Virginia law permits abortions until 26 weeks with exceptions for later abortions where the mother’s life or health is at risk. (An accurate summary available from the “liberal” news media: The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/12/abortion-virginia-dunnavant-vanvalkenburg/)

So, no, Republicans did not have very reasonable positions on abortion that voters liked and they just lost because of unfair news coverage of their positions. The news accurately covered their positions as they described them in their own words. Republicans lost in Virginia because voters found their stated positions on women’s health care access to be unreasonable.

But continue to lie to yourself and the internet if it makes you feel better.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ouch.

Very ouch.

[Jerry B.]

Yep. NOVA Lawyer's shoot before aiming was pretty painful.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just see below where I explain to Jerry that Dunnavant was, if anything, a "liberal" outlier among Republicans on the abortion issue, that Republicans did, in January 2023, proposed a "life at conception" bill that would ban nearly all abortions, and Republicans ran "no limits" advertisements falsely claiming Democrats wanted to make late term abortions "the rule and not the exception" which, unlike "ban" language, is patently untrue on any interpretation.

(All Republican plans wanted to ban at least some abortions that are currently legal and some Republican plans wanted to ban all abortions. And there was good reason for Virginia voters to disbelieve Youngkin's promise of a moderate abortion policy when even he said he wanted more but it wasn't currently possible.)

If you aren't ouching, it's because you've slouched away or misunderstand how wrong you were.

[Jerry B.]

I didn't say "News media". I said, "Democratic TV ads".

Perhaps you should learn to read before pontificating.

Also, the Republican platform on abortion, supported by the Governor, was just what I stated. If a few legislators went rogue, that doesn't change the party's stance.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It wasn't one outlier, no matter how many invectives you hurl. Moreover, Dunnavant was more liberal than the average Republican on this issue. She voted against a 15 week ban that didn't have certain exceptions:

“I wish I could vote for this bill,” said Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant, R-Henrico, a practicing OB-GYN who proposed an amendment to the administration bill that would have allowed exceptions up to 24 weeks for fetuses with severe abnormalities. “But without that exception, I’m going to have to vote” against it.

Do you see how wrong you are in pretending Republicans had reasonable positions on abortion that were misrepresented (more than Republicans misrepresented Democratic positions)?

Moreover, Republicans in the Virginia legislature did this in January 2023:

Sen. Travis Hackworth’s Senate Bill 1284, which he described as “a life at conception bill,” offered the most restrictive option, banning all abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk or prior to 20 weeks if an official police report has been filed alleging rape or incest occurred.

And Republicans voted in favor of the bill in Committee (10 votes for, 5 against).

Were you unaware of this or are you just being dishonest? Again.

Yes, Youngkin tried to tack toward the middle with a 15 week ban, but, as noted, voters seem not to have liked his position either. But voters also didn't trust Republicans to adhere to the Youngkin "platform", including because just this year they tried to pass a "life at conception" bill. How misleading were the Democratic ads?

Meanwhile, are you going to suggest that the Republican ads were any more accurate than the Democratic ads?

Before you answer, recall that, in September 2023, "Virginia Republicans ran an ad titled 'No Limits' accusing Democrats of fighting to make late-term abortions 'the rule and not the exception.'". I'll be waiting with bated-breath for your post complaining about how misleading Republican ads on Democrats' abortion position is as, clearly, Democrats support at least some limits and, further, the vast majority of abortions are not late-term abortions and will be under any Democratic proposal.

[NOVA Lawyer]

*the vast majority of abortions are not late-term abortions and the vast majority of abortions will NOT be late-term abortions under any Democratic proposal

[Harvey Mosley]

"...Democrats support at least some limits..."

What legal limits do Democrats support?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Given we're talking about Virginia, for example, I am not aware of any legislation to alter the current law that abortions are not allowed after the second trimester unless there is a threat to the life or health of the mother. If you have quotes of Democrats in Virginia seeking to change the law so there are no legal limits, then produce them.

The most recent measure I know of proposed by the Democrats was House Bill 2941 from 2019 which loosened some of the restrictions, but didn't remove them.

Republicans keep lying about Democratic policy proposals on reproductive rights. The no limits ad was a blatant, unadulterated lie.

[grb]

Nbody trusts Republicans on abortion. They spent years trying to game the system when Roe was still in force using every petty kind of government harassment imaginable. Since Dobbs, they gone with raw government power wherever possible and doubled down on incessent lying everywhere else – often using crude fabrications about ninth-month abortions that exist only in their ghoulish minds:

And in Ohio, they’re already talking about ways to ignore the constitutional referendum by “removing jurisdiction from the judiciary”. The state is so gerrymandered, sizable parts of the GOP caucus feel comfortable thumbing their nose at the voters.

“To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative,” said the mix of fairly new and veteran lawmakers who are all vice-chairs of various House committees. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.”

So whenever a Republican says anything about abortion, the prudent reaction is to expect lying.

[Don Nico]

The sooner Republicans stop talking about abortion, the better off they will be electorally.

[Nelson]

Absolutely. But they fear their base too much, which they have molded into an "accept no compromises" cohort on cultural issues for electoral purposes.

They created this monster, now it's killing them.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

People should stop freaking out about this.

Enforcement nearly always takes courts, and criminal and damages enforcement always does. So jurisdiction stripping is virtually always self-defeating. Moreover, it can't become law as the people of Ohio can simply referendum any bill they don't like.

It's what the kids these days are calling a "nothingburger".

[shawn_dude]

Even assuming all the momentum against jurisdiction-stripping you describe, it wouldn't be a "nothingburger" to the women caught up in it for the several years it would take for all those checks and balances you mention to reverse it. Real harm to real people would happen. See Florida for what happens when the GOP gets tired of the general voters using a 50% referendum to sidestep the idiots they voted into power in the first place. First they upped it from 50 to 60% and now there's a drafted bill to move it to 66.7%. And even when the voters kicked their legislature to the curb and voted to give non-violent felons their right to vote back, the legislature interpreted it in a way that pretty much nullified it.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Aside from spending and revenue (and even these only w/respect to existing law, so they can't be used as a loophole), acts of the General Assembly don't go into effect for 90 days. A petition for referendum may be filed by 6% of voters, in which case the act is suspended from going into effect and considered by voters at the next regular election that is at least 125 days away. Emergency bills may be passed, which are exempt from suspension and referendum, and go into effect immediately. This requires a 2/3 vote of both houses, so it isn't happening here. You are simply wrong in suggesting that anything would take years. A jurisdiction-stripping law wouldn't even enter into force.

And without courts, who will enforce that law? You can't bring criminal penalties without courts, you can't sue doctors without courts. And mandamus and habeas can't be taken away from the supreme court.

Felons are barrable from voting under Art. V Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution.

I try to be polite, but your reply is loaded with error from stem to stern. If you aren't Ohioan, why wouldn't you do your own research? If you are Ohioan, were you paying any attention in high school (or were you educated before 1912)?

[Harvey Mosley]

"So whenever a Republican says anything about abortion, the prudent reaction is to expect lying."

Just like Democrats and gun control.

[Moderation4ever]

So, what your saying is that Virginia Republicans were proposing what is essential the Roe, decision. That not what Republicans promised pro-life voters.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, the stated position of Republican candidates in Virginia was abortion on demand up to 15 weeks, and for rape, incest, and to protect the mother’s health.

My wife had a routine ultrasound at about 18 weeks during our first pregnancy. The fetus was possibly non-viable in utero, and certainly non-viable past 1-2 minutes after birth, due to non-development of the heart and cranium. One of the hardest moments of our lives; I still remember the dead, far-too-long silence of the ultrasound tech before they said "um, I need to go get the doctor".

There wouldn't have been much elevated risk of carrying the fetus to term compared to a normal childbirth; in fact the smaller skull probably would have made the actual delivery easier (that's a guess, the docs never went there). So a lot of pro-life zealots would easily, routinely consider that pregnancy outside the scope of a "health of the mother" exception after 15 weeks. Which is bool and sheet. The government should never be able to order a woman to carry a fetus she knows will die at birth to term.

It was a highly wanted pregnancy. After an abortion at about 21 weeks (confirmation appointment with more ultrasounds, then waiting periods. Yuck.) we went on to have two more - with great results, although I'm having second thoughts now that they're in peak teenagerhood.

Later term abortions are usually a hard and difficult and intensely personal tragedy, and certainly not situations where religious zealots should be inserting their noses with the power of the gov't behind them. So if you tell me the GOP's 15 week proposal is sufficient, you automatically lose my vote and the votes of millions of others. You lose red states like Ohio. Every. Single. Time.

That's the problem the GOP is facing, not "messaging" and "trust".

[Moderation4ever]

My sympathies to your wife and yourself. It is almost impossible for me to image the pain of finding out the child you are expecting is so gravely damaged and has no chance to survive. Thank you for sharing, this is the reality of late abortions that abortion opponents try to hide from the public.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thank you, Zarniwoop, for sharing this intensely personal story that illustrates what these 15-week bans with exceptions only for the life of the mother work.

These are intimate issues of women's health and well-being and should be made by women in consultation with their health care staff and the people they know, love, and trust, rather than by government (or any other) bureaucrats. Republicans pretend that's not the case with their "personhood at conception" zealotry and that's why they continue to lose.

[Defenderz]

Every state that put in a restriction has exceptions for deformities. Stop the bullshit.

[Zarniwoop]

I wish you were correct, but you're not.

A "life of the mother" exception plainly does not cover a fetus that will not be viable at birth (much less "only" deformed at birth), but does not pose a significant additional risk to life if the mother carries the non-viable fetus to full term.

The operative Texas statute is one such example; there are, of course, others:

Sec. 171.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(3) "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.

You are invited to peruse the relevant statutes (TX Health & Safety Code Secs. 171 and 245), and identify the comparable "exception for deformities" that would permit an abortion of a fetus that is non-viable or significantly deformed, but does not pose the risk articulated above.

Put up or STFU.

[theobromophile]

Flip side: my friend has a very wanted pregnancy. Her baby was diagnosed with spina bifida. The pressure to abort was out of control, and completely unlike anything she experienced in her five other pregnancies. Her child is now a thriving elementary school student.

There is a reason people get nervous about "abnormalities," and it's the same reason for the lack of a "health" exception: the exception can swallow the rule.

[Zarniwoop]

I'm happy that your friend apparently lives in a jurisdiction where the choice was between her, her doctor, and any relevant deity she might wish to consult ... and that the government didn't get a vote.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Doctors don’t abort in the ninth month"

There are doctors who do third trimester abortions. You have zero evidence that none of these doctors have done 1 in the 9th month.

You just assume it. But if the law doesn't ban it, it probably happens.

[Zarniwoop]

Then I’m sure it will be trivial for, say, Project Veritas to recruit a woman who is 8 months pregnant and without any complications whatsoever to ask a doctor for a purely elective abortion “because I don’t feel like having a kid anymore” and report on how many schedule an appointment.

But if the law doesn’t ban it, it probably happens.

Speaking of ass-u-me …

[Moderation4ever]

And you have zero evidence that anyone has done a ninth month abortion.

[grb]

According to the CDC, 91 percent of all abortions are performed in the first trimester and 98.7 percent of abortions are performed during the first 20 weeks. Using state data, it’s possible to roughly estimate the percentage of abortions performed in weeks 21-30. Above that, no records are kept, but the numbers are so tiny that they register as 0.00 percent

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/

Here’s some state numbers :

In Minnesota, in 2021, about 1.8 percent of 10,000 abortions took place after 20 weeks. But virtually all of the 161 abortions took place in the 21st, 22nd and 23rd week. Only five took place later — with one in the 28th week. The pattern was similar in 2020, though one abortion took place as late as 35 weeks.

In Virginia, since 2000, state records show an abortion after 28 weeks has been performed only in three years — 2001, 2004 and 2015.

In Texas, in 2021, out of more than 50,000 abortions, only 11 were recorded between 21 and 25 weeks — and two above 26 weeks. And in Oklahoma, in 2021 only six out of more than 5,900 abortions took place after 21 weeks.

Colorado is the home of the Boulder Abortion Clinic, which specializes in late abortions. In 2021, state records show, about 1.8 percent of 11,580 abortions in Colorado took place after 21 weeks, but just 60 took place at 25 weeks or later.

So, yes, the ninth-month abortion meme is a total fiction. It’s the anti-choice movement’s desperate attempt to find popularity – even if based on the crudest propaganda lies. And the cases above in Minnesota, Virginia, Oklahoma and Colorado? I’m betting you find a horrible personal decision and tragedy behind each one. Not that anti-abortion-types care. Any movement so grotesquely evil it would force a child to carry her rapist’s baby has no regard for human suffering.

[Bob from Ohio]

"60 took place at 25 weeks or later."

"or later"

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are you all in on an incredibly pedantic point that somewhere in the U.S., over the past 50 years, there was a 9th month abortion? Sure.

But was the fetus viable outside the womb? Doubtful. None of the ones we know about were viable or you would simply cite to proof.

This kind of lying (pretending 9th month abortions are a huge problem that requires new legislation and which pro-choice government officials are ignoring because they like killing babies, or whatever your theory is) is the reason anti-choice advocates keep losing, and losing, and losing. The public knows better. There are not hordes of women who willingly wait until the 9th month and then go find a doctor to abort a perfectly healthy fetus.

[grb]

As the quote notes, the Boulder Abortion Clinic is one of the places where women all across the country go when their pregnacy has extreme medical complications. That's why their numbers are larger than the other states.

But (as I noted) you don't give the slightest damn about the pain and misery of women facing brutal decisions.

[Jerry B.]

But we have to protect that 0.1%’s right to abortion at any time.

[Zarniwoop]

You’re fundamentally (and probably intentionally) misrepresenting the argument.

It’s not about “protecting” the 0.1% (or less) of folks who are faced with a truly horrible, no-win scenario when something goes tragically wrong with a wanted pregnancy.

It’s about the GOP’s ongoing lies that use those incredibly rare, incredibly tragic cases to dishonestly portray them as somehow “elective” in order to ban all abortions everywhere.

No woman can simply walk in to Planned Parenthood or the Boulder Abortion Clinic (or even Mordor) at 8mo pregnant and receive a purely elective abortion. That’s just not reality, no matter how often the lie is repeated to gullible fools, and no matter how often Bob from Ohio bleats that “if the law doesn’t ban it, it probably happens”.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Above that, no records are kept,"

I think that's a key point here. All the stats are derived from self-reporting by abortion clinics. I wonder how reliable Gosnell's reports were?

Anyway, what does that clinic in Boulder say about 3rd trimester abortions? "Patients coming in for a later abortion (28 weeks and over) are often seeking services for termination of a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications."

"Often". Wow, that leaves a lot of room for other reasons, doesn't it?

[Nelson]

Gosnell? Seriously? Do anti-abortionists actually believe that a criminal doing illegal abortions is the same as doctors doing legal abortions?

The sad thing is that the answer is yes. You truly believe that there is no difference between a criminal doing illegal things and a non-criminal doing legal things.

