Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

Leftoids love 'diversity'. It is one of if not the main thing they push for. The US is probably one of the most 'diverse' developed countries out there. Certainly more than most/all of the countries leftoids hold up as models to emulate. Yet its supposedly so terrible and the place where everything has gone wrong again according to leftoids. This trend isn't just limited to the US either, the whiter a place is the more leftoids seem to like it. At least in the times they're not trashing it for being so white. Can it be that maybe its the 'diversity' which has something to do with all these 'problems' lefties whine about? Can it be that even they subconsciously think so? Isn't it strange that the places leftoids like the most are all homogeneous lily white countries?

[Sarcastr0]

Amos' usual resentful strawmaning has stumbled onto something interesting this time.

Because this disagreement points to one of the fundamental cleavages on the left - the 'identity politics' folks and the 'anti-capitalist' folks.
The identity politics folks are not usually America is the worst types, that's on the anti-capitalist folks. Who are somewhat fewer in number these days, but tend to be loud and nihlistic.

This is a legit area of cleavage within the left and causes no shortage of drama and will one day need to be dealt with.

Sometimes, amusingly, you do see an anti-capitalists try and put on the cloak of being pro-diversity. But they always come in too hot for anyone to believe they care about diversity. Anyone calling America a 'demon cracker nation' is more into Internet drama than reality.

[Michael P]

The 1619 Project called. They want their "America is the worst" creds back.

[Sarcastr0]

You think 'America is the worst' is the thesis of the 1619 project?

You might want to check how verb tenses work. 1619 was quite a while ago.

Don't strain for white resentment. Chill out a bit.

[Michael P]

That was one of the core theses of the project, yes. They had to pretend otherwise once so many of their alleged facts turned out to be wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

1619 was about reframing our founding myth. Reframing does not invalidate previous framings, it informs them.

Such subtleties are lost on you. For you, it’s all bout get whitey.

Would you become black if you could, what with all this white oppression going on?

If not, you should calm down.

[Joe_dallas]

project 1619 was about creating a myth

no reputable historian agrees with the project 1619 myth

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

But how dumb are you. 1619 was awhile ago !!!

[Ben_]

Here’s how diversity is working in Sweden:

https://x.com/eyeslasho/status/1726619694768267703

[Sarcastr0]

Sweden changed it's legal definition of rape.

Are you arguing to keep crime down, keep your country white? Cause it sounds like that's what you're arguing.

[Tom for equal rights]

White crime rate is certainly lower than many other ethnic groups with the exception of various east asian groups.

Dont let ideology hide inconvenient facts

[Nelson]

"Dont let ideology hide inconvenient facts"

What do they call it when individual behaviors are attributed to an entire race of people based only on their skin color?

[Sarcastr0]

No one even said skin color. Some pretty telling assumption about what being born outside Sweden must mean.

[Nelson]

I was countering Tom's position that assuming everyone in a group is like some individuals in the group is called bigotry. Whether it's 'non-Swedes' or blacks or left-handers or poor people or hedge fund managers or billionaires or any other group.

We call it 'racism' when the distinction is race, but all bigotry uses the same formula.

[Ben_]

If Sweden had kept their country Swedish, half as many people would have been raped.

You can decide for yourself whether people should value fewer rapes versus more diversity. The tradeoff for Sweden is undeniable.

[Sarcastr0]

'kept their country Swedish'

Dude.

And no, your tradeoff is bullshit because the reason for the change in rate was not more rapes it was a *change in the way they count*. Also you assume causality. Because nonwhites (Oh, I mean 'not real Swedes' rape a lot.

Talking about Dems making life worse and you go around being an actual living white supremacist. I knew you were a rage addict, but had not realized that you were a huge white supremecist.

[Ben_]

"Change in rate" is completely irrelevant. 47+ percent of the convicted rapists in those years are not born in Sweden. Keep them out of Sweden, about half of Sweden's rapes don’t happen.

Note how the "rate" of anything is not mentioned and has no effect whatsoever on who commits rapes. People not born in Sweden commit about 47% of them.

You’re not fooling anyone.

[Sarcastr0]

You utter moron

the twitter you linked said: "How did Sweden go from the lowest homicide and rape rates in Europe to the highest homicide and rape rates in Europe?"
And now you are: "Note how the “rate” of anything is not mentioned"

No galloping; no new goalposts.

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

In 2018, Sweden passed a new law that criminalizes sex without consent as rape, even when there are no threats, coercion, or violence involved. Sweden no longer requires prosecutors to prove the use or threat of violence or coercion. This led to a rise in convictions of 75% to 333

If you want a new thesis that Swedish immigrants are largely rapists, you'll need to do a lot of work about confounding factors and baseline rates.
But you won't. White supremacists never do.

Go stew in your anger and frustration that whites are so much better but so put upon. What a shitty way to live.

[Ben_]

All of that is 100% irrelevant because the law is the same for native born Swedes and for visitors and for migrants.

There are no factors. Only totals of who was convicted of rape. 47+% of those convicted were not born in Sweden. Every one of those rapes could have been prevented at the border by saying no to a non-Swedish person wanting to enter the country.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re still playing with new goalposts. All this irrelevance is *the tweet you linked to*

As to your new goalposts, why not be really get that rape stat down and just deport all men? Same reasoning as your shallowness.