[Michael P]

The COVID pandemic led to widespread grade inflation: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/students-grades-may-not-signal-actual-achievement-study-cautions/2023/11

That seems focused on primary and secondary schools, but the resumes I've seen and interviews I've conducted at work indicate that grade inflation was also a problem at colleges.

[Brett Bellmore]

They couldn't admit that remote learning wasn't working for a large contingent of students, the grade inflation was to conceal that. But grade inflation is really hard to back off from, because any effort to end it makes it look like you've gotten radically worse, even if the underlying achievement level was improving.

[Nelson]

You think that grade inflation wasn't a problem until Covid? What rock have you been living under for the past 30 years or so?

And it's always been worse in college. I had legacy kids in my classes that were so dumb they were almost drooling into their soup, yet they somehow kept getting a C- (because Ds didn't earn credit).

[Armchair]

It appears to have rather dramatically spiked, given the report

[shawn_dude]

Since I don't know what sort of people you're hiring, I can only puzzle over why you'd even bother to look at grades. I never ask a recent grad what their GPA was. I skim over it on the resume if it's there. Rather, I have them solve basic coding problems to test what they know and see how they approach and solve puzzles. They may not understand "third normal form" by name but if they can generate a solid entity relationship diagram, I don't care.

GPAs?!

[Armchair]

"I can only puzzle over why you’d even bother to look at grades."

Typically it's used as a sorting mechanism. i.e., "Only resumes with a 3.5 and above will be looked at". Or something like that.

You only have so much time to interview people.

[Michael P]

I don't care much about GPAs. My boss does, so I look. The details of a transcript are usually more interesting.

[Brett Bellmore]

The last time I was asked to evaluate engineering applicants, I had them do some basic calculations in solid geometry. Surprisingly few could do them without a reference book.

[Harvey Mosley]

My youngest was in his senior year of high school during the lockdowns. Not only did he miss out on his last year of band and baseball, but at the end of the school year the district decided that all of the work he (and everyone else) did online was not going to count for grades because some students just didn't do the work.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hamas Is Shooting At Palestinians Trying To Flee Gaza In Evacuation Zones

https://www.dailywire.com/news/netanyahu-hamas-is-shooting-at-palestinians-trying-to-flee-gaza-in-evacuation-zones

What swell guys people around here support. Regular freedom fighters.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Now there's someone with no incentive to lie whatsoever. I'm sure his word can be faithfully taken as unerring truth.

It's certainly possible he's telling the truth, but don't pretend his word is inviolate about anything relating to this war, or the conflict at large.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, we should be taking as fact the reporting in CNN, WAPO, AP etc. who use Hamas affiliated stringers.
Remember when CNN claimed they didn't know their Gaza headquarters was also the headquarters for Hamas?

[Bored Lawyer]

Go ahead, prove him wrong.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm not claiming that he is in fact lying.

Are you genuinely disputing that he has reasons he might choose to do so?

[Armchair]

You are insinuating he is lying,

In addition, you are in effect, supporting the Hamas narrative, by doing the insinuation.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Nothing you said is accurate or correct.

You aren’t capable of having a serious conversation about this topic, and yet you wonder why you’re treated like a fool.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I guess the pictures of shot palestinians on the evac route is not enough for you. Killing your own human shields. Bloodthirsty, and incompetent. No one will miss Hamas when they are gone.

Not to worry, Israel will solve the problem of truly shitty municipal administration in Gaza when they finish obliterating Hamas.

[Brett Bellmore]

I hear the Gazans are starting to turn on Hamas to some extent. Not out of love for Israel, of course, but everybody's hungry and Hamas are conspicuously well fed.

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas has no future. They'll all be dead, soon.

[Brett Bellmore]

"All"? I doubt that very much. Gaza has enough of a population that a significant number of Hamas will be able to disappear, once they decide all is lost. DeHamazification will be a long hard slog, and will not by any means be complete.

And, remember, a lot of Gazans don't favor Hamas because they prefer some worse organization.

[Nige]

If they didn't before, many of them will now.

[Commenter_XY]

True, Brett. The thought of surrender is unbearable to Hamas, and there are many Hamas members who lack the courage to fight it out. They'll flee. But....

There is also the matter of a future 'Hamas Hunt' that will extend worldwide; everyone in Hamas is a target, no matter where they are in the world. Those Hamas members who fled? Israel will nail them later.

De-Hamazification...It is possible, I suppose. Would it be followed by De-PIJ-ification? And De-PLFP-ification? Probably not in this case. Consider the broad support of Judeocide among palestinians in general, and the countries within the region. That sick and amoral cultural belief is not changing anytime soon.

Population transfer is a better path, IMO.

[Nige]

'No one will miss Hamas when they are gone.'

There are about ten thousand and rising who will be missed.

[Nige]

'Yeah, I guess the pictures of shot palestinians on the evac route is not enough for you.'

I would prefer some evidence of who did the shooting.

[Nelson]

"What swell guys people around here support. Regular freedom fighters."

I have yet to see anyone, even Nige, support Hamas. There's a lot of "criticism of Israel is antisemitism" and "support for Palestinians is support for Hamas" fallacies flying around here. But no support for Hamas.

What Israel is doing now is exactly what I feared. They firmly held the moral high ground, but couldn't restrain themselves enough to capitalize on it. They seem hell-bent on reducing Gaza to rubble and following a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" approach to Palestinians.

Although I will admit I'm encouraged by their recent acceptance of humanitarian pauses. They should have done it from the beginning, but better late than never.

They're going to be in Gaza for a while because Hamas has to be destroyed and that will take a long while because of all the tunnels.

[David Nieporent]

What Israel is doing now is exactly what I feared. They firmly held the moral high ground, but couldn’t restrain themselves enough to capitalize on it. They seem hell-bent on reducing Gaza to rubble and following a “kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” approach to Palestinians.

I think that is capitalizing on it.

A worldview that says that one only holds the moral high ground if one is a victim is a disturbed one.

[Nige]

A worldview that sees the moral high ground as a license to kill thousands is, well, a neocon worldview, really. Any recounting of the sufferings of the Palestinians at the hands of Israel is reflexively seen as granting them a moral high ground that justifies terrorism rather than a simple plea for humanity. But appalling suffering the erupts into violence only begets more appalling suffering - see the French Revolution, the slave revolt in Haiti, the Russian Revolution.

[Bored Lawyer]

"They firmly held the moral high ground"

All the world loves a dead Jew. A Jew that defends himself, not so much.

[Nige]

'A Jew that defends himself'

Netanyahu is defending himself from accountability and responsibility, that's for sure.

[apedad]

‘It’s barbaric’: Reward offered after beheaded chickens, dove and rooster found in cemeteries as part of ‘ritualistic sacrifice’

New York authorities are looking for the person or people responsible for chopping the heads off of chickens, a dove and rooster and dumping them off at cemeteries as part of a “ritualistic sacrifice.”

“These findings are indicative of animal sacrifice which involves the killing and offering of an animal as part of a religious ritual,” the (Suffolk County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Facebook post said.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/its-barbaric-reward-offered-after-beheaded-chickens-dove-and-rooster-found-in-cemeteries-as-part-of-ritualistic-sacrifice/

I'm guessing if you had chickens in your backyard in Suffolk (NY) County, you could kill and eat them.

And the story only highlights the "ritual" part not the dumping of dead animals in unauthorized areas.

So VC Libertarians! OK to kill animals for “ritualistic sacrifice?”

[Bored Lawyer]

Yeah, the Supreme Court ought to take up that issue.

Oh, wait . . .
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/

[apedad]

Thanks!

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, if anyone remembers Ricky Ricardo's signature song, Babalu, that was actually a song about Santeria, the religion at the heart of the SCOTUS case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babal%C3%BA

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be Desi Arnaz. Ricky Ricardo was his character on I Love Lucy.

[Brett Bellmore]

And Babalu was that character's signature song. Your point?

[Mr. Bumble]

It was Dezi's before it was Ricky's.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, I was unaware of that. I guess it makes sense they hired somebody who could fill the role...

[Ridgeway]

Desi Arnaz was pretty famous before I Love Lucy. Ricky Ricardo is just a thinly-veiled fictionalization of the real-life Arnaz.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was born in '59, if not for I Love Lucy I'd never have heard of Desi Arnaz.

[Kenneth Almquist]

It's the other way around: the Ricky Ricardo character was written to be played by Dezi Arnaz. CBS wanted to star Lucille Ball in a television show, but Lucille didn't fancy being separated from her husaband, Dezi Arnaz, who would presumably be touring with his band while Lucille would be in Hollywood filming. So Lucille and Dezi pitched a comedy to CBS in which Lucille and Dezi would play thinly veiled versions of themselves as a couple trying to make a marriage work when both partners had successful show business careers. CBS rejected the pitch.

Lucille and Dezi did a rewrite. In order to make it easier for the average American to relate to the characters, Lucy became an ordinary housewife with fantasies of a show biz career. Ricky went from successful musician to marginally successful but still struggling. And to convince CBS that a marriage between a Hispanic man and a white woman wouldn't turn off viewers, they spent a summer performing the material on the vaudeville circuit. CBS bought the show (but not the rerun rights), and the rest is history.

[Commenter_XY]

Unrelated: Ungar's was amazing.

Never, ever buying jar again. Never again! 🙂

[Bored Lawyer]

Glad to hear it.

[bernard11]

Huh?

[Commenter_XY]

Bernard11...The merits of a baked fish loaf for gefilte fish, versus the jars you can buy. I tried Ungar's, using a recipe from Jaime Geller - outstanding.

Next up: A&B (another brand). I'll do a writeup.

[Brett Bellmore]

Imagine my surprise to find out I make gefilte fish, when I had no idea what it was. (Until I looked it up, I'd assumed it was something like pickled herring, a favorite of mine.)

Something similar is pretty common in Asian cooking, where you take the fish meat, mix it with various things, then stuff the fish skin to cook it in.

[Bored Lawyer]

Gefilte fish literally means “filled fish.” It was originally made the way you say — chop up the fish meat, mix with other ingredients, and stuff back into the fish skin. For some time, however, most recipes just make the stuffing and then cook them in either balls, ovals or loaves which are then sliced. No restuffing into the skin. But the name still stuck.

(Kind of like many people who make “stuffing” for Thanksgiving, but rather than stuff the turkey, bake it in a casserole. That’s not really “stuffing,” but the name stuck.)

[ThePublius]

Questions:
1. Is fascism a movement from the right or the left?
2. Is Nazism a movement from the right or the left?

[Bored Lawyer]

And why does that matter? They are both very bad political systems.

[ThePublius]

Why does anything matter? Why does history matter, or people's perceptions, or assignment of fault or responsibility, predictions of future behavior, and so on?

Because it does!

Let me ask you - why wouldn't it matter? Or, as Hill put it, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" All the difference in the world.

[Krayt]

It's been 80 years since we killed fascists in Europe and the Pacific. Now it seems little more than hyperbole to beat political opposition over the head with.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bomb thrower.
(Both are historically from the left)

[ThePublius]

No, I'm genuinely interested in people's views on this, and their argument or justification for their view.

[grb]

My view?

Facism/Nazism are primarily right-wing movements, as wittnessed by their admirers and adherents worldwide, both in the 30s/40s and after. Still, facism is a hard term to nail down precisely, because it seems to be a kit of parts rather than a detailed systematic movement.

The only caveat against fascism being exclusively right-wing lies in some economic components. However that's because fascism has no ideological interest in economics aside from concentrating state power. Certainly that was the case with Hitler, who ran an early Nazi party all over the map, economics-wise, and (bloodly) rejected its hardcore socialist wing not for reasons of ideology but to solidify support (or acquiescence) to Nazi rule by Germany's elite business class.

Indeed, to the extent you can trust Albert Speer on anything, he said Hitler had no interest in or serious knowledge of economics.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's the difference between fascism, nazism and communism?
Is communism from the right?

[grb]

The ideological foundation of fascism is blood & soil nationalism and the glorification of war. The ideological foundation of communism is state-enforced economic egalitarianism and the elimination of private economic power. The first one is commonly held to be from the Right; the scond from the Left.

Obviously, once you get beyond the root driving force of each, there is overlap. For instance, both require total state power to achieve their goals. Both require glorification of the state (though with facism this becomes almost fetishtic). And the same tools of totalitarian rule are used by both. But they spring from separate ideological origins.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But they spring from separate ideological origins."

...and in the real world merge to become almost indistinguishable
from each other.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "…and in the real world merge to become almost indistinguishable"

Yes and no. The number of people who confuse a facist and communist regime? Zero. The number of people on the far-right who mistakenly cheer communist countries because they're "indistinguishable" from facist ones? Zero. The number of people on the far-left who mistakenly cheer facist governments? Zero.

So even though they're "indistinguishable", it seems like EVERYONE can distinguish them. I guess it's like pornography - you just know it when you see it. That said, both operate from the totalitarian playbook and so do a lot of similar things.

[Nige]

'The number of people on the far-left who mistakenly cheer facist governments? Zero.'

I've seen a tendency for the far-left to support Putin, and to defend Trump and join in with pandemic trutherism, largely because they're anti-US, and anti-globalist, which they see as an extension of US hegemony, more than they are anti-fascist. Not sure they're mistaking one thing for another, but they're definitely down with some of the the more right-wing authoritarian types. I expect explicit support for Hamas would be found there as well.

[grb]

Nige : " .... largely because they’re anti-US .... "

On something like Russia-Ukraine you often see an exact symmetry between Far-Left and far-Right. They use the same rhetoric and make the same points. Of course both loathe the U.S. so much that any opposing leader or issue gains automatic support.

I'm not sure that works with Israel-Hamas. There other narratives separate the two ideological extremes and prevent common ground.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Soviet Union under Brezhnev was fascist.

End of discussion.

[Nige]

On Hamas, I think the far right just go silent. They hardly like Arabs much more than they like Jews, but they’re probably keen on all Jews moving to one place where they’re mired in endless conflict. They're certainly not going to protest the destruction of Gaza.

[Commenter_XY]

Ha! Potter Stewart rules. I use them frequently, myself grb. 🙂

[myself]

The core idea of Communism is economic equality, and enforcing that equality through the state. That's one of the key contradictions in communism. The philosophy hates hierarchies but needs very strong government to enforce its policies. That's why its always the General Secretary or Chairman of the party in charge, to make it seem a bit more egalitarian. But even at its most authoritarian the control was about maintaining power more than ideology.

In contrast, the core idea of Fascism is the individual must serve the tribe. This sounds superficially similar but they have very different objectives. Communism is obsessed with wealth while Fascism is obsessed with obedience. You obey the ones in charge and fulfill your role to help the group. That's where you see the right-wing influence. Opposition to LGBTQ? That's because they refuse to play their proper roles. The Nazis practiced a much more extreme version of simply exterminating the ones who didn't fit in (rhetoric that sometimes shows up in right-wing extremists).

For leadership it's all about clear hierarchies, so you not only have a powerful President, but you have one less tied to the party. Putin runs as an Independent to demonstrate that he's the one in charge, and not the party. Similarly, Trump makes a show of thwarting the GOP to show that he's the one in charge.

Anyway, for reference, Trump's recent veteran's day speech/post is pretty damn fascist.

[Brett Bellmore]

But in the end the differences end up being largely cosmetic, because the practical requirements of running a totalitarian regime force them to converge on largely the same behavior.

In practice, the biggest difference between them is that the communists went in for the government openly owning the means of production, and staffing its management with bureaucrats, while the fascists generally (But not always!) let the owners nominally remain the owners, so long as they were sufficiently obedient to every government command. So the nominally private management were government bureaucrats in all but name.

Think “single payer” for communism, and “Obamacare” for fascism.

Of course, fascism tended to be more economically successful, because the people who’d owned the factories at least knew how to run them. So communism evolved towards more of a fascist approach to economics in practice.

I think this is why the left focus so heavily on the cosmetic elements of fascism, and avoid any attention to the economic details. Because, economically, the left is now fascist…

[myself]

Think “single payer” for communism, and “Obamacare” for fascism.

Of course, fascism tended to be more economically successful, because the people who’d owned the factories at least knew how to run them. So communism evolved towards more of a fascist approach to economics in practice.

I think this is why the left focus so heavily on the cosmetic elements of fascism, and avoid any attention to the economic details. Because, economically, the left is now fascist…

Fun how you started kinda reasonable before going wildly off the rails.

Also interesting how you seem to find the most objectionable part of fascism to be the economic policy. Meanwhile, the things that most people find objectionable (dehumanization, declaring people enemies of the state, and the widespread use of political violence) are just the "cosmetic elements".

[Absaroka]

"Of course, fascism tended to be more economically successful, because the people who’d owned the factories at least knew how to run them."

Fascism, I think, is limited to two countries in WWII - Italy and Germany. Looking at the end result in 1945, their economies didn't look very successful. Even in 1942 or 1943, they weren't very good. I dunno about Italy, but Germany didn't let the factory owners run their factories in anything but name.

And comparing results, German produced 46K armored vehicles during WWII. The USSR produced 77K to 100+K (depending on counting some of the light tanks ... and note the German numbers include the Panzer I). One of those seems more successful than the other.

(source: wiki articles titled 'German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II' and 'Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II')

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with your first paragraph, which is why I hesitate to extend fascism to the modern context.

But countries in wartime are always pretty directive (but note the chaos of US demobilization as a painful indicator of a return to economic freedom).
So I'm also not sure what window of comparison to use here. I think the answer may be none, and the question is just trying to label things people don't like.

[Absaroka]

"But countries in wartime are always pretty directive"

Sure ... in the US the War Production Board was pretty far from a free market economy.

The WWII US and Soviet economies were run pretty well. In both cases, their war production speaks for itself. The German war economy was an inefficient mess, because those factory managers who knew how to run things had to bribe Nazi functionaries to get raw materials, among other problems. Stalin was a monster, but you look at what they did (on top of having to relocate their factories). It was a brutal dictatorship, but by gum they got their war production sorted out. Germany never did.

"fascism tended to be more economically successful" just doesn't comport with the facts.

[Sarcastr0]

I had bought into the Germany as industrial beast overcome only by the resources and size of America. Is there any truth to that? At least early on seemed like German production was dominant over every other country in Europe. I’m not well studied in the area, partially because like everybody else is.

Brett has a definition of fascism that includes the ACA so don’t worry too much about his pronouncements about fascism’s efficacy.

[Absaroka]

"I had bought into the Germany as industrial beast overcome only by the resources and size of America. Is there any truth to that?"

Germany was an industrial beast. But the Nazis really effed things up; you had to get every decision through multiple Nazi functionaries, greasing palms as you went. Unlike the War Production Board in the US, they never did a decent job of overall resource allocation. They didn't go all Rosie the Riveter until quite late. Neither they, nor the Brits, had really transformed into modern interchangeable parts mass production - you still had people filing parts to fit. The US still led the world there, in the same way that, say, Toyota did in the ??1990s??. This mattered; the German craftsman system wasn't amenable to 'let's get 10K untrained folks and spend a couple of months training them to mass produce B-24s'.

As an aside, Germany was largely a horse drawn army throughout the war - a few mechanized units, and a lot of infantry who traveled like they would have in WWI.

The US population was about 50% greater, plus we went all in on Rosie, plus we had people who could spool things up on a scale the Nazis never imagined - Henry Kaiser and Liberty ships, or the Willow Run B-24 factory. There are some good youtube vids on those.

"At least early on seemed like German production was dominant over every other country in Europe."

They started converting their economy to war production sooner. Here's a table of WWII aircraft production by country. It's true that the US vastly outproduced Germany, but so did Britain and the USSR.

So the US (and Britain and the USSR) did outproduce Germany, by a large margin, but that wasn't just bigger populations/more natural resources - all three of those war economies were better managed than Germany's.

[Sarcastr0]

you had to get every decision through multiple Nazi functionaries, greasing palms as you went.

This sounds like some FCPA stuff I did for in a number of post-socialist Latin America countries.

Germany was largely a horse drawn army throughout the war
This is kinda mindblowing stuff! I feel like the History Channel did me wrong, and I don't even watch the History channel.

[Absaroka]

Wiki on horses in WWII. See the table 'Belligerent armies'. There are two standouts - Germany and the USSR. I didn't know the USSR actually used more than Germany. My sense is that they used them somewhat differently - in the German army, they were mostly used as draft animals, while the Soviets had fairly extensive cavalry. That sounds anachronistic, but I don't think they were doing Napoleonic saber charges. Recall that large parts of the Eastern Front didn't have continuous front lines, so you could slip a cavalry/partisan group through the front lines to go raiding in German rear areas, for example cutting the rail lines the Germans depended on. And maybe horses were better during the rasputitza? I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure that Red Army logistics were a lot more truck based (Studebaker FTW!) than German horse (+rail) logistics.

The US use of horses was limited, I think, to mules in the mountains of Italy and Burma (Merrill's Marauders). I know at one point in the Italian campaign there was a frantic call for mules, when the fighting went places even jeeps couldn't go.

(Just ordered a history of Soviet cavalry operations...I blame you!)

[Nige]

German industry in WW II also relied heavily on slave labour.

[myself]

I forgot tags break here so most of that (including the bit you responded to) was me quoting Brett.

But I do think fascism still exists. I don't think there's anymore fully fascist states. But when one of Russia's main fighting forces was an ultra-nationalist semi-private military company named in honour of Hitler, I think you need to accept that fascism is still out there.

And I think it's important to recognize a) that fascism exists, and b) it emerges from the political right (other bad stuff comes from the left). It's that whole "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". Putin is turning Russia fascist and has been doing it for a while, that should have raised alarm bells before 2014. And Trump is almost quoting Hitler with his rhetoric dehumanizing and proposing extermination of his political enemies. Using the F-word makes sure we know where that road may lead.

Similarly, Communism is a danger for the left. It doesn't mean any progressive/socialist countries today are Communist (the Communists are barely communist). But when talk of left wing economics starts reaching too far into nationalization of industries and demonization of the rich it's important to be remember where that can lead.

[Commenter_XY]

Could the production difference you reference stem from a lack of availability of steel (in Germany's case) by 1942?

[Absaroka]

Germany had raw material shortages, and was getting bombed, and so on. But on top of that, their management of their economy was a corrupt inefficient mess, i.e. they could have done better with what they had.

The USSR, for all its faults, didn't mismanage its economy that way. Later on they went into the 'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work' phase, but in the period and conditions when there was a fascist (Nazi) economy for comparison, the Soviets did a lot better job.

OTOH, Germany did a better job of managing its officer corps (by not executing half of them right before the war), but a worse job of executive direction of the war, i.e. Stalin did a better job of listening to his generals than Hitler did.

(I don't think fascist Italy's war production was anything to write home about, but unlike the US, USSR, Britain and Germany, I haven't seen sources doing deep dives on the Italian war economy)

[Nige]

'let the owners nominally remain the owners,'

When the owners and the government are so completely in each others' pockets, because they're all happy facists together, it's a lot of things, but mostly it's the polar opposite of anything 'left.'

'Because, economically, the left is now fascist…'

I think you try to pretend the economic differences are negligible and both are 'left' because Trump is giving nationalistic blood-and-soil speeches about building camps and mass deportations and shooting shoplifters and how his political opponents are vermin while most people on the left want everybody to be able to get health care without going bankrupt.

[Sarcastr0]

Two different countries can be authoritarian and bad in different ways.

The story that the USSR and Nazi Germany were about the same is one the right tells itself with one clear eye on attacking the Democratic Party.

It's nonsense, like the Pink Swastika and the Nazis Trained the Muslims nonsense. The straining to create a single uber-villain and thus simplify their already simple world.

'Of course, fascism tended to be more economically successful' is because you have a definition of fascism that is not historically operable.

[bernard11]

I think it's a mistake to define fascism in terms of economic policy.

Neither Hitler nor Mussolini thought about what economic system leads to the greatest prosperity. They were interested in maximizing war production (as was the US, of course).

Using the behavior of countries involved in global warfare as an indicator of their economic ideologies is foolish, IMO. Of course the government is going to want tanks and trucks and warplanes and battleships, not cars and passenger aircraft.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Stalin was all that interested in prosperity, either, except insofar as it was useful to him.

I don't think you can define either fascism or communism exclusively in terms of economic policy, but they did both have characteristic economic policies, which were a good deal of the difference between them.

[David Nieporent]

One key difference between the two is that fascism is a nationalist ideology while communism is an internationalist one.

[Artifex]

You are trying to map a multidimensional function into a single dimensional space, of course the results are not going to be very informative. Something like a Nolan chart or its variations will be more insightful, but even a two dimensional space is too much of an oversimplification.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the answer is in history. Much of the support that the Nazi and fascist received during the Spanish Civil war and before WWII was from people opposed to communism. I am not sure left and right play into the politics of the time. Communism certainly was a mark change from the existing capitalist system. But in the end, fascism and communism both ended up as totalitarian political systems. Democratic government addressed communism by retaining capitalism and adding socialists programs to soften the hard edges of capitalism.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here are a couple of books on the subject:
A. James Gregor - (1) Faces Of Janus: Marxism And Fascism In The Twentieth Century, (2) Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism
Dinesh D'Souza - The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

[Nelson]

Dinesh D’Souza? Seriously? Why not Alex Jones while you're at it?

[Sarcastr0]

Historically, there were understood to be 3 poles of ideology in WW2 - the fascists, the communists, and the democracies. With fascism and communism being explicitly opposed and democracies being basically in the middle.

Nowadays, you see the left saying that their opposition in democracies are all colonial neo-liberal fascism, and the GOP itself saying that their opposition in democracies are all socialist communism.

This is just a battle of the brands at this point. Best to use better-foundationed words like authoritarian.

[Longtobefree]

Well, answering number two answers number one; and the answer is in the full Nazi party name.
National Socialist German Workers' Party

The answer is confirmed in the party policies of governmental control of the economy, and restriction of individual freedoms.

[bernard11]

What logic!

Tell me when the next election is going to be held in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Elections in North Korea are held every four-to-five years for the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA), the country's national legislature, and every four years for Local People's Assemblies.'

So 2024.

[grb]

Longtobefree : "Well, answering number two answers number one; and the answer is in the full Nazi party name: National Socialist German Workers’ Party"

Except that doesn't reflect Nazi rule. As I note above, there were two or three different strands of Nazi economic theory in the years before the party took power. Some had a strong Left-wing compoenent, but they were rejected (thru purge and murder) by Hitler in his final maneuvering to assume rule. The Germany economy during Nazi rule was based on two things : A patnership between Nazi rulers and the country's elite business oligarchs and brutal supression of all worker rights elsewhere. That is not a Left-wing model, no matter how hard you pretend otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the brutal suppression of all workers' rights is certainly on brand for communism. The claim to be ruling in the name of the workers doesn't mean the workers were actually in charge, after all.

[bernard11]

The brutal suppression of workers rights is far from strictly a communist practice. It's not a marker of communism any more than having a red flag is.

Hard to believe but workers' rights, even workers themselves, have occasionally been suppressed right here in the USA.

But I am glad to see you've become a strong advocate of workers' rights. Unexpected.

[Nige]

The idea that 'the workers' were in charge in Communist Russia is obviously risible. Which just goes to show, even authoritarian regimes that claim to be a workers' dictatorships will always prioritise suppressing the workers. Communist Russia was quite right wing, really.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : Well, the brutal suppression of all workers’ rights is certainly on brand for communism.

I agree one-hundred percent. However, the other half of the Nazi economic model was its patnership between the Nazi’s gangsters and I.G. Farben, Siemens, Krupp, Porsche, etc. And that was very different.

Also, the complete supression of workers rights may not conflict with communism, but it did conflict with the earlier strains of the Nazi virus that leaned towards a left-wing economic model. That there were complete different economic visions within Hitler's party just shows his indifference to larger economic questions. His focus was always elsewhere - on blood & soil, myth, enemies, and war lust.

[Brett Bellmore]

"patnership between the Nazi’s gangsters and I.G. Farben, Siemens, Krupp, Porsche, etc."

A partnership where one of the partners was holding a gun on the other, don't forget.

[Nige]

Right-wingers do like guns.

[Absaroka]

I dunno, Brett. Prior to getting appointed chancellor, Hitler had extensive meetings stroking many of the big industrialists, and they willingly signed on; he didn't have a gun to their head at that point.

A couple of years later, of course, he had a gun to every German's head, theirs included. But they walked up to the altar without being prodded.

[Nelson]

I think that the narrative from the hard right is that the left are the only totalitarians and, therefore, any totalitarian movement is from the left.

The argument goes like this: communism is a leftist movement (which is true). Fascism and Communism are alike because they are both totalitarian movements. Therefore fascism is a leftist movement. Oh, and the word "socialist" was in the Nazi party name, so it has to be left. It's bogus reasoning.

The particular effort to call fascism in general (and Nazism specifically) a "left" movement is particularly troubling. Ethnonationalism is a characteristic of right movements and Nazism, a fascist movement, was one of the most extreme ethnonationalist regimes in history.

In addition to xenophobia, fascist movements embrace traditionalism, rigid moral codes, and "proper" cultural behavior vis-a-vis marriage, gender roles, "appropriate" knowledge, respect for and obedience to authority figures (particularly roles like father), and a single or limited range of "acceptable" ways to live. Fascism is conservatism taken to unreasonable extremes.

[mydisplayname]

On the bright side, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" wasn't such a big lie in comparison to others: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male,
right-wing blog has
operated for no more than

SEVEN (7)

days 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, discredited 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.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Jim deserves at least a couple of others.

(That first one might be a contender for longest song title.)

[Paladin_44]

Nice group of 4 - thanks for posting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

More where those came from . . . I played a lot of his songs as a college disc jockey. Try "You Don't Mess Around with Jim" or "Time in a Bottle."

[Commenter_XY]

Jim Croce is a particular fave of mine.