You create a wide open counterfactual that you pangloss into whatever you want. It’s like what a racist gradeschooler would try.

[Armchair]

Ben:
-Posts fact, supported by evidence
Sarcastro:
-Changes topic to a related topic.
Ben:
-That doesn't matter, the original fact stands
-Sarcastr0
"Stop moving the goalposts!" (Which Sarcastr0 moved).

[Ben_]

That’s a cloud of BS.

If you want to, you can tell 47% of Sweden's rape victims that diversity matters a lot and they should be happy to take one for the team.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't hard, you're just too moronic and/or racist to understand.

As I said, your logic could be applied to the argument 'why not be really get that rape stat down and just deport all men'

And if you disagree, well, explain that to all the victims of rape by men, you monster.

[Ben_]

Men born in Sweden have a human right to reside in Sweden. There’s no option to exile them so no rapes can be avoided that way.

Saying no to entrants is an option, and about half of rapes could be avoided by doing so.

[Sarcastr0]

Talk about human rights to all those rape victims, you monster.

[Defenderz]

Again, why is it good for white countries to become more brown, but not for brown countries to become more white?

[Don Nico]

S_0,
You made your point well with the italicized paragraph.
Why rant just for the sake of arguing?

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes my muse inspires me, sometimes she leads me too far.

[Don Nico]

Fair enough.

[Michael P]

He rants because he really wishes that others "want a new thesis that Swedish immigrants are largely rapists".

Without his straw men, he would be an empty shell.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben is literally making a white supreme cost argument. I don’t need to strawman him.

[Michael P]

Your actions show that you do.

[Frank Drackman]

I agree with your statement.
" Because nonwhites (Oh, I mean ‘not real Swedes’ rape a lot."
That's why so many more nonwhites than whites are in prison for rape.

Frank

[Nelson]

"If Sweden had kept their country Swedish, half as many people would have been raped."

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. If there were no 'non-Swedes', 100% of rapes would be perpetrated by Swedes. How outraged would you be, then? I mean, they would be the rape-iest people in the world!

[VinniUSMC]

Yeah, it doesn’t work that way. If there were no ‘non-Swedes’, 100% of rapes would be perpetrated by Swedes.

Intentionally obtuse.

If there were 20 rapes, 10 by non-Swedes and 10 by Swedes, but we could go back in time and prevent the non-Swedes from being in Sweden, then there would be 10 rapes by Swedes, and... pay attention now... 10 rapes that didn't occur.

Therefore, half as many rapes would have occurred. It's not that hard of a concept.

[Nelson]

Only of you assume that there is something relevant about “non-Swedes” regarding rape. If, instead, it’s about rapists vs. non-rapists and that characteristic isn’t intrinsic to one group or the other, excluding “non-Swedes” would have exactly the same effect as excluding any other random group.

If you really wanted to lower rapes by immigrants, the most successful strategy would be to only allow women to immigrate. The percentage of rapes committed by men is much, much, much larger than 47%.

[Defenderz]

Yes, there is something intrinsic to those groups. Violence and disorder is in their genetics.

[VinniUSMC]

Men are responsible for 90% of violent crimes, if that's still an accurate stat.

Just as not all men are bad, not all immigrants are bad.

[Nelson]

"Violence and disorder is in their genetics."

Violence and disorder is in the genetics of all non-Swedes? That seems to be a pretty sweeping generalization. And quite startling to geneticists.

[VinniUSMC]

If you really wanted to lower rapes by immigrants, the most successful strategy would be to only allow women to immigrate.

Fair point. Though, that's not a random group exclusion.

[Nelson]

Perhaps, but that doesn't support claiming a Sweden without non-Swedes would be noticeably different than the Sweden we have now.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

This is so true.
Sweden is a hellhole.

[santamonica811]

Here in the LA area; we had a major fire under the 10 Freeway, very close to our downtown, a week or so ago. Caused minor damage in several areas, but also significant damage in a few places . . . enough damage so that the freeway--in both directions--has had to be shut down. Causing enormous commute problems, of course. I heard on the news that it's due to open again well before Thanksgiving, which is far better than the "might be as much as a few/several months" that we heard before detailed inspections could be done right after the fire happened.

This reminded me of 1994, when the Northridge Earthquake hit, and caused far worse damage to the same freeway (in a slightly different part of it). And, again, the estimates were that it would take many many (many many many) months to fix.

But it didn't. The city and state and federal govt hired companies who worked around the clock, and these companies were given huge financial incentives to do the work as quickly as possible. Safety engineers (inspectors, etc etc) were on site 24/7, to ensure that every step was checked carefully. And in the subsequent 30 years, not a single problem (as far as I know) with any of that construction/repair work. A real success for the partnership between private business and government.

[Yeah, sorry for the overly-long intro]. The above is making me think about the horrific housing situation in ... well ... pretty much everywhere in coastal California. When local governments provide new housing, it always seems to end up costing CRAZY-high per-unit prices.