[Randy Sax]

You gotta be like Uncle Ruckas and rotate your racial slurs. Porch monkey, jigaboo, spade, jungle bunny. Variety is the spice of life.

[M L]

There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. This is just a red herring tactic used by abortion advocates.

[Martinned]

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on your medical degree.

[M L]

Ok. Should I call BS on your medical degree too, or how does this work?

Anyway, the situation is this: in cases such as ectopic pregnancy, what is required has been traditionally called a preterm delivery, not an abortion. These are fundamentally different things. Even Planned Parenthood acknowledged on their website that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not the same thing as an abortion. Recently, some abortion advocates have asserted that a "preterm delivery" is an "abortion" because they suppose that this helps their cause rhetorically. But this only obfuscates the medical science and is just another effort to twist words for political reasons.

For example, here is some information on the Dublin Declaration on maternal healthcare, by 140 medical professionals. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/forum-in-dublin-on-maternal-health-1.527381

[Sarcastr0]

You made the statement, burden is on you.

I'm sure you just threw out the statement 'to engender interesting engagement.' which I don't think anyone believes but you.

[OtisAH]

He doesn’t believe it either. Please stop giving these shitheads the benefit of any doubt.

[M L]

I've met the burden. Ectopic pregnancy and similar conditions involve preterm delivery, not abortion.

Preterm delivery is where a fetus is removed/delivered before full term, which may result in the death of the baby.

Abortion is where the fetus is killed in utero by various methods. Then it is delivered/evacuated.

Two different things.

[Zarniwoop]

Two different things.

Uh-huhn.

Texas has a six-week "abortion" ban, as I understand it.

Do you posit that pro-life TX prosecutors would be absosmurfly fine if Planned Parenthood set up a "Definitionally NOT an abortion clinic" in Austin that handed out Misopristol specifically in order to "induce pre-term delivery" (but not an abortion!) of women who are 7, 8, or 9 weeks pregnant? Do you honestly believe pro-life TX prosecutors wouldn't go after PP because that's "Definitionally NOT an abortion" according to you?

Be serious for a minute.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to be omitting the "ectopic pregnancy and similar conditions" part of the formula.

Ectopic Pregnancies and State Abortion Laws

"Because ectopic pregnancy is treated in a similar manner to elective abortion care, some providers and patients have expressed confusion as to whether state abortion bans apply to ectopic pregnancies. However, of the 14 states that currently ban access to abortion services, all apply only to the termination of unwanted pregnancies and include some type of exemption for medical emergencies or medical necessity. Five of these states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) expressly exclude ectopic pregnancies from the statutory definition of “abortion.” (Nine of these states that have bans are currently stayed pending litigation.)"

[Zarniwoop]

I’ve moved beyond that. ML posits that the only thing that actually matters is the manner in which a pregnancy-ending medical procedure is performed. Specifically, he asserted that:

Preterm delivery is where a fetus is removed/delivered before full term, which may result in the death of the baby.

Abortion is where the fetus is killed in utero by various methods. Then it is delivered/evacuated.

Two different things.

In a scenario where Misopristol given in TX to a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant, with no known complications or risk factors: it will pharmacologically induce labor, resulting in
1) pre-term delivery and
2) death of the 8 week old fetus.
The practical result will be that the woman will experience cramping and heavy bleeding, because the fetus is quite tiny at 8 weeks.

Riddle me this:
Is it an “abortion” per ML’s definition?
Is it an “abortion” under TX law?

I’m hoping ML will explain what his terms actually mean. Instead, he seems to be trolling that medical abortions are never necessary, because if something is medically necessary he then handwaves it out of the definition of “abortion” based on semantic distinctions that aren’t real – either from a medical perspective, or from a legal perspective.

[Sarcastr0]

No, burden is on you to establish "There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother."

You've provided zero support for that statement.

And gone back into semantic games otherwise.

[M L]

I've provided plenty of support. See e.g., the Dublin Declaration.

[not guilty]

This cavilling about what does or does not constitute an “abortion” calls to mind the Lewis Carroll/Humpty Dumpty theory of jurisprudence. From In the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

The abortion rights debate is all about whether government will be master of who reproduces or not. A government powerful enough to prohibit abortion is powerful enough to mandate abortion or sterilization. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), and Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), are but two sides of the same coin. Each means that the government will be master of whether a woman does or does not reproduce.

[David Nieporent]

No, that's facile. Is a law that forbids rape just the opposite side of the coin of a law that mandates it?

[not guilty]

A law enabling the government to determine who can and who cannot lawfully commit rape would be a more cogent analogy. That would be a wrongful exercise of governmental power, just as Buck and Dobbs each upheld a wrongful exercise of governmental power.

Justice Alito may as well have kvetched that three generations of procreational autonomy is enough.

[Zarniwoop]

TL,DR: you're a sheet-stirring idiot.

Trivially provably false: google "ectopic pregnancy".

Regardless of how much moral gray area there is to argue - and there's a lot of sincere opinions across the sociopolitical spectrum - blanket false statements like this do not help the anti-choice cause look reasonable. This is how you lose red states like Ohio by large margins.

[M L]

“The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.” - Planned Parenthood

Any questions?

[M L]

Why the Dobbs decision won’t imperil pregnancy-related medical care

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/why-the-dobbs-decision-wont-imperil-pregnancy-related-medical-care/

"An abortion procedure is not the same thing as treatment for an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage management, which even Planned Parenthood admits."

[Nige]

Is this argument widely accepted amongst pro-lifers?

[Zarniwoop]

TL,DR: aha, that's where we're going: troll plays the semantics card.

"There are different procedures for ending an ectopic pregnancy" =/= "there's not an 'abortion' in the sense of a pregnancy-ending medical procedure"

Any questions?

If you want to play at semantics to define some pregnancy-ending medical procedures as outside the scope of your idiosyncratic use of the word "abortion", that's weirdly obsessive posterior-covering of GOP zealots and rationalization of many state-passed anti-abortion laws ... but you do you.

It's also how you look like an idiot for making over-simplistic blanket statements, then being forced to backtrack under the cover of word games.

[M L]

Abortion advocates are the ones playing the semantics card, except it's worse than that, because they are first changing their own definitions, twisting words in a way that obfuscates and conflates rather than clarifies, and then playing the semantics card. My use of the word abortion is not idiosyncratic, it's normal. To say that this new definition from abortion advocates is "idiosyncratic" would be too charitable, it's just dishonest.

[Zarniwoop]

Your fundamental position seems confused, as trolls are wont to do.

Is it your view that "There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother." (your quote, from OP) because ... any medically necessary procedure to save the mother's life is automatically not an "abortion"?

That would be correct, but definitionally useless. You might as well say "There is no medical situation where [a purely elective] abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother." (added words in bold).

[M L]

No, any medically necessary procedure to save the mother's life is not something other than abortion "automatically." It's all about the actual medical procedure, see above.

[Zarniwoop]

So as I understand your position, the only thing is the way a procedure is performed?

Let's explore that.

By way of example, the physical/biological mechanism of action of Misopristol in a pregnant woman is to induce cervical ripening and labor of the fetus. Is that an "abortion" or not?

Do you think TX law would consider fully-elective provision of Misopristol to a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant an action that is outside the scope of an "abortion" because the result is induction of labor and pre-term delivery, while the resulting-but-inevitable death of the fetus is only an 'unfortunate side effect'?

Or would it be considered an "abortion" under TX Stat 245.002?

Sec. 245.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant.

(emphasis added.)

Personally, I think many of the pro-life folks in the TX legislature are going to disagree with you, hard. And many pro-life TX prosecutors are going to disagree with you, hard.

Even many TX OB/GYNs are going to disagree with you, hard, because they know your specious position does not actually immunize them from prosecution.

[M L]

It's about the medical procedure - both the way it is performed, and the intent, purpose, and effect of that medical procedure.

Misopristol is an abortion drug. It has other uses as well, I understand. Nobody disagrees that abortion by misopristol is an abortion.

[Zarniwoop]

You argued that

Preterm delivery is where a fetus is removed/delivered before full term, which may result in the death of the baby.

Abortion is where the fetus is killed in utero by various methods. Then it is delivered/evacuated.

Two different things.

Misopristol induces an “abortion” by the mechanism of causing a “Preterm delivery [] where a fetus is removed/delivered before full term” (your words). It softens the cervix, and induces delivery. That's how it works.

Note that Misopristol is also used in exactly the same fashion for miscarriage management in both early (say, 8 weeks) and later term (say, 20 weeks). The mechanism doesn’t change.

Does it actually depend not on the mechanism, but because you disapprove of an elective pre-term delivery at 8 weeks, but accept a medically-indicated miscarriage management pre-term delivery at 20 weeks?

What about an induced delivery of a non-viable-at-birth fetus at 21 weeks?

[M L]

I'm not aware of any abortion method that merely induces delivery of a live embryo or fetus. Presumably misopristol abortion method kills the baby first. Even most pro-choice people don't support killing after it's out of the womb, for some reason, except for "partial birth abortions" of course.

So again it's about the procedure, the mechanism and intent and effect of it. Misopristol used for treating ulcers is ulcer treatment. Misopristol used for miscarriage treatment is miscarriage treatment. Misopristol used for abortion is abortion.

[Zarniwoop]

It’s about the medical procedure – both the way it is performed, and the intent, purpose, and effect of that medical procedure.

Thanks for finally acknowledging that the purported difference includes an intent component. Can you show me where that exists in (for example) the TX abortion statute, and how it makes a difference for an OB/GYN? Or is possible that TX doesn't care about your magic words / subjective intent attempt to back away from anti-abortion absolutism that's politically toxic to a strong majority of voters?

I’m not aware of any abortion method that merely induces delivery of a live embryo or fetus. Presumably misopristol abortion method kills the baby first.

You presume wrong. Misopristol causes softening of the cervix, contractions, and induces labor. It does not "kill the baby first"; the fetal demise occurs because of the delivery. Whether induced at 8 weeks or 28 weeks, a "pre-term delivery" (your term) happens, and survival is in the hands of fate.

This is the problem with your purported definitions. It's not just that it's hands-wavy loosy-goosy "it's only abortion if I think it is" arbitrariness. In some cases you're simply medically wrong and legally ignorant.

[Nelson]

"I’m not aware of any abortion method that merely induces delivery of a live embryo or fetus."

Yes, you are. You're just ignorant of what a medical abortion actually is.

"Presumably misopristol abortion method kills the baby first."

It does not.

"except for “partial birth abortions” of course."

In looking for information about D&X procedures, I came across this nugget. Apparently "partial birth abortions" have been illegal since 2003. So why do anti-abortionists like you claim differently? Hm, I wonder.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1531

[M L]

"Apparently “partial birth abortions” have been illegal since 2003. So why do anti-abortionists like you claim differently? Hm, I wonder."

Yes, and pro-choice activists opposed making it illegal. Just like I said. Pro-choicers continue to oppose that, and are going about repealing the separate state level bans on partial birth abortion.

https://lozierinstitute.org/six-states-and-their-radical-approaches-to-abortion-law/

Also: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/247637/hhs-secretary-there-is-no-law-against-partial-birth-abortion (He lied and even PolitiFact had to admit it).

[Zarniwoop]

I see that ML is still quiet about the inherent medical and legal problems with his attempt to hand-wave some pregnancy terminations outside of the scope of the commonly-understood term "abortion" using magic words.

C'mon, if a woman takes Misopristol to induce delivery and labor, when is it an "abortion" and when is it a "pre-term delivery"?

Ooo, it depends on intent? So all Planned Parenthood has to do is claim they "intend" for a fetus to survive, but it didn't? So they can open up unregulated "pre-term delivery clinics" free from pesky anti-abortion laws?

Surely self-described pro-lifers would never agree to that.

[Joe_dallas]

Medical skills and technology has improved dramatically since the early 1900’s. The current death rate in child birth is around 25-30 per 100,000 with most of the child birth deaths to circumstances that cant be controlled by medical technology.

So ML is nearly correct, the actual risk to the health and life of the mother is extremely rare. 0.03%

Compare the 0.03% with the death rate from abortions which about 20% of all births (death of the aborted babies)

[Zarniwoop]

Basic logic/statistics fail: the death rate in a medical system that includes abortions for life-threatening pregnancies can't be used as proof that "There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother."

That's like denying antibiotics are lifesaving and medically useful because the rate of lethal infections is lower now compared to 1900.

[Joe_dallas]

Zarniwoop 12 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Basic logic/statistics fail: the death rate in a medical system that includes abortions for life-threatening pregnancies can’t be used as proof that “There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.”

Zerniwoopp

lets not be an abortion zealot - My statement was that the risk to the mothers life or health is exceedingly rare given todays medical technology and access to medical care - around 0.03%. I corrected ML's statement
Though you had assert that I made his statement to support your denial of the extreme low level of actual risk

[Zarniwoop]

Ah, I misunderstood the import of your correction, apologies.

[Nige]

' the actual risk to the health and life of the mother'

Every pregnancy is a risk to the health of the mother.

[M L]

Joe Dallas -

I'm not certain what you are trying to say. I think you are claiming that there is some small risk associated with giving birth, and that there is also a risk associated with getting abortion, and that the risk associated with getting an abortion is slightly smaller than the risk associated with giving birth. Therefore, getting an abortion may reduce risk.

My guess is these stats are highly questionable and the statistical reasoning is even more so. However, assuming for the sake of argument that this much is correct, a small statistical risk reduction is not what "medically necessary" means. This is like saying removing your testicles is medically necessary because it will reduce the risk of testicular cancer. No. Once you have the cancer, then removal is medically necessary.

[Joe_dallas]

ML - my statement is that yes there is a risk, though based on current medical knowledge and access to medical care , the actual risk to the life of the mother during childbirth is exceedingly small. The current stats are about 0.03%.

Its definitely not zero , but it is an exceedingly small number .
Nova and a few others pretend the percentages would change dramatically when counting the deaths that would have occurred without the mother having an abortion. Again, based on the medical technology and medical access that exists today, that increase would be exceedingly small.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"Nova and a few others pretend..."

Joe, you're the only one pretending. You make up numbers, post them, and pretend they are relevant and/or reflect actual data that is relevant to this discussion.

This thread started with the claim that "There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.”

This claim is false, no matter how many irrelevant stats you cite or stats you just make up. That you subjectively believe the number is "exceedingly small" doesn't change the fact that there is a number and each of those numbers is greater than zero and each of those numbers represents a preventable tragedy but for anti-reproductive rights zealotry.

[Joe_dallas]

Nova - You keep intentionally distorting my statement. My original statement was that ML claim of zero was wrong. I then provided data from the CDC showing the actual death rate in childbirth was approximately 0.03%.

While the measure that you want to use is the number of deaths that would have occurred without having an abortion is correct, you have to use the best estimate available and not the highly inflated number that abortion zealots want to use.

You dont have data to make the claim that you want to make. You also fail to recognize or fail to admit in your zeal for advocacy for abortion that a large portion of deaths during childbirth are due to health factors unrelated to childbirth, drugs being the most common.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Joe,

"You keep intentionally distorting my statement."

No, I don't. Quote where I did or stop lying about that.

"you have to use the best estimate available and not the highly inflated number that abortion zealots want to use."

Which, as I keep pointing out, you haven't done. Nor have you established that "abortion zealots" use any number, much less an inflated number. As I keep saying, you have only made up numbers which you admit would be the correct stats to use and you have only asserted that "abortion zealots" say things without quoting anyone saying any such thing.

"You dont have data to make the claim that you want to make."

Yes, I do.

Zarniwoop shared his experience of a pregnant woman (his wife) whose life was in danger due to a wanted pregnancy that went tragically wrong. All I ever needed to show is that there is a non-zero number of such women. You've agreed that I am correct about that and ML is wrong.

That's as far as I went other than pointing out that you are making up the idea that "abortion zealots" have "leftist talking points" which inflate, exaggerate, and otherwise use too high numbers. If these are "leftist talking points", surely it is quite simple to find some leftist, somewhere saying them. But you don't.

Why Joe? Why don't you just quote someone saying what you claim are "leftist talking points"?

[Zarniwoop]

Zarniwoop shared his experience of a pregnant woman (his wife) whose life was in danger due to a wanted pregnancy that went tragically wrong.

Allow me to gently correct that - the fetus was non-viable, but my wife was and is healthy, young(ish) at the time, and the risks would probably have been not much greater than a "normal" pregnancy.

In fact, the abortion we mutually agreed on probably fits within ML's attempt to sanitize the termination procedure as a "pre-term delivery": labor was induced somewhere around 20/21 weeks - pharmacologically and with laminaria to mechanically dilate the cervix (those were quite painful, yet another reason no one does this on a whim).

But we called it an abortion, the docs called it an abortion (sometimes; other times I think it was sanitized as a termination .. it's been about 18 years), our friends and family and other called it an abortion. ML's post-hoc relabeling gyrations weren't even on the radar.

The abortion was not strictly medically necessary to preserve her life or major bodily functions. It did mean that she didn't have to have another traumatic 20 weeks of pregnancy (with attendant low-but-non-zero risks inherent in any pregnancy) of feeling the fetus grow, only for us to watch the newborn die at birth (if not earlier, necessitating an actual emergency termination). Which she did, at 20 weeks instead of 40 weeks.

Pro-life extremists and the current laws of many red states would still ban the elective termination (me: abortion, ML: pre-term delivery) we chose in our unenviable circumstance. Maybe ML wouldn't want to have such a ban, because he's engaged in sufficient mental gymnastics about the terminology. If that sort of semantic rationalization moves people away from anti-abortion absolutism, I guess I'm fine with that .. though I still think it's mere weasel words that don't acknowledge medical or legal reality.

So in conclusion, grudging props to ML for getting to the right result even if it's for a non-legal, semantics-only rationale that seems to have no point beyond promoting confusion amongst the ~60% of voters who are pro-choice, even in red states.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thank you for the correction. I apologize for mischaracterizing your personal story.

And I agree with your point. If ML's semantic games lead him to oppose laws like those in Texas which would prohibit the sorts of medical care that your wife thankfully received, then great. I'm doubtful that's his endgame.

You've also made the other points quite well. I agree with your reasoned and nuanced post in its entirety.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks, appreciate it.

It's a story I'm willing to tell, because there are plenty of anti-abortion extremists out there who do call the termination an abortion, and do want to ban a woman's right to chose a termination in such circumstance.

I do get my hackles up when when someone tries to tell me something like "oh but your wife's abortion wasn't actually a real abortion". I was there, holding her hand. It was.

[Joe_dallas]

Zarn - While I am generally pro life - I would not consider your wife's termination of the pregnancy to be an abortion. the baby/fetus was not viable and life and health of the baby and mother were both at risk. thus, even if considered an abortion, I am in favor.

That being said, the based on current medical technology, and medical access, the pro abortion advocates grossly inflate the percentage of pregnant women who are at actual risk.

[Zarniwoop]

the baby/fetus was not viable and life and health of the baby and mother were both at risk.

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? The pregnancy was (probably) no more dangerous than a routine viable pregnancy. My wife's life and health did not qualify under any "risk of life or significant health" type exception, such as TX has.

Which is why the state of TX (for example) calls it an abortion; the law doesn't care about this sort of semantic gyration. My wife's termination would have been illegal there because it was after 6 weeks, waaaaay before any ability to diagnose the terminal genetic defect.

That's why attempting to sanitize and rewrite medical terminology to minimize the effects of anti-abortion extremism is disingenuous.

But as with ML, I'm also glad to hear you apparently support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy in such unfortunate circumstances. It's actually nice to hear there's a functional medical middle ground, despite the semantic disagreement.

[Zarniwoop]

Instead of playing with semantics, get specific or GTFO.

A woman's water breaks at 16 weeks. Is the resulting medically-necessary procedure to prevent maternal sepsis, shock, and death an "abortion" or not?

[M L]

Do you admit you were wrong about ectopic pregnancies?

[Zarniwoop]

Abortion troll doesn't answer question, attempts lame "gotcha". Check!

I'm not interested playing your piddly semantics troll game.

You made a blanket statement that was wildly oversimplistic, and when confronted with actual examples are now retreating to initially-undefined technical positions.

That's good enough for me to understand your level of thoughtfulness, seriousness, and honesty.

[M L]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Based on your response I can see that engaging you further will not be productive. Have a blessed day.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your statement wasn't about ectopic pregnancies, for starters. You said: "There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother."

Your statement appears to be based on the entirely false assumption that ectopic pregnancies are the only ones that require ending the pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother (and you dishonestly pretend that ending the pregnancy via pre-term, unviable delivery is not commonly considered an abortion). There are conditions other than ectopic pregnancy in which an abortion protects the the pregnant woman's life and/or health.

You just wanted to troll and play word games. And still you lost.

[M L]

Try reading the thread again.

Zarniwoop said:

Trivially provably false: google “ectopic pregnancy”

Ectopic pregnancy is always the first thing that people bring up to “disprove” the idea that abortion isn’t necessary to protect a mother’s life. Unfortunately for people using this talking point, it’s easily refuted, since nobody seriously disagrees that treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is a completely different thing from an abortion; it’s just a few dishonest abortion advocates misleading people on this point.

Now, after getting BTFO on the topic of ectopic pregnancy, a dogged internet commenter might be able to come up with some other argument and shift to that (without acknowledging they were wrong, naturally). In summary, no, of course my position doesn't rely on ectopic pregnancies being the only case, that's just addressing one counterargument, as should be pretty obvious.

[NOVA Lawyer]

ML,

I understand your specific complaint about Zarniwoop's statement involving ectopic pregnancies. But your initial statement was not limited to ectopic pregnancies, but down thread all you have argued is that ending an ectopic pregnancy (with death of the embryo/fetus) is not an "abortion." Which, even if true (it's not), doesn't support your initial claim.

[M L]

That isn't all I've argued, and where I have, it's only a response to this counterargument raising the issue. This obviously supports my initial claim by rebutting the counterargument.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother."

That's what you argued. Absolute statements are almost always wrong. This one is and so it was dumb to say it and dumber still to try to defend it.

It would be dumb to say there is no medical situation where removing a tooth is necessary to protect the life of a person. It's extremely rare anything involving a tooth would be life threatening, but it's almost guaranteed that among 6 billion people, someone's life was or could have been saved by removing a tooth. And the likelihood rises dramatically in the case of pregnancy given pregnancy is inherently far more dangerous than tooth decay.

Your attempt to preemptively rebut the ectopic pregnancy counterexample is dumb (as has been pointed out, though at least you have some semblance of a semantic escape route for that, dishonest as your attempted word game is.) But your initial statement was one of the more moronic thread creations I've ever seen. It had the benefit of being simple, but that made it all the more obviously false. Just tape a kick me sign to your own back next time.

[M L]

Except nobody has pointed to a situation where abortion is medically necessary for the life or health of the mother. They just keep pointing to medical situations where all is necessary is that a fetus is delivered early, which is drastically different than an abortion.

[NOVA Lawyer]

There are multiple situations where an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant woman:

https://www.everydayhealth.com/abortion/scenarios-where-abortion-can-be-life-saving/

"They just keep pointing to medical situations where all [that] is necessary is that a fetus is delivered early, which is drastically different than an abortion."

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, antiabortion laws reach precisely the medical intervention needed to save the lives of mothers from some situations, such as ectopic pregnancies. You have your own definition of "abortion" which is meaningless given any physician who uses the allegedly "non-abortion" method of terminating a pregnancy that you advocate would be liable under anti-abortion laws absent an exception for the life or health of the mother.

Here's an example of a woman who is unable to end a non-viable pregnancy due to Texas' abortion laws:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-abortion-law-means-woman-continue-pregnancy-despite/story?id=97918340

[NOVA Lawyer]

For more examples, see here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abortion-false/fact-check-termination-of-pregnancy-can-be-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life-experts-say-idUSL1N2TC0VD

You're just wrong. Completely, utterly wrong.

[Zarniwoop]

Except that you call some circumstances where the fetus is delivered early an "abortion". Specifically, a Misopristol-induced pre-term delivery, such in the specific example of an elective termination at 8 weeks instead of a medically-indicated termination at 17 weeks (as in the sad case of Ms. Halappavanar). In neither case is the fetus poisoned first, as discussed in your exemplary WaEx article.

Your proposed distinction is inconsistent and does not comport with medical reality or legal reality. It's pro-life semantics.

That said, props for at least supporting the ability of people in Ms. Halapavanar's sad situation to get a medical termination of their failed pregnancy. At least that's less extreme than some of the anti-abortion absolutists out there. Pity that it took her death to change Irish law because an abortion a pre-term delivery medical termination wasn't available under Irish law in 2012 - no matter what magic words you want to use.

[M L]

The links here discuss ectopic pregnancies again, preeclampsia, and similar scenarios addressed in the Examiner article and others. In a misopristol abortion the fetus is terminated before delivery, I’m not sure of the point there. The basic idea is that if you assume a fetus is a human life that like other human lives should not be terminated without justification, then in the rare cases where it needs to be delivered early, you are not going to opt for what I would consider an abortion, instead you are going to go about delivery in a way that maximizes its chance of survival even with long or seemingly nonexistent odds, as with other human lives.

I think my definition of abortion is traditionally accepted, is sound and reasonable, and is supported by many medical and scientific experts. (Technical medical terms are different, where miscarriages are abortions too.)

But I don’t deny that there are other definitions put forward, and perhaps some of these get enacted into law from time to time, I would disagree with those laws. With that said I would not necessarily trust reports and interpretations of those laws on this point.

[Zarniwoop]

I’ll agree to disagree about the semantics of ectopic pregnancies in some jurisdictions. I agree, for example, that TX legislatively defines such treatment as outside the legal definition of “abortion” in TX Sec 172. But I don’t really care that there’s a common-use versus legal definition difference that you can point to, if that’s the hill you want to die on.

Moving on, I’m waiting for you to address everything else, using something more than “magic words” arguments that there’s a easily definable medical, social, political, and/or legal difference between “abortion” and “preterm delivery”.

If you want to suggest that Planned Parenthood can simply open a “pre-term delivery (definitely NOT abortions!) clinic” in TX and trivially sidestep the TX fetal heartbeat law, I’m all ears.

I’d respect your position a lot more if you came out and admitted what seems to be the underlying substance: you want to call anything elective an “abortion”, while anything medical and non-voluntary is a “pre-term delivery”.

Because you’re not actually dealing with the fact that women can and do voluntarily terminate a pregnancy (i.e., what most people call an elective abortion) via the physical mechanism of (your words) “Preterm delivery [] where a fetus is removed/delivered before full term, which may result in the death of the baby.”

The Venn diagrams overlap, and you can’t wrap your head around that.

[M L]

The reality is that even if the baby cannot live after we separate mother and baby, there is a undeniable difference between a doctor trying to save the baby after that separation against long odds, and an abortionist deliberately and intentionally killing the baby within the womb.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, it makes the same sweeping statements, devoid of nuance, that you do. So if doctors don’t administer a poison to stop the fetal heart (as described in the WaEx article) before administering Misopristol at 8 weeks ... does the resulting pregnancy loss from induced labor qualify as a “pre-term delivery” instead of an “abortion” because they didn’t deliberately kill the fetus in the womb, and the inevitable fetal demise was only incidental to delivering an 8 week old blob of cells?

That’s where your argument (and that of the WaEx article) leads. Surely this must be more complicated than your simplistic “magic words” game.

[Nige]

'Ectopic pregnancy is always the first thing that people bring up to “disprove” the idea that abortion isn’t necessary to protect a mother’s life.'

Their termination tends to get banned by abortion laws if people don't kick up a major stink about them. You're blaming the wrong wrong-heads.

[myself]

Hmm, I guess this woman with eclampsia
just coincidentally died while going into premature labour.

[Nige]

You gobshite.

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

[Zarniwoop]

And for the benefit of folks like Bob from Ohio who can't be bothered to read for fear of the facts:

She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, and died, aged 31.[8]: 53 [8]: 44–46 

(emphasis added.)

But I bet ML will still troll at semantics and try to weasel his way out of inconvenient medical terms, proper standards of care, and the unavoidable truth that his preferred idiosyncratic definition of "abortion" is orthogonal to both medical reality and social/political/legal reality.

[M L]

How sad. All she needed was to have a preterm delivery performed.

A preterm delivery such as should have been carried out in this case, has traditionally never been considered an abortion. There is a very clear distinction between going in and killing a fetus in the womb, versus simply delivering a fetus to separate it from the mother due to a medical issue (and concurrently providing life saving efforts to that fetus where appropriate).

This story illustrates very well the problems with conflating and confusing these basic medical concepts for political purposes. Abortion advocates should not mislead and play semantics about what abortion is. But for the sake of argument and to take the high road, if we concede the semantic argument to these activists, and assume that "abortion" includes preterm delivery carried out for medical reasons, the important thing is that any law (and medical practitioners' understanding of that law) is very clear, not misleading like such pro-choice rhetoric.

[Zarniwoop]

Such a pity that she used the wrong word after her water broke, so the Irish doctors couldn’t help her without breaking the law. /sarcasm

FFS, everyone in the room knew exactly what was medically indicated. The Irish hospital’s refusal to perform the appropriate medical procedure was not a labeling problem. It was a “we can’t legally perform this medical procedure irrespective of what ML thinks it should be called while there’s a heartbeat, so she developed sepsis and died” problem.

[Nige]

‘has traditionally never been considered an abortion’

Can’t get much more traditional than Irish Catholicism.

‘This story illustrates very well the problems with conflating and confusing these basic medical concepts for political purposes’

No, I think it illustrates that you are making a weird niche argument. It doesn’t matter if *you* or pro-choice activists consider them to be abortions or not, what matters is whether existing abortion allows allows them or not. In this case, it did not. If you can show that other abortion laws allow them IN PRACTICE then, again, it’s still irrelevant what YOU call them, what’s important is that expectant mothers have access to that option.