So, if you had control over the California (or Los Angeles) purse-strings, what sort of incentives can you think of, to get the per-unit price of new housing way down? My initial thoughts:
1. Again, have specific inspectors and engineers doing nothing but working on these projects. Come up with some rotation over oversight plan, so that there are no safety shortcuts.
2. Give huge incentives to bringing in projects under budget. Say, "The city has budgeted $300,000/unit for this 20-unit apartment building. You, the builder, gets to keep 75% of any amount under budget."
3. Use the first year or two as a laboratory. What types of housing solutions turn out to be inefficient, and which ones are successful. Have an ongoing and transparent process, so that the constructions companies know which ones are doing well...and which ones are not. Have an equally transparent process for awarding follow-up contracts for subsequent construction.

Other ideas? To the extent that 1-3, above, are Pollyannish or unrealistic; suggestions for improving them?

** I'm not particularly interested in already-known ideas, like permitting housing with higher density and/or with no parking. They might indeed work, but since thos ideas are already well-known, it wouldn't be new information for me . . . or for most readers of this kinda-sorta-libertarian website.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a supply issue, and a regulatory issue. Supply: Need more, fast. Regulatory: Prop 13 might need re-examination.

[Kazinski]

None of what you are suggesting would seem to help, since a large part of the costs of new housing come form government itself.

For instance new housing in California have to have solar installed, whether or not it may pay off in the long run it adds a lot to the initial costs.

Seattle requires an 80,000 affordable housing fee (MHA), per unit for developers to get a permit. And that's only the beginning:

"When a project is subject to both MHA and Incentive Zoning (IZ), the MHA program requirements satisfy the affordable housing requirement for the IZ program. Required developer contributions to child care, open space amenities, Transferable Development Potential and Rights (TDP/TDR) and Regional Development Credits (RDC) must still be provided via the IZ program."

The key would be to reduce fees and special assessment s on builders and reduce construction mandates that make houses more expensive.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, I think I pointed to the two basic problems: supply, regulatory. I cited Prop 13 as an example, not the 'end all, be all'. To drop the price, you must dramatically increase supply. To dramatically increase the supply, you need to streamline regulations to the essentials.

We agree...CA screws themselves. It is 2023. In 5 years. let's see what 'out migration' of uber-wealthy taxpayers does to CA by 2028. It is happening in NJ, NY, CT, IL also.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're going to make housing more affordable by lifting the cap on taxation of it?

[Commenter_XY]

No, by flooding the market with supply. All the other stuff sorts out. But it starts with supply.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Homelessness" is just a symptom of a much larger problem.
Addiction and mental illness won't be solved with a roof over your head.

[Moderation4ever]

You are partially correct. The serious homeless problem is those with mental illnesses, including addiction, and those need to be treated and perhaps with different models than are currently being used. Homes would help those who find themselves at the edge of poverty and just need a financial bridge.

[Sarcastr0]

There are homeless people who are neither addicted nor mentally ill.

Available/affordable housing is not the panacea that housing advocates take it for, but neither is it unrelated to the issue of homelessness.

[Mr. Bumble]

"There are homeless people who are neither addicted nor mentally ill."
Like our own captcrisis, who intimated on another thread that he may soon be joining the ranks of the homeless. Of course there are also the victims of Bidenomics to consider.

[Sarcastr0]

No, not everyone who is homeless and not an addict or mentally ill is homeless due to Joe Biden.

It’s a huge asshole move to use other people’s personal crises as partisan fodder.

[Mr. Bumble]

StrawmanO at work. Who said "everyone"?

[Sarcastr0]

Me: ‘There are homeless people who are neither addicted nor mentally ill.
”You: “Of course there are also the victims of Bidenomics to consider.”
Also you: “Who said “everyone”?”

You implied it.
Disingenuous. Petty.

You remind me of Lt. Steven Hauk. You're not crazy, you're mean.

[Mr. Bumble]

Projection is strong in you. I implied nothing, just noted one of the many factors involved.

[Nelson]

And yet, by most metrics, this is an excellent economy for those who want to be employed. Which, as I understand it, is an important element in the "being able to afford stuff" equation.

Was the massive overspending of the federal govenrment partially responsible for the spike in inflation? Absolutely, but market forces also contributed. Is it slowly getting back to normal? Also yes, by reversing the irresponsible low Fed rate policy of the past 20 years.

I get that you hate Biden. But most economic conditions are the result of so many factors that blaming (or praising) a President for them is ludicrous.

And yes, there are a lot of people who are homeless for reasons other than the overgeneralizations of the left (mental illness) or the right (drug addicts).

[Nige]

They won't be solved without a roof over ther heads. As for the people with full time jobs living in their cars, well, that's another story, presumably.

[jb]

The vast majority of homelessness is caused by housing costing more than people can afford. On the other hand, most chronically homeless people have significant mental health and/or substance abuse issues. There's no contradiction between these two facts--most homeless people who experience homelessness aren't chronically homeless. Just as importantly, in addition to dealing with their other issues, you do have to have somewhere for chronically homeless people to move to, so increasing housing supply is important there too.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The vast majority of homelessness is caused by housing costing more than people can afford."

If that were true, wouldn't the solution be to bus the homeless to places with more affordable housing?