‘not misleading like such pro-choice rhetoric.’

It’s not pro-choicers passing and enforcing these laws. If there’s confusion, it’s coming from the pro-lifers.

[M L]

I agree that what matters is what the law says.

Clearing up this misinformation about abortion being necessary to save a mother's life is a good step in that direction. Abortion advocates have leaned heavily into misinformation to help them succeed in certain ways.

Ultimately, the terminology used isn't what's important, but the terminology used tends to affect the results.

[Nige]

'Abortion advocates have leaned heavily into misinformation to help them succeed in certain ways.'

Again, you can't blame pro-choice advocates for pro-life laws not recognising this altogether novel claim of yours.

[Zarniwoop]

Hey ML, set labels aside for a minute. Let’s agree that some “medical procedure” was required to save her life, or she dies exactly like she did actually die.

She’s at the hospital. Water has broken. Doctor ML, M.D. detects a fetal heartbeat.

Your move: what happens? Not the label; what do you, ML M.D., actually do in terms of medication and/or physical interventions? On what timeline?

What is the appropriate procedure?

Are you, Doctor ML M.D., allowed to perform that procedure while there’s a fetal heartbeat?

Because those are what Irish law regulated, not your personal views on how the applicable procedure(s) is labeled (to say nothing of how the procedure(s) might be differently labeled in common vernacular vs medical vs legal contexts).

TX law doesn’t differentiate “abortion” and “preterm delivery”. As far as I know, Irish law didn’t either.

So what do you actually do that doesn’t result in your patient’s death?

[M L]

Pretty simple.

Dr. Anthony Levatino is a board certified obstetrician-gynecologist, and board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He spent years working at Albany Medical Center, one of the top high-risk obstetrics hospitals in America. He has worked with some of the most complex pregnancy situations possible: mothers with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, rampant toxemia, and other life-threatening health issues that were exacerbated by pregnancy. These are exactly the situations that abortion advocates point to as ones in which abortion is medically necessary.

Dr. Levatino has saved hundreds of pregnant women’s lives, working against the clock in the face of devastating health situations, and not once did he find that it was medically necessary to deliberately kill the unborn baby.

How did he do it? In each case, he simply delivered the baby, either through early induction of labor or through C-section. This is what any obstetrician who practices according to the Hippocratic Oath would do.

What OB-GYNs who abide by the Hippocratic Oath and the signers of the Dublin Declaration understand is that in every situation where a pregnancy is endangering a woman’s life, what has to happen is that the mother and baby have to be separated. But the physician can separate the baby and do everything in his or her power to save that baby’s life. This is different from an abortion. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby before birth, giving him or her zero chance of survival.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary

[Zarniwoop]

Try again. This part is important:

Are you, Doctor ML M.D., allowed to perform that procedure while there’s a fetal heartbeat?
….
TX law doesn’t differentiate “abortion” and “preterm delivery”.

As far as I know, Irish law didn’t either.

So what do you actually do that doesn’t result in your patient’s death?

If you perform what you insist on sanitizing as a “pre-term delivery” in TX, you can be prosecuted for performing an illegal abortion (by administering a medication that results in the death of the fetus).

Because current TX law mirrors the then-existing (2012) Irish law, saying that when there’s a fetal heartbeat, an OB/GYN can’t perform what you euphemistically label a “pre-term delivery” . Your magic words handswaving is not a defense.

Maybe the magic words help you feel like less of a jerk when it comes to tragic medical circumstances, but TX doesn’t care about your magic words.

[Nige]

'But the physician can separate the baby and do everything in his or her power to save that baby’s life. This is different from an abortion.'

Irish doctors got into a lot of trouble when it was found out that they were trying to fudge things in this way in order to save womens' lives, though whther they were trying to placate womens' fears or manage a workaround was never quite clear. It provoked pro-life campaigners to call for abortion laws to be made even stricter.

[Zarniwoop]

How sad. All she needed was to have a preterm delivery performed.

Also: called it!: "But I bet ML will still troll at semantics and try to weasel his way out of inconvenient medical terms, proper standards of care, and the unavoidable truth that his preferred idiosyncratic definition of “abortion” is orthogonal to both medical reality and social/political/legal reality."

[M L]

Throwback: JHU meta-analysis concludes "lockdowns have had little to no public health effects" and "have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

And then no II:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.30.23294845v1

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/02/03/johns-hopkins-study-on-lockdowns/
Nut graph: “they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics.”

Plenty of other great flaws in their definition of lockdown, and their choices of what studies to exclude, as well as the incluysion of working papers. This is itself a working paper, and pee reviewed, and not via JHU – it’s not medical at all.

This is propagandist bullshit from Steve H. Hanke, himself a propagandist. First for Covid, now for Russia.

You continue to suck at critical thinking, ML. Or, more likely at this point, you are so zealously unhappy with the status quo you don't care about the truth anymore.

[M L]

Oh, the irony of linking SNOPES while calling a medical paper "propagandist bulltshit." Tyft. Anyway, could be some valid points there. Do they respond to the second paper, or no?

Looks like the Biden administration claims to be pretty zealously unhappy with lockdown policy, too.

""The president has been clear that we are not pushing lockdowns, we have not been pro-lockdown, that has not been his agenda," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said when asked about the Johns Hopkins paper at a recent press briefing.

"Most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous president. What our objective has been is to convey we have the tools we need to keep our country open." "

https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-lockdowns-johns-hopkins-study-debate

[Sarcastr0]

Yes I know you hate fact checking websites because they are all leftist propaganda.

But they provide a pretty good case that calling it a JHU meta-analysis is a lie off the break.

Seems like you have whizzed to change the subject when called out.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know if they're ALL leftist propaganda, but Snopes? Absolutely. They're notorious for finding some nuance to avoid calling a left wing claim a lie, or avoid admitting a right wing claim isn't.

Took way too long, for instance, to admit that Obama was lying about you getting to keep your doctor and your policy.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, forgive me if I don't use you as a barometer for bias.

[Commenter_XY]

You live in a glass house.

[Sarcastr0]

I've never claimed to be unbiased. That's what seperates me from the Bretts.

It is because I realize my own worldview is not the Be All of Objectivity that I try and bring sources or at least experiences, and not just talk vibes.

[David Nieporent]

Looks like the Biden administration claims to be pretty zealously unhappy with lockdown policy, too.

That statement was in February 2022.

Might there be a difference in appropriate policy in February 2020 vs. February 2022?

[M L]

Female Canadian power lifter will be banned from power lifting competitions for noting that she was competing with a male and that males have an advantage in power lifting.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12720841/Canadian-Powerlifting-Union-suspend-female-transgender.html

[M L]

In this episode of Holy War Comes to US:

Black Hebrew Israelites fighting pro-Palestinian protestors in Chicago.

https://twitter.com/drantbradley/status/1718742175196844047

[M L]

Is it true that the DOJ has a special team that dispatches to the families of white people killed by nonwhites, on a "conciliation" mission? It is claimed that they visit such grieving relatives, and guilt them into making PC statements, and that this may help explain why the script read in so many such cases sounds the same. https://www.dailyveracity.com/2023/09/22/the-doj-has-a-special-division-used-to-run-interference-when-white-people-are-killed-by-non-whites-they-may-even-write-scripts-for-families/

I'd like to think this is bad spin and the "Community Relations Service" isn't like that. I assume they also visit families of victims like George Floyd and do their best to promote reconciliation and make those events not about race, too. Yes? So I don't agree with the link above, which I saw posted on twitter. Looking at the website, it looks like it is a racist outfit, so I'm inclined to distrust its claims. But the Community Relations Service does appear to be a real thing that visits the families of crime victims.

[Sarcastr0]

Looking at the website, it looks like it is a racist outfit, so I’m inclined to distrust its claims.
But the Community Relations Service does appear to be a real thing that visits the families of crime victims.

So you offer such a lack of context, this post has no content other than the existence of an office of the DoJ called 'Community Relations Service.'

Maybe don't post when your source turns out to be too racist to trust.

[Michael P]

New leftist orthodoxy: Don't say gay! (Instead say "a person with a penis who has a sexual partner who also has a penis.")

https://twitter.com/ppnnehealth/status/1720072481418236296

[Longtobefree]

The term is homosexual.

[Ben_]

You’re erasing someone's existence!!!!

[bernard11]

Texas A&M is firing its head football coach, who will receive a $76 million buyout.

According to the terms of the contract, Texas A&M will owe Fisher $19.2 million within 60 days and then pay him $7.2 annually through 2031. There is no offset or mitigation on those payments, and the annual payments start 120 days after termination.

Are these people insane? What a fucking waste.

The in-state cost of attending Texas A&M, including room and board, for a year is around $30,000.

So $76M could pay for about 2500 student-years of attendance, or 625 full four-year scholarships.

The payout is an obscenity.

[M L]

That is crazy. But, I assume the obscenity is not the payout specifically, but rather some contract that was previously agreed to which presumably requires such a payout?

[bernard11]

Yes of course. It's the contract that's the obscenity.

[Ben_]

People value football. You don’t get to decide they can’t value football.

[Nige]

If they value it like this they're idiots.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

College football provides a chance for (1) lackluster academic schools to succeed at something and (2) communities unable to support big-league sports to succeed at something.

The combination of (1) NILs, (2) transfers, and (3) increasing recognition that football is unsafe could threaten college football over time, but at the moment it is an opportunity for an Ole Miss, Auburn, Oklahoma, or LSU to aim for "We're No. 1" in something.

[bernard11]

I'm not deciding they can't value football.

I'm saying paying that kind of money to fire a coach is obscene.

I am saying that anybody willing to do that has badly fucked up values and certainly should be kept miles away from any university decision.

And by the way, Bob, the contract was with the University. There is nothing in the article to suggest the money is coming from the boosters. And even if it is, that doesn't change my opinion of the whole thing.

[Ben_]

The university values football because people pay to see football.

If anyone else at the university could generate the money that football generates, then the guy in charge of it might get paid a similar amount. But nothing does, of course, because football is by far the most economically productive ($ per man hour) activity that happens at the university.

Generate $1 million from ticket sales and TV rights for an hour of your time and you can join that class of productivity.

Envy and ignorance aren’t a good look.

[bernard11]

And where do you think all those contributions go?

Largely, to the athletic department.

And how much do you think they would diminish if the coach was kept on?

I do get your point, Bob. I just think the values represented are seriously wrongheaded.

Again, I'm not against football ( though I do have reservations about universities glorifying an activity that scrambles its participants' brains).

But I do think that paying $76M to make mediocre coach go away, so you might win a few more games the next few years, is obscene compared to say, spending that amount to provide scholarships.

The problem is that college football has, some places, gone frtom being an activity to being the core of the university.

[Ben_]

Scholarships drain money from the school. Football adds money to the school. The next coach will undoubtedly get a similar sized contract.

Complaining about the money in broadcast entertainment like football is ignorant. The money is there because the value is there. People value entertainment, and it can be delivered to millions at once. The stars are among the world’s most productive people. They get paid for what they deliver.

[VinniUSMC]

I’m saying paying that kind of money to fire a coach is obscene.

Contracts, how do they work?

[Bob from Ohio]

"payout is an obscenity."

It is booster money, not state funds or tuition.

If rich people want to light their money on fire, so be it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are the athletic director, board chair, and president (or chancellor) who approved that guarantee a few years ago still around?

It is difficult to envision a circumstance in which it would be reasonable for them to survive the coach's termination by more than a week or two.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in news you might have missed:
Maryland's State Attorney for Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby, was found guilty of perjury last week for lying on forms by claiming hardship due to Covid to access retirement funds so she could by a home in (of all places) Florida.

[Ed Grinberg]

to quote the Rev: "our betters"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Was that a federal trial, involving the politically weaponized Department of Justice? Is she a Republican?

[Don Nico]

"Doctors at Gaza hospital refuse IDF demand to evacuate"

Human Shield is an active defense system

[grb]

Is that the only reason doctors might refuse to evacuate a hospital?

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course not. Hamas might have threatened to shoot them if they tried to leave and then the AP would report they were shot by the IDF.

[Don Nico]

When people have a gun to your head, it is a damned good reason

[Sarcastr0]

I hope Hamas gets wiped out. I also think they have no shortage of supporters in Gaza (alongside plenty of innocents as well).

But I don't think this story of resistance to the IDF forcing everyone out of a hospital plays like you think it does.

[Commenter_XY]

But I don’t think this story of resistance to the IDF forcing everyone out of a hospital plays like you think it does.

Perhaps not. But it does give lie to the irrational smear that Israel is committing genocide; genocidal militaries don't evac hospitals, or make phone calls to residents telling them to leave because military action is coming, or open humanitarian evac corridors on a daily basis for weeks, or provide hundreds of trucks of humanitarian aid daily.

You allude to the biggest post-war question: What to do with an entire society steeped and stewed in a toxic brew of Judeocide?

[Sarcastr0]

Genocide is absolutely overdramatic, and I see it too much.

Pointing at good action over here does not prove you're angels across the board, that is also reductive.

You allude to the biggest post-war question: What to do with an entire society steeped and stewed in a toxic brew of Judeocide?
Don't broad brush with memey neologisms would be a good start.

[Don Nico]

You do you think, that I think it does?
Hamas counts on physicians to take just this position. In fact is "suggests" that is the responsible medical view. Therefore, built a major command structure under the hospital.
The lead physicians make the obvious (and Hamas required plea), the world is aghast at the inhumanity of the IDF.
Yes, that does seem more effective than Iron Dome when faced with overwhelming incoming attack.

[Nige]

That's the IDF's story, anyway.

[M L]

Reminder:

Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance in 2016, bragging of his "colleagues in China" manipulating coronaviruses, inserting spike proteins, to "see if it binds to human cells."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4966587/user-clip-peter-daszak-describes-colleagues-china-manipulating-viruses

Peter said, "And each step of this, you move closer and closer to 'this virus could really become pathogenic in people.'"

That's very interesting, thanks Peter.

[SRG2]

Mentally ill prisoner is in solitary confinement in a tiny uncleaned cell, for each infraction is denied exercise privileges, etc.. has to file pro se, courts rule that each denial of privilege is taken in isolation so you can't look at the sum total of his isolation in assessing whether his 8A rights are being violated, and prison guards are by definition saints and angels.

KBJ thinks something isn't quite right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-693_21p3.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

I enjoy seeing her write dissents, dissents at the petition stage are best.

I don't read them of course.

[Zarniwoop]

I don’t read them of course.

Yes, it would be so hard on you to cogitate on the basis of actual information. Yours is a noble and pure existence, unburdened by the complexities of reality. I am truly in awe of your spotless conscience.

[Absaroka]

The first part of that buries the lede: "This vicious cycle continued month after month until Johnson was transferred to a specialized
mental-health treatment unit, where his condition improved."

Prisons aren't the place for the severely mentally ill - and neither are the streets. You need mental hospitals. Which aren't beds of roses, but see "where his condition improved".

From Scotusblog: "Once there, his access to exercise was severely limited because of further infractions, which included spitting at guards and smearing his own feces around his cell". That surely sounds mentally ill to me. I'm not sure what the treatment unit did differently - forced meds? - but an ordinary cell isn't the place for him.

But you need that hospitalization; you can't let everyone with mental issues go.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump civil trial in NY continues today with the defense calling their witnesses. MSM decides it's not worth their time and have pulled their crews from the courthouse.

[Zarniwoop]

Perhaps you should avoid easily-refuted over-generalizations:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/11/13/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-news

The latest (updated about a minute ago, 2:43pm ET):

Trump Civil Fraud Trial
In Return to Stand, Donald Trump Jr. Lauds His Father, and Trump Buildings

The former president’s son is testifying again in the civil fraud case against the family business. He heaped praise on the company’s buildings, which the defense suggests are actually undervalued by statements a judge deemed fraudulent.

It's every-couple minutes updates. Apparently Don Jr's direct just ended, and cross is starting.

[Zarniwoop]

CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/donald-trump-jr-trial-testimony-11-13-23/index.html

[Zarniwoop]

AP:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-letitia-james-fraud-lawsuit-new-york-4727a8f5345c1ab794d33d0c9bcc990f

[Zarniwoop]

WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/13/trump-new-york-fraud-trial/

[Zarniwoop]

OK, I will admit that I was unable to find coverage of Don Jr's direct testimony for the defense on foxnews.com. I looked at main page, "U.S.", and "Politics" before giving up on direct headlines.

I'm shocked, shocked! that the Trump apologists at Fox are downplaying the existence of the trial. So maybe you do have a point about the MSM, at least when they are in the GOP's pocket.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other news.
Carjackers attempt to steal unmarked Secret Service SUV outside the home if Biden's granddaughter Naomi. At least one agent fired at the fleeing suspects who are still at large.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agent fired at fleeing suspects?
Is that permissible?

[Estragon]

Probably should have strafed them with an A-10, right Ed?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why not just bomb the entire neighborhood?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Pornography is a relationship killer and it destroys lives. For all of the talk from our conservative political class of “family values,” nothing has been done to address pornography in decades."

https://www.americanpostliberal.com/p/why-we-need-anti-pornography-laws

[Estragon]

I really hope conservatives take this up as a cause. Talk about a sure fire electoral winner!

[Nige]

They'd lose the Christian fundamentalist vote straight off.

[Commenter_XY]

From the article...First, we must recognize that obscenity has never been protected by the first amendment and the types of internet pornography which are most popular today would fit the definition given in Miller v California (1972) like a glove. According to federal law, the distribution of obscene material on the internet is illegal.

The article states Miller v CA applies. Does it? Why or why not?

[not guilty]

I haven't read the article in question, but Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), indeed still applies, having never been overruled.

[Zarniwoop]

Miller v. California is certainly still good precedent; that's where the "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" formulation comes from.

But I think that the article's assertion that "the types of internet pornography which are most popular today would fit the definition given in Miller v California (1972) like a glove" is merely an assertion, and doesn't provide anything beyond that.

In other words, we'll need to see something beyond proof by blatant assertion to meaningfully answer your question.

[not guilty]

Under Miller, questions of what appeals to the "prurient interest" and what is "patently offensive" under the obscenity test which it formulates are "essentially questions of fact" for a properly instructed jury. 413 U.S. 15, 30 (1973). Prior to Miller, SCOTUS was reviewing whether a work was obscene as a matter of law.

I suspect that the Burger Court got tired of "movie day," where most justices gathered to review the obscenity vel non of particular works. Justices Black and Douglas -- being of the view that any ban on obscenity is prohibited by the First Amendment -- did not attend. It's been a while since I have reread The Brethren, but I recall Woodward and Armstrong reporting that when John Marshall Harlan's eyesight was failing, he took a clerk to describe the onscreen content to hiim.

There are outliers where material cannot be deemed obscene as a matter of law. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 161 (1974) (The film "Carnal Knowledge" could not, as a matter of constitutional law, be found to depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that it is therefore not outside the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it is obscene.) Justice Brennan, concurring in the result in Jenkins, opined that "it is clear that as long as the Miller test remains in effect one cannot say with certainty that material is obscene until at least five members of this Court, applying inevitably obscure standards, have pronounced it so." <Id., at 164-65 (internal quotation marks omitted.)

[Commenter_XY]

I want to thank you and Zani for the brief discussion of Miller. I learned something.

[Magister]

I suspect that the Burger Court got tired of “movie day,” where most justices gathered to review the obscenity vel non of particular works.

So they had ended this before Clarence Thomas joined the court; sad, given his already extensive experience reviewing pornography at the EEOC.

[M L]

It's subjective. Any judge or jury could easily decide that internet pornography lacks serious value. Another will say that it does not.

[David Nieporent]

is merely an assertion, and doesn’t provide anything beyond that.

Every single claim in the linked article is merely an assertion that doesn't provide anything beyond that.

[M L]

I don't know about a federal ban, but it seems to make sense that age verification could be required just as it is in person, and digital analogues to zoning ordinances could keep pornography reasonably sequestered.

[Sarcastr0]

“He said, ‘The boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. We are just going to stay in power,'” Ellis said. “And I said to him, ‘Well, it doesn’t quite work that way, you realize.’ And he said, ‘We don’t care.'”

What a bunch of unamerican assholes.

[Magister]

What are the odds that Ellis actually said she was all in on this plan?

[Don Nico]

From today's NYT
"More than 400 political appointees and staff members representing some 40 government agencies sent a letter to President Biden on Tuesday protesting his support of Israel in its war in Gaza."

Those 400 serve at the pleasure of the President and should be fired.

[Magister]

Apparently they anticipated Don Nico's attitude:

The signatories of the letter submitted on Tuesday and the one circulating among USAID employees are anonymous, the USAID letter explains, out of “concern for our personal safety and risk of potentially losing our jobs.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/us/politics/israel-biden-letter-gaza-cease-fire.html

[Ridgeway]

Profiles in Courage needs another chapter!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Slight digression:

Sorensen’s, I mean Kennedy’s book was about Senators only, and being thus limited, he had to fill up his quota of courage with some weird stuff like Daniel Webster defending the Fugitive Slave Act.

[Don Nico]

Amen! If you want to be disloyal to your President as a political appointee, you resign as part of your letter.

[Voize]

Employees of the US Agency for International Development are not political appointees. I hope you don't believe that anyone with a government job who disagrees with the President must either resign or keep silent.

[Don Nico]

By the way, did you read the statement... "400 political appointees..." Those are the people I am talking about.
I do believe that if you are appointed by the president with the the advice and consent of the Senate, yo do resign if you cannot support the President.

Such people are not just ordinary federal employees. Moreover, even as anonymous signatories, they are showing that the President does not have his house in order.

[Magister]

"and staff members" - it's not clear how many are political appointees. Nor are all political appointees, or even the majority, approved by the Senate.

[Don Nico]

Yes, the report said and staff members. But I specifically commented only on the 400 political appointees. They have a duty of loyalty to the President.
Why do you want to change the subject?
Career civil servants can have any opinion that they'd like

[Magister]

The over 400 (the NY Times article now says over 500 political appointees and staff members) is almost certainly the total number of both. The headline is "More Than 500 U.S. Officials Sign Letter Protesting Biden’s Israel Policy". The organizers say that the majority of signers were political appointees; but the majority of political appointees are not approved by the Senate, so there's no indication of what rank those appointees have: they could all be approved by the Senate, or none.

[Voize]

We agree then that the 1000 USAID employees don't have to resign.

There's no indication how many of the 400 (now 500) political appointees and staff members are political appointees, and of them how many were appointed by the President rather than by "Heads of Departments" as the Constitution puts it. Maybe all of them were, the Washington Post claims there are 1200 appointments in total that require Senate confirmation, but it's more likely none of them were.

There's also no indication any of these people are refusing to do their jobs or are sabotaging policy. They are just disagreeing with it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing blog has operated for no more than

TEN (10)

days 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, discredited 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.

[SRG2]

Trump going all ausrotten

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit.
This is like one dolchstosslegende away from a full Godwin.

[apedad]

"What's the problem?"

(Future attribution to Dr Ed, Mr Bumble, Frank Dackman, etc.)

[Krayt]

Ironically, from the occasional VC posts about this, apparently the prosecution has a key point to make that he knew it was false.

Turn all resources against a political enemy, among other things.
He loses re-election.
Better keep prosecuting so it doesn’t look like a political attack.
Now he runs again to defend against prosecution.
And claims it was real fraud because he must.

Shocked. Keep it up errybuddy!

[Moderation4ever]

Well, we can only hope that he doesn't defeat President Obama in 2024.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The problem is trying to rely on an electoral coalition of gun nuts, racists, poorly educated immigrant-haters, gay-bashers, anti-abortion absolutists, misogynists, backwater religious kooks, Islamophobes, chanting antisemites, transphobic law professors, and disaffected clingers in modern, improving America (especially the strong, educated, reasoning, productive parts of America).

If Trump's rhetoric seems un-American. disaffected, and desperate . . . he is just giving his supporters what they want.

[damikesc]

Ignoring the Russia thing?

Were you, um, ALIVE in 2016?

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall Trump getting in trouble for saying there were good guys and bad guys on both sides. Of course, you're going to change that to, "The neo-Nazis were the good guys!"

[Sarcastr0]

I guess you can quibble about 'the good guys' versus 'good guys' but one side was explicitly the neo-Nazis - they advertised for attendance as such, and came obviously rolling Nazi with, among other things, "Jews will not replace us."

So saying there were good guys and bad guys on both sides is in fact saying Neo-Nazis are good guys.

[David Nieporent]

I recall Trump getting in trouble for saying there were good guys and bad guys on both sides. Of course, you’re going to change that to, “The neo-Nazis were the good guys!”

Reading is fundamental. He was ascribing that position to Ed Grinberg.

[Sarcastr0]

What the heck does this have to do with Trump posting like a Hitler speech?

[Mr. Bumble]

Suspension from non-academic activities isn’t much of a suspension.

[Don Nico]

No, suspension is temporary. Expulsion is permanent.

[Mr. Bumble]

I didn't say what you are implying.

[Mr. Bumble]

???

[Don Nico]

Not really. It is not a harsh penalty.

[Don Nico]

Exactly, that is Powerline BS

[Brett Bellmore]

On the one side you had everything from genuine neo-Nazis, to people who just objected to monuments being destroyed. On the other you had everything from Antifa who came to bloody anybody they disagreed with, to people who merely wanted monuments they found offensive removed.

Your pretending that one side was all evil is just a longer winded form of what Queenie did.

[Sarcastr0]

If I answered a call talking about the White Race and found myself standing next to people yelling 'The Jews will not Replace us' I've made a choice.

If Antifa people did crimes, I hope whoever did went to jail. We're not really talking about violence here.

[Bob from Ohio]

The ruling party is using the law to try to take his freedom and property.

Turnabout is fair play.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking your bullshit a bit far here, Bob.

[Nige]

Thats what happens to criminals no matter what the ruling party.

[Nelson]

"using the law to try to take his freedom and property."

This is is called "the rule of law". When you engage in criminal behavior, even if you are a former President, there are consequences if you are found guilty.

Is it all criminals you don't want prosecuted, or just specific criminals?

[bernard11]

you had everything from genuine neo-Nazis, to people who just objected to monuments being destroyed.

Except that if you show up just because you don't want the monuments destroyed, and then discover pretty quickly that this is a neo-Nazi operation - assuming you didn't already know - you leave. "Fine people" don't join in neo-Nazi rallies.

[David Nieporent]

On the one side you had everything from genuine neo-Nazis, to people who just objected to monuments being destroyed.

There is no evidence that there is a single such person in the United States, let alone attending the Unite The Right Rally.

(Note that the issue of the day was not "destroying" statues, but removing them.)

[Magister]

I agree, but I heard that could get us into World War 2.

[Harvey Mosley]

I must have missed all of your snide comments about Biden’s verbal miscues. I bet they were pretty funny, too!

(FWIW I think Trump and Biden are both bad choices. I hope both parties give us different options but I doubt they will.)

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 18 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“So ML is nearly correct”

Nearly correct in a categorical claim is wrong.

ML Claim - Zero
CDC data 0.03%

[Brett Bellmore]

No reason heavily populated areas should take longer to count votes, when the resources they have available to do it scale with population.

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1

[NOVA Lawyer]

"If Trump’s rhetoric seems un-American. disaffected, and desperate . . . he is just giving his supporters what they want."

This is the problem. It was never Trump. It was just that Trump saw what a disturbingly large portion of the population wanted and was willing to tell them he would deliver.

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1 for each of you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Apply the same reasoning to the Floyd riots, why don't you?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Joe,

That's not what those statistics mean. You are comparing ML's obviously incorrect generalization ("There is no medical situation where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.") with statistics regarding the likelihood of death in childbirth which is =/= to the number of medical situations in which an abortion was necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. As has been pointed out. The relevant statistic would document how many deaths there would have been, but for abortions which are widely available to save the life or health of the mother. And this statistic would have to be zero.

A claim of "this never happens" is refuted by demonstration of a single incident.

ML was wrong. ML knew he was wrong. He was just trolling.

You pretending he was almost right is maybe worse than his trolling, including because you don't seem to realize how stupid your comment is.

[Bored Lawyer]

I quoted the Prime Minister, who was being interviewed on a CNN program. If he was lying, then they would likely catch him out. So, yeah, I have given a credible source. It's not Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments, but it's still pretty reliable.
To use a legal term, I have made out a prima facie case. The burden now shifts to the naysayers to show he is lying, or mistaken.

[Joe_dallas]

NOVA Lawyer 6 mins ago

“The relevant statistic would document how many deaths there would have been, but for abortions which are widely available to save the life or health of the mother. And this statistic would have to be zero.”

Nova – the relevant statistic would be approximately 0.035%
instead of 0.03%.
The actual risk remains extremely low.

[Sarcastr0]

'when the resources they have available to do it scale with population' sure.

Guess what though?

[Sarcastr0]

The protests and riots were happened at different times, so it's actually a pretty easy ask.

[bernard11]

In fact, lots of protestors left when the rioting began.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to remember that, in Charlottesville, the right-wing protesters were trapped by the left-wingers, and the police, instead of giving them a clear path out, channeled them directly together.

Which, of course, makes sense when you remember that they'd only granted the parade permit in the first place after being ordered to by a court. The resulting violence gave them a basis for promptly canceling it.

In the case of the Floyd riots, the actual protesters were free to leave, not trapped.

But when you keep coming back to what reliably turns into a riot and looting spree, your "I didn't expect that!" defense gets kind of thin.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck conspiracy gumbo is this post?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You’ve not demonstrated that you understand what a relevant statistic is.

Even if you had statistics showing how many abortions were allowed under the “life and health” exceptions to abortion bans, that would only show you the ones where the danger was shown to exist AND needed to be shown because the abortion was not otherwise allowed under abortion laws.