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Wrong on 3 counts
1) We have the bigger houses of the elderly going on the market that has smaller families, less ability to waste money on a too big house
2) Biden has poured sht on the market by diluting credit scores and punishing the best purchasers. Ask anyone in the biz.
3) There is a huge trend of institutional investors to buy houses as they go on the market, Again thank Newsom and esp Biden

"Institutional buyers tend to purchase in markets with rising household formation, strong
housing and rental markets, high income markets, but also with a high density of minority groups especially
Black households, with twice as many Black households in markets with higher share of institutional buyers "

[Nige]

It won't solve much if the supply is bought up by vulture funds that keep their rents high.

[Mr. Bumble]

So that's how San Francisco cleared the streets of the homeless for Xi?

[Krayt]

Xi would use it to preen to his subjects how shitty the US is.

That same dirty street is used by our politicians to preen how nice they are.

Stopping being embarrassed by a dictator is more important.

[Brett Bellmore]

And how does raising taxes on housing flood the market with additional supply? Again, Prop 13 capped taxation of homes, and generally made it harder to raise taxes. I really fail to see how raising property taxes is supposed to flood the market with new housing, unless maybe you're suggesting the additional revenue would function as a bribe to local governments to get out of the way of building housing.

[bernard11]

And how does raising taxes on housing flood the market with additional supply?

I'm not seeing it either. Raising the taxes is like putting on a new sales tax. The cost is split, somehow, between buyer and seller, but the quantity of housing sold at any price point goes down, not up.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I was not clear. My fault.

The basic problem is supply. You need a dramatic increase in supply. Once that happens, the regulatory and tax stuff gets sorted out.

But it starts with addressing supply.

[Harvey Mosley]

How does Prop 13 affect supply? If I sell my house and buy a different one (within certain guidelines) I get to transfer over my Prop 13 level property taxes.

[Don Nico]

Not in Alameda county, and not in most of California. When I sold my house in 2012 and bought a new one that cost 25% more than my old house my property tax increased 10X.
Why? because the Prop 13 tax break did not transfer to the new property.
Had I died and left the old house to my kids, they would have enjoyed my old tax rate.

[Harvey Mosley]

You might be right. I'm going off memory on this. It may just apply to people (or even just seniors) who buy a house equal to or less in value. It might also have just been an initiative that didn't pass. Or I may just be completely wrong with no real reason for my mis-remembering.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

No, by flooding the market with supply. All the other stuff sorts out. But it starts with supply.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Increasing the supply of housing in a reasonable amount of time means increasing the demand for the land, materials and labor required to create more housing. Guess what happens to the cost of construction then?

[Kazinski]

I was actually replying to Santa Monica, but I got my replies crossed.

But I don't think Proposition 13 actually skews the market too much, although it is a tax subsidy. What it actually does is freeze the assessed value at the time the property is purchased. So may it likely has an effect not forcing people to sell because they can't afford the taxes, they still will realize market value when they sell so that incentive remains intact.

I don't see anything that outweighs the positives that come from not letting the government tax the people at high enough rates to "eat out their substance".

[David Nieporent]

.

The key would be to reduce fees and special assessment s on builders and reduce construction mandates that make houses more expensive.

No, the key would be to stop limiting construction in the first place. California's problem isn't that all the myriad of houses built are too expensive; California's problem is that they aren't building enough housing, period.

Repeal CEQA. Eliminate restrictive zoning. Then California will not have a housing shortage.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but then it wouldn't be California.

[Kazinski]

Well yeah, but really Don, you surely see the effect that making houses more expensive reduces the supply, price elasticity of demand is a well established concept..

[Frank Drackman]

Higher property taxes! that's the ticket!

[Mr. Bumble]

Works so well in blue states as the answer to every problem.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The housing price problem remains closely related to the problem to deliver convenient proximity to especially-attractive urban amenities. Throughout this nation, not just in coastal California, there exist in certain areas urban amenities so outstanding that they command not just a local market, but a world-wide market among would-be buyers who collectively possesses most of the wealth available for expenditure anywhere.

Those potential customers drive up the price of real estate not just in select U.S. enclaves. They do so everywhere in the world where locations combine attractive urban features with apparent political stability—not just in the U.S., but in Paris, in London, in Singapore, and in Tokyo, and a host of other places. World-wide, urban amenities convenient enough to suit the rich are in desperately short supply.

That is a big problem for affordable housing, because it means that as a practical matter, demand will always exceed supply. Which in turn means that suppliers—developers, builders, and the politicians they influence—are simply unwilling to work for smaller profits when they can get much greater profits for the same effort, just by choosing which kind of clientele to build for. For the foreseeable future, the preference will always be to make more money by supplying the rich.

Every method with power to abate that tendency gets denounced as either anti-free-market, or tyrannical, or both. The political game has become to see how to find more-or-less pretend alternatives, to be publicized for a few limited settings, always taking care not to waste on ordinary people the choicer opportunities that richer people prefer. I don’t see how to escape that free-market created reality, short of a fairly tyrannical control based on an egalitarian political upheaval.

Maybe ration development opportunities targeting the rich, metering those out conditionally to developers, based on performance serving a much larger clientele among the less-wealthy. But even that less-wealthy clientele remains so under-served that actual alleviation of urban housing needs for ordinary budgets seems a pipe dream.

Probably the most promising political tactic would be to do what can be done to preserve in their present condition whatever squalid urban neighborhoods already exist. Those are the only urban locations the wealthy do not aspire to. But the impulse to bulldoze them to build to satisfy the rich promises to make the problem worse. Maybe that piece could be brought under political control for a while, but experience teaches not to expect that to work long-term. Too much money to be made.

They say that trends which can’t go on forever won’t. If so, maybe housing issues will someday prompt rehabilitation for Marxism world-wide. It’s evident that something has to change. What it will be is but another question to leave to an increasingly dark-looking future.

[Krayt]

"Don't flee our crime-ridden, overtaxed areas!"

"Nobody's listening."

"Ok, offer tax incentives."

"STOP coming back!"

[bernard11]

We are not talking about housing for billionaires who want to spend time in NY or LA. Yes, they may buy super-luxury condos or whatever.

But that segment of demand is small compared to that for more ordinary middle-class, broadly defined, housing. Someone with a good job, and probably roots, in Peoria, say, is not suddenly going to move to LA because he can buy a nice house for less than he could a year ago.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

the problem to deliver convenient proximity to especially-attractive urban amenities

Tell that to the semi-rural and suburban parts of TX and other more-affordable states where people are flocking to from the areas with those "so outstanding" urban amenities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is it surprising that less affluent, less economically adequate, less educated, less skilled, poorly educated, more bigoted citizens would leave strong, modern, successful communities for weak, backward, uneducated communities in which they would (1) feel more at home in downscale surroundings, (2) be better able to afford the necessities of life in a downscale community, and (3) have a better chance to compete economically in the local labor market?

If you can't compete in the major leagues, or the minor leagues, the beer-gut softball league can seem an attractive landing spot.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Would be an okay analysis except for the fatal flaw, they are forced to leave, they don't 'choose' to leave !!!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Much as people who avoid education and make bad choices are forced to live in West Virginia rather than in Greenwich, forced to drive used pickups instead of new BMWs, forced to eat Slim Jims rather than filet, forced to go to revival meetings instead of Rolling Stones shows in Vegas or New York (tour announcement imminent!), forced to work at the dollar store rather than at a big law firm, etc.

[defaultdotxbe]

The incentives are already there with the high value of housing in the LA area, the government just needs to get out of the way. Suspend the ability of private groups to sue to stop projects, and suspend rent control and requirements that projects include below-market units. Cut any other red tape that doesn't exist in most other areas.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Then watch the rich flood in from all over the world, to snap up the newly created luxury housing. That competition will push everyone else ever-farther into the exurbs, worsening the usual plethora of transportation, pollution, and ecological problems.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop, like all economically ignorant people, thinks housing is somehow immune from the law of supply and demand.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, I just explained what goes on in terms of . . . supply and demand. If the practicalities of particular situations don't confirm your ideological priors, that is just experience telling you to adjust your ideology to fit the facts.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 42 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Nieporent, I just explained what goes on in terms of . . . supply and demand.

Maybe congress could pass a law repealing the law of supply and demand - possibly with some of the new laws allowing the creating of regulations to restrict supply. Just a thought

[Don Nico]

SL,
With an 11% income tax, no one is flooding into California.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, for California as a whole, net, you might have a point. For the major coastal regions, if what you say were true, real estate prices there would be far lower, more like Binghamton, NY.

[Don Nico]

What you claim is so counter-factual and has been that was for several decades (at least), no sane person could make such a claim.

Where the hell is Binghamton, NY?

[Nige]

Have to side with Lathrop here. It happens the same way almost everywhere. You can invoke the law of supply and demand all you like, but the law of people with lots of money wins.

[defaultdotxbe]

People with lots of money already live where they want to live, even places with high housing costs, because the money isn't an issue to them. Building new market-rate units isn't going to attract a lot of wealthy people, mostly it will be people relocating within the same market, thus putting their existing, less luxurious, units on the market. This filters all the way down. Studies have shown that every 10 units created in the top quintile results in over 6 units coming on the market in the bottom quintile.

But by all means, let's keep doing what we are doing already, i'ts working fine, right?

[Stephen Lathrop]

defaultdotxbe, your analysis(?) completely overlooks the problem. Which is that in the markets we are talking about, for the vast majority of folks who want to live proximate to urban job opportunities, upward price trends have already made the bottom quintile unaffordable. And there is zero supply of developers willing to build to satisfy sub-bottom-quintile demand.

In those markets, you can't build your way to lower prices, because there is not space available sufficient to put all the units the market demands, until you move so far outward that the demand for proximity gets frustrated. As I mentioned, that does give rise to pressure to re-develop run-down neighborhoods, to add to space available, but the people who live in those places see that rightly as policy to get rid of them in favor of others more economically fortunate.

[Joe_dallas]

lathrop - your explanation confirms the law of supply and demand

[VinniUSMC]

SLs understanding of this, like most topics he opines on, is entirely lacking. Good job SL.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, yeah, I on purpose relied on the law of supply and demand, as I explained to Nieporent. What is it with you people? Do you have such a limited supply of critiques that you are forced to roll out the wrong one from time to time, or is it more like you think you can call someone stupid by ignoring what they said?

Or maybe you just think if you have been relying on an ideological axiom all the time, that proves it works in every situation. If so, that would be reasoning you could reflect on a bit.

[David Nieporent]

because there is not space available sufficient to put all the units the market demands,

Of course there is. What you mean, even if you're not informed enough to realize it, is that there is not space allowed by the government to put all the units the market demands. Your argument is particularly dumb in urban areas, which already routinely build up rather than just out when allowed. Places that don't drastically limit building don't have problems drastically increasing the number of housing units.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, you are captive to an ideology which works well sometimes, but not uniformly. You want it to be uniform, so you make up ill-considered supports which don't match facts you could discover if you just looked around. Of course there is unlimited room in the sky. Problem is, you can't use that room without expanding logistical resources on the ground, which in places like Boston, NY, DC, LA, or San Francisco are already saturated. A moment's reflection on the relative mathematics of expansion in 3 dimensions vs. 2 dimensions explains the inherent disparity.

[Don Nico]

Lathrop,
David's point is glaringly made in the SF Bay Area. Restrictive housing rules are the dominant issue there.

[bernard11]

Stephen,

I'm not clear on what you mean by "logistical resources on the ground." If you are talking about transportation systems then it's obvious to anyone living in Boston that they are not at all saturated, and in fact could carry a lot more - really a lot - of individuals if they were properly managed and financed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard, I agree that in imaginary perfect circumstances, everything would be better. But practical realities around Boston encompass everything, and everything encompassed nets out to near-gridlock during business hours, with those hours reckoned broadly.

Friends of mine wanted to take an early morning drive from south of Boston to Newburyport. They wanted to arrive in time for the early-autumn sunrise. I told them to leave a bit before 5:00 am to have any chance of making it. That was too early for them. They compromised between my advice and their instincts. They arrived, and came to the usual stop, near the Braintree split at 5:40 am. They were from the DC area, and accustomed to more-relaxed traffic conditions on the Beltway. A 5:40 am traffic jam took them by surprise. (In fairness, this happened before the pandemic; traffic is a bit better now, but plainly trending back toward the prior norm.)

I suspect you live pretty close to where you work. Lest you conclude I am just making your point, and more building in downtown would add housing without impeding movement of people, goods, and utilities in and out of the periphery, how much time do you allocate to drive to the Cape in early August? Granted, it's a literal breeze to drive there in January.

If ever there were an under-used resource, it's Cape Cod in January. One of the spookiest experiences I ever had was a nighttime winter visit to Wellfleet. My wife and I weren't there for any purpose. We just turned off Rte 6 to see what it was like. It looked like a set from a Stephen King movie—a nicely maintained, rich-looking town, with absolutely everyone transported elsewhere by aliens. It creeped us out; we couldn't get back on Rte 6 fast enough.

Funny thing, though, real estate in Wellfleet is still plenty expensive. Once again, it is supply and demand, with demand drawn from a market so geographically broad it can always overwhelm the purely local supply.

All it takes to concede that is acquiescence that when it comes to allocating amenities prized world-wide, no conceivable free-market solution has power to overcome advantages for the rich. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think it angers free-market advocates when someone points it out? Sure, it implies that in fashionable localities, with so many rich people in the world, they enjoy economic power to buy all the amenities (if not for personal consumption, then for investment), and leave nothing but dregs for the local hoi polloi. Doesn't mean that is the result free-marketeers intend. It just happens that way—and not everywhere, all the time, just in places which draw the focus of the world's rich. Why isn't it okay for free-marketeers to like it that way, embrace it forthrightly, and insist that is how things ought to be?

[Nelson]

"They were from the DC area, and accustomed to more-relaxed traffic conditions on the Beltway."

This is, without a doubt, one of the most insane things I've ever read on this site.

[Nige]

'People with lots of money already live where they want to live,'

People with lots of money live in lots and lots of places and don't live in lots of other places that are great investments and tax havens, and they don't like property values dipping or the poors as neighbours. Supply and demand don't operate where they have the say-so.

[bernard11]

Supply and demand don’t operate where they have the say-so.

I think supply and demand operate just fine in those places, Nige. The problem is that those who have the say-so act to restrict supply.

[Nige]

I think that goes hand-in-hand with catering to the wealthy.

[bernard11]

Well, supply and demand don't operate in a vacuum.

When it comes to housing especially, there is almost always going to be a political context that affects them.

So what I am saying is that if you want to place blame for this phenomenon put it on those who control the politics, not on the abstract notion of supply and demand, which operate more or less mechanically given the context.

[Nige]

This was my point, too. There is no vacuum.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
it is not just the politicos. In my area of Oakland - politically as blue as it gets – the people who live there have been and remain dead set against new laws that would allow increasing the density of housing or the creation of so-called in-law units on existing parcels. Why? Because they (and I) perceive that will lower the market value of their property.

[bernard11]

Don,

I didn't mean to restrict my comments to politicians specifically. I would certainly include constituents as well.

[Don Nico]

"those who have the say-so act to restrict supply.those who have the say-so act to restrict supply."
And that includes yellow dog Dems as well as redneck Reps.

[Nelson]

I would suggest a program with a per-unit grant for builders that are distributed one at a time, rather than large chunks to large builders. So, as a generic example, let'd say there are 50 $10,000-per-unit grants. 15 companies apply for the grants, with plans to build 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc. units. All 15 would get one grant. 14 would get a second. 13 would get a third, and then the remaining 8 would be distributed according to a formula (my preference would be for a reputation/deliverable rating for each company based on their past successes or failures as the way to distribute the "remainder" grants.

I think it would encourage small businesses to apply (and help them develop into larger businesses), give an advantage for effective larger companies for the "remainder" grants, and naturally diversify the type of housing that gets built. Finally, have a specific schedule each year (maybe one per quarter) so there is a predictable, consistent, and constant flow of new housing.

I also think a similar program for improvements would be a good way to improve housing quality across the board.

I agree that increasing the number of inspectors, rotating in multiple inspectors over the course of projects to prevent corruption, and reducing the "add-on" requirements (like the solar panel requirement mentioned above) would all help.

[AmosArch]

Previously unseen horrifying footage of the J6 insurrection and the savage violent NeoNazis our country came within a hairs breadth of falling to. Before you watch, a warning. This stomach churning video and the innumerable crimes shown within may scar and traumatize you for life. Viewer discretion is advised.

https://youtu.be/g0FHVB9LHoE?feature=shared

[Michael Ejercito]

Great link!

[Brett Bellmore]

Pelosi violated over 200 years of tradition to spare us that horrific sight. The least you can do is not make her sacrifice meaningless.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course the J6 advocates around here pretend this pic is now indicative of everything that happened.

Incredible how dumb you need to make yourself to defend this. And just about an entire Congressional delegation is into being exactly that dumb.

[Michael P]

Of course S_0 has been pre-debunked by Glenn Greenwald: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1725920051427963050

[Sarcastr0]

Think whatever you want about this video (which I regard as quite revealing).

That we only saw the Jan 6 excerpts that Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff wanted us to see, while they hid everything they didn’t want us to see (like the below clip), corrupted everything from the start:

Yeah, Glenn is as usual full of shit. J6 had plenty of violence; it’s caught on tape. Pretending it was peaceful folks walking about is just lying.

And pretending this tape was covered up by the Democrats is also ridiculous. How many times has the GOP said 'we are now releasing the footage the Dems hid from the public' about some minor new bit of video now? Three? Four?

And y'all fall for it every time. Anything to defend the clear anti-democracy strain in your party.

[David Welker]

I don't agree with you on this one Sarcastr0.

If you release only pictures of violence, that isn't going to give an accurate picture of events.

Events with multiple participants can be confusing because some people may exhibit violence while others do not. And the nature and quantity of the violence matters too.

I think this would be rather obvious to you if there are a protest on some issue where you supported the protesters. In that case, you would want the whole story to be told and not just an exclusive focus on the worst actors and the worst incidents.

That should be common sense, and you are really stretching to deny it. Is it really tenable to argue against having a more complete picture? If the full story is told, you can always argue that X matters, but Y doesn't matter. But if information on Y is withheld, then the argument that it doesn't matter doesn't even have to be made. That is REALLY problematic.

[Nelson]

“If you release only pictures of violence, that isn’t going to give an accurate picture of events.

I think the difference is that most protests don’t require smashing windows, breaking down doors, and overturning barricades to get to the protest. What happened at the rally and outside the Capitol was a political rally/protest. What happened inside was criminal.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that saying, “I was doing violent, criminal things, but the people who came behind me were doing nonviolent, criminal things so it isn’t fair that no one is focusing on them” isn’t a winning strategy.

Adding on to the absurdity is that the people who are complaining about the way a mostly violent protest is being covered are the same people who condemn coverage of protests that were more nonviolent by a factor of a thousand, even if you accept the false premise that criminals using the protests for cover were actually protesters,

There is a difference between the purpose of the actual participants (protesting vs. breaching a secure building with armed guards) and that matters.

Can we agree that people who attended the rally and went to the Capitol, but didn’t go in, were protesters and those who smashed their way in (or walked over the broken debris to go in) and shouted about hanging the Vice President were criminals? Just like any protest can be separated into peaceful protesters and violent criminals?

[Michael P]

S_0:

Yeah, Glenn is as usual full of shit. J6 had plenty of violence; it’s caught on tape. Pretending it was peaceful folks walking about is just lying.

Greenwald didn’t claim anything of the sort. As usual, you just made shit up to argue with. But hey, somebody took your bait, so maybe that makes you feel like a productive troll.

[Sarcastr0]

I pasted what he said into my comment.

[Michael P]

Yes, and then pretended he said something entirely different.

[Sarcastr0]

"That we only saw the Jan 6 excerpts that Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff wanted us to see, while they hid everything they didn’t want us to see (like the below clip), corrupted everything from the start"

The only way Glenn's dumbass coverup thesis is material to anything is if the general understanding of J6 as violent was wrong.

And thus, there is no strawman, despite you insisting there is.

[Michael P]

The fact that you claim this:

The only way Glenn’s dumbass coverup thesis is material to anything is if the general understanding of J6 as violent was wrong.

shows how much you have blinded yourself with partisanship.

[Sarcastr0]

Stamping your foot and making no argument.

Take the L.

[OtisAH]

The “fed” in the MAGA hat flashing his badge is Kevin Lions, sentenced to four years in prison for his efforts that day. His badge is a vape pen.

[OtisAH]

That’s “Lyons” for the few of you who can use a search engine.

[NOVA Lawyer]

For those who don't take the moment to google this:

The man featured in the clip appears to be Kevin Lyons, who was sentenced to more than four years in prison in January after he recorded himself stealing a wallet from a Capitol staffer and texted friends a framed photograph he said he stole from the office of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

[M L]

Fanny packs and selfie sticks are the insurrectionist's tool of choice when violently overthrowing the most powerful government in history by way of a guided capitol tour.

[Nelson]

Yes, people who believe Trump won tje 2020 election are delusional idiots. Everyone knows that.

[jb]

Cool, cool. I have some film of Mike Tyson sitting down drinking water between rounds of a bout; why do people keep acting like boxing is violent?

[Nelson]

Best comment so far, but it's early.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In previous threads I supported arguments with a revelatory quotation from founder James Wilson. I expected at least a bit of feedback about what Wilson said, but got nothing.

This time I want to feature Wilson's remarks, with an eye to upsetting some of the premises I hear constantly from libertarian-tending, and originalist-tending, commenters here, who too often imagine a historical past wildly out of touch with this nation's founding traditions. Here it is from Wilson. Feel free to comment:

There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable . . . Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions . . . This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.

Note the implications for such notions as pre-existing rights, and the idea that only faithful adherence to interpretations of antique texts can deliver American-style governance.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words to admit you totally miss both his point and the point of originalism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, what do you suppose Wilson's point was?

[Michael P]

The people, as sovereign, have the power to change the constitution. The sovereign is not some part of the government or the constitution itself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, re-read Wilson's first sentence as many times as it takes to teach you that what you wrote is a misinterpretation. If that never happens, give up.

[Nelson]

I think you mean "The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people.", not "There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable".

That said, I have to agree with Michel P. The people do have the power to ditch the Constitution, amend it, or change existing elements of it. There is no part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, that the people cannot remove.

That is a far different tjimg than direct democracy, which you seem to be advocating. For better or worse, the American government is a federalist system. The bias towards conservatism that is baked into our system means that change will happen slowly, not that it can't change at all.

So because the people have the ultimate power over the Constitution, using the document to inform our laws is the only logical action. Don't get me wrong, I think textualism and originalism are more honored in the breech than in the observance as cover for cultural conservative judicial activism, but to suggest that the antidote to such dishonesty is direct democracy instead of time is a bridge way too far.

In the long run, cultural conservatism always loses because it's fighting yesterday's battles in today's world. You don't need the tyranny of the majority to beat it, you just have to play defense and wait.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nelson, I was quoting, not paraphrasing founding era language from one of the leading and most influential American political philosophers of that era. Wilson was not opining, or advocating. He was explaining how American constitutionalism was designed and actually intended to work. As one of the principal designers of that system, Wilson was well placed to know.

Also, where do you get the notion that direct democracy had anything at all to do with Wilson’s explanation, or with my advocacy?

[Nelson]

I never once said you were paraphrasing.

"Also, where do you get the notion that direct democracy had anything at all to do with Wilson’s explanation, or with my advocacy?"

Because in order to have the power vested in the people, but not have the Constitution as the legal and governmental authority, you have to assume that the Constitution, as written, and the (small r) republican system of our government isn't an expression of the will of the people. If the representative, republican, democratic institutions that execute the Constitution in law and government aren't a valid expression of the power and will of the people, the only other possibility is direct democracy.

So are the government, as executed through the Executive and Legislative branches by duly elected representatives, and the law, as executed by the Judicial branch, under the dictates of the Constitution, subject to the "supreme" power of the people? And, if so, why would libertarian or originalist tendencies be out of step with the passage you quoted?

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, Nelson. You have to assume that at any particular moment the Constitution is not an expression of the entire will of the People, but only of some prior agreement among them. And your insistence on direct democracy is quaint. It took notably less than a direct majority for America's founders to seize power sufficient to constitute government under popular sovereignty.

I think your institutionalist tendencies are at least better than right wing radicalism. If everyone thought as you do, the nation would not be in the pickle it finds itself in today.

But given the pickle, it will likely take something more energetic than wise and gradual institutionalism to defend American constitutionalism during the next 18 months or so. Moments of national crisis, particularly constitutional crisis, call for energy directed by a single-minded commitment to guard jealously the sovereign's power, and to pursue aggressively and punish severely anyone who attempts to rival that sovereignty. That kind of commitment is not what I saw when I watched the news last night.

[Nelson]

"You have to assume that at any particular moment the Constitution is not an expression of the entire will of the People, but only of some prior agreement among them."

And? Are you suggesting that the Constitution should be voted on repeatedly in order to be considered the actual will of the people?

There is a method by which the Constitution can be changed. All of it. There is no part that is protected if the people wants to remove it. That is sufficient to identify the people as sovereign over the Constitution.

"I think your institutionalist tendencies are at least better than right wing radicalism."

I'm not an institutionalist, per se. I am opposed to unnecessary chaos and see consistency as a good thing. I am a huge proponent of slow, but constant, change. The only thing worse than constant chaos is stagnation.

"to defend American constitutionalism during the next 18 months or so"

Look, I