Presumably you admit your first statistic was BS. Why should we believe this one, which you’ve just given as a number with no source and no description of what real world facts the number relates to?

And, to the point of this thread, “extremely low” but no zero, is still not zero. ML was trolling and wrong. What is your point/objective?

[Joe_dallas]

Nova - you are starting with the erroneous assumption that the purpose of large portion of abortions were for the health of the mother. That is a leftist talking point.

[Nige]

On the contrary. The purpose of abortions should be whatever the mothers choose it to be. But in areas where women are denied the right to make choices about their own bodies, it seems crucial to establish that there are purely medical reasons for abortions, and those decisions are made by medical professionals and their patients. I would also say that arguments about their statistical likelihood are irrelevant - they have to be dealt with as and when they occur without interference, second-guessing or fear of prosecution.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out that your statistics are meaningless because, assuming some portion of abortions are to preserve the life of the mother (never mind health), the statistics you cite do not capture the women who didn't die because they had an abortion.

Basically, you understand neither statistics nor anything about abortion or the abortion debate.

[Zarniwoop]

Yep. If Trump thought the path to re-election from the American populace was a platform of "government LSD and free blow jobs", he'd switch to that quicker than he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue.

For a masterful con man to ply his trade, there has to be a steady supply of dupes.

[David Nieporent]

This is the problem. It was never Trump. It was just that Trump saw what a disturbingly large portion of the population wanted and was willing to tell them he would deliver.

I don't agree. We've seen others in the GOP try to replicate Trumpism, mostly unsuccessfully.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. And, unfortunately, there has been a steady supply of dupes.

[Joe_dallas]

yes you are -

follow your own logic - or lack there of -

Nova's comment - "I’m pointing out that your statistics are meaningless because, assuming some portion of abortions are to preserve the life of the mother (never mind health), the statistics you cite do not capture the women who didn’t die because they had an abortion."

Nova - medical knowledge , medical care in todays world is vastly improved to the point that the number of women who didnt die because they had an abortion is exceedingly small. probably very close to the percentage that die who didnt have an abortion - somewhere close to 0.03% maybe as high as 0.035 % or 0.04%.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Joe,

You continue not to understand statistics or reproductive health.

"medical knowledge , medical care in todays world is vastly improved to the point that the number of women who didnt die because they had an abortion is exceedingly small."

Small compared to what? However you slice it, it is large compared to the zero that ML posited.

"probably very close to the percentage that die who didnt have an abortion – somewhere close to 0.03% maybe as high as 0.035 % or 0.04%."

Pulling numbers out of your ass isn't an argument. Nor is it valid data. It's just shitting in the comment threads.

[Joe_dallas]

Nova - repeating unsupported left wing talking points is shitting on the blog comments.

[Joe_dallas]

Nova - just to be clear - I agree that the correct method is to included the number of mothers who had abortions that would have died in childbirth.

however, the premise of leftist talking point is that number would be high is false/ grossly overstated.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Joe,

You said: "I agree that the correct method is to included the number of mothers who had abortions that would have died in childbirth."

Which is an admission that all your stats don't prove your premise. In fact, this admits that the stats you did you use were pointless, except for the ones you made up.

"however, the premise of leftist talking point is that number would be high is false/ grossly overstated."

You haven't cited any such talking point. I certainly haven't made that point. And to engage in any kind of debate, you'd need to find the "leftist talking point" numbers and then come up with some actual data to rebut it. Instead, you've made up stats and claimed to refute a "leftist talking point" that you've made up as much as you've made up stats. I mean, maybe somebody out there said something like that, and maybe your made up stats are similar to some actual numbers. But all we know at this point is you are making shit up that you pretend to refute by making other shit up.

How about find a link to an article where someone says something you want to refute, then find actual data to refute what they said. But saying "they" say crazy stuff and these imaginary numbers prove how crazy what "they" said is, is maybe half a step, at most, from mumbling to yourself while wearing a tinfoil hat.

[Zarniwoop]

ML Amateur Expert Not-MD Midwife knew!

Not just that, ML is also an expert on the exact differentiation between “abortion” and “pre-term delivery” in Ireland in the year 2012.

All those doctors needed to do was gently correct Ms. Halappanavar and coach her to use the correct magic words!

Then the exact same procedure becomes instantly legal! You see, EVERYONE knows the “can’t perform an abortion*cough*cough*medical procedure*cough* because of the pesky fetal heartbeat" problem poofs right out of existence when you say a fetusectomy (tragic non-elective ones only, of course) is actually just a simple, routine “pre-term delivery”! Well done, well done, schnapps all around. I guess words really do matter!

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell us again how great it is to be perfect in every way.

[Bored Lawyer]

Look up prima facie. And take a tranquilizer. Not necessarily in that order.

[Commenter_XY]

Hamas is bloodthirsty and incompetent and the civilian casualties demonstrate that. Every civilian death in this war is on Hamas' heads and hands.

Hamas can end this war in 15 minutes by:

-- releasing the hostages
-- surrender unconditionally to the nearest IDF unit they can find

[Zarniwoop]

Of course, of course. But she inconveniently and preventably died first from sepsis because Irish docs were still prohibited from providing an abortion [checks for ML-compliant magic words] a preterm delivery while there was a fetal heartbeat.

[bernard11]

people yelling ‘The Jews will not Replace us’

What's this? Antisemitic marchers on the right? Don't tell Bernstein.

[Sarcastr0]

Heck, there are some Antisemitics from the right that showed up to Bernstein threads, who he even replied to.

A few bad apples only, I'm sure.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the whole ML journey from shit source to crabwalking away from it in a single comment.

[M L]

Not the exact same procedure at all.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you don't like a baker, find another baker.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or, if you don't like your employer's (or profession's) rules and want to deny medical services to the public because of commands from illusory voices, find another employer or profession?

[apedad]

You got that wrong Margie.

It's, "If you like the baker but the baker doesn't like you."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Apparently, a cake is a medical service.

Kirkland must be a really intense supporter of the Fat Pride movement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Increasingly there is no difference between suspension and expulsion because one who is expelled could always apply for readmission, while schools are increasingly redefining suspension from guaranteed readmission after a specified time to "you can reapply but we don't have to take you."

Hence it becomes a distinction without a difference...

[Zarniwoop]

Just how do you think a "pre-term delivery" (to use your phrase) would have actually happened after Ms. Halappanaver's water broke far, far too early?

Misopristol. It's on the WHO list of essential medicines for that exact purpose.

It can be administered at 8 weeks for purely elective purposes, and at 18 weeks in response to a situation like Ms. Halappanaver's.

In both cases labor is induced (the "pre-term delivery" you're so enamored of ...). The odds of survival are zero, and the fetus passes from this life to the next somewhere in the process.

Same procedure, same result; you're left with subjective intent (thanks, by the way, for admitting somewhere above that intent is a factor). Why are you even bothering to pretend it's "not the exact same procedure at all", other than to put your medical ignorance on display?

This is why no [sane] OB/GYN in TX imagines that re-labelling the induced delivery of an 8 week, no-complications fetus from "abortion" to "just a pre-term delivery" will shield them from prosecution. The actual laws in this country are not written the way you imagine they are, and don't care about your semantic "magic words make the difference" attempt to backtrack from life-threatening anti-abortion policies exactly like those that killed Ms. Halappavaner.

Ohio figured this out; you should try to catch up.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Every civilian death in this war is on Hamas’ heads and hands."

Israel has no agency whatsoever, and McDonald's is responsible for making people fat.

You're a delusional, hateful idiot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think it's a bit late to be claiming that.

[damikesc]

The FBI investigation thing was based on something real.

Slight difference.

[Mr. Bumble]

It’s, “If you like the baker but the baker doesn’t like you.”

...then bake your own cake.

[Sarcastr0]

How is this link relevant to the rally?

[Brett Bellmore]

That they actually did end up destroying the statue, rather than being content with just removing it, is pretty good confirmation that opponents at the time were correct to expect that it would be destroyed.

[Sarcastr0]

It's been six years, Brett.

You may think you've brought evidence of a secret agenda from 2017. You have not.

[apedad]

So you're OK if the shop-owner puts a signs that sez, "No (Niggers, Jews, Spics, people named Mr. Bumble, etc.)?

BTW it's the 21st century.

[VinniUSMC]

.03% =/= .03

[Magister]

Well, there was the time in a debate when Joe Biden confused Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln. That was pretty funny.

Some are dated, but there's still a lot of Biden memes out there.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What if they serve Jews but refuse to make cakes for Israeli Independence Day?

[M L]

The question is, do you guys think the Community Relations Service visited the family of George Floyd and tried their best to get them to make a peace-keeping statement about how this definitely isn't about race, only horrible evil people will make it about race, we all need to learn to love and forgive each other and have better societal values, and so on?

Or, is the Community Relations Service kinda political and more one sided in their supposed mission of conciliation? More of a contented and approving view of the BLM-Antifa political violence and insurrections against this country? I've tried to find other sources on this but can't find much, actually remembered I found the above link by searching on Google, not on twitter. More searching:

Is Holder's DOJ 'Community Organizing' Occupy Activists at the RNC? - What are uniformed field representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Community Relations Service (CRS) doing assisting Occupy/anarchist activists outside the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Tampa?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2012/08/29/is-holder-s-doj-community-organizing-occupy-activists-at-the-rnc/

Judicial Watch Releases Audio of DOJ Helping Trayvon Protesters - Audio obtained by Judicial Watch shows that Department of Justice staffer Thomas Battles, regional director of the Community Relations Service tasked with working with Trayvon Martin rallies in March and April 2012, coordinated with community members about ousting Sanford Police Department chief Bill Lee. The audio is from a meeting at the Shiloh Church on April 19, 2012 with city officials and minority advocacy group Dream Defenders.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2013/07/11/judicial-watch-peacekeepers-sanford/

[M L]

After Brown’s death, the DOJ descended on Ferguson similarly to its response to the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida in 2012. Then, DOJ sent its Civil Rights public relations unit—the Community Relations Service (CRS)—to act as “peacemakers.”

But talking wasn’t all CRS did in Florida, and it’s not all in Missouri, either. According to Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, who spoke with the Daily Caller last month, CRS “protest marshals” helped train people demonstrating against police over the shooting...

The official mission of the CRS, which was created as part of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, “is to help local communities address community conflicts and tensions arising from disputes, disagreements, or difficulties over race, color, and national origin.”
It seems the Community Relations Service is more concerned with agitating than peacemaking...

https://thefederalist.com/2014/09/08/why-ferguson-could-lead-to-federal-takeovers-of-local-police/

[M L]

When a white man (Donald Giusti) was killed by a Somali gang in Maine in 2018, the DOJ's "Community Relations Service" immediately swooped in to "ease racial tensions". The Somali man convicted was sentenced to only 9 months after pleading no contest to criminal negligence!

https://twitter.com/TObscurantist/status/1704867314003234994

DOJ sends agents out to white families who’ve suffered violence from non whites to emotionally manipulate them into not making it “a race thing.”

‘I know your kid was lynched by 15 black people but we need to talk about how you can do better.’

Unbelievable.

https://twitter.com/marinasmigielsk/status/1724092590679544269

[Absaroka]

I googled 'Donald Giusti maine'. A lot of the local coverage was paywalled, but the couple of articles I read added a little context:

-One headline described Mr. Guisti as ‘trying to get his life straightened out’, FWIW
-the incident seemed to be a large brawl between two groups, not one group 'lynching' a member of another group
-the person convicted was 17 at the time. Whether or not one thinks underage killers ought to be given short sentences, they generally are; that fact seems relevant

This was all from the regular local news services. Interspersed with those were links to sites saying things like 'Donald Giusti Dies Defending His Country from Foreign Invaders'. Those seem ... slanted.

[Joe_dallas]

.03% = 0.0003

[M L]

As you said, it sounds like that incident involved a large brawl between two groups in which one guy was killed. There was video, but it doesn’t appear it was released to the public. Regardless, the point of interest not the twitter poster’s suggestion that the plea deal was too lenient, but that the DOJ apparently swooped into this small community to play peacemaker after this incident. That’s when you start seeing events/headlines like this (paywalled sources):
-Lewiston’s immigrant leaders call for tolerance, peace (Sun Journal)
-In brawl’s wake, Lewiston gathering urges peace (Portland Press Herald)
The other tweet appears to be a general reference to CRS activities and not about any specific incident. On further look it originated with the story of Andy Probst contained several subtweets deeper down, a retired police officer who was killed in an allegedly intentional hit and run.

[David Nieporent]

Is it all criminals you don’t want prosecuted, or just specific criminals?

Just the white ones.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, the idiot here is you.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, that is officially sworn to wipe out Israel, and about a month ago invaded Israel and committed war crimes through horrific atrocities.
Meanwhile, it has committed war crimes by using civilians as human shields, and building military facilities next to, or underneath, civilian targets. Its main military offices were buried UNDER a hospital
Israel has the right of self-defense, which in this case means taking out Hamas. It should and does take efforts to minimize civilian casualties, but given how Hamas has set up the situation, many are inevitable.
The above facts places 100% of the blame for these deaths on Hamas.
That you are oblivious to the above shows what kind of an idiot you are.

Question for you: Does Hamas have agency? Or is agency only for white people?

This is very much like the story I posted here a while ago about post WWII Germany. Yes, many Germans suffered and were killed and/or injured during WWII. Much of that was from Allied military action. The blame for that was the Nazi party that started WWII.

[Nige]

'The above facts places 100% of the blame for these deaths on Hamas.'

When you're trying to shift the blame of the people being killed onto people who aren't doing the killing, you're propagandising.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Every civilian death in this war is on Hamas’ heads and hands."

Do you agree that Israel has been given a blank check, and that no civilian death from any action related to this war could ever now be the fault of Israel? How about partially Israel's fault? There is literally no line that Israel could cross here?

If so, that's even more of a juvenile response than I expected.

[Absaroka]

"Regardless, the point of interest not the twitter poster’s suggestion that the plea deal was too lenient, but that the DOJ apparently swooped into this small community to play peacemaker after this incident. "

You say that like it's a bad thing :-).

But here you have a large brawl between two groups, and one death already. I don't see that trying to calm things down before someone else gets killed as necessarily a bad thing.

Your thesis that the peacemakers are biased may well be true, but proving that will take more than 'they are trying to stop a feud before the body count gets worse'. That sounds like a pretty good idea on it's face.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump revealed to would-be imitators what is possible. Taking control of the U.S. government via undemocratic means is possible, though Trump himself has so far failed. It's not possible because of Trump, it's possible because of the Trump supporters and what they either want or are willing to accept.

You say "mostly unsuccessfully", but it's been successful enough that the likes of Matt Gaetz are secure and local officials who put duty ahead of party have been, to a significant degree, purged from the GOP. This doesn't bode well.

But I hope your optimism is warranted and the threat is merely Trump and, once he does, thinks will return to "normal." That's the bet of enablers like Christie (though he's now anti-Trump), Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and the like. I think they're wrong. I think you (though not an enabler) are wrong to the extent you agree with their approach of "just get rid of Trump and all's fine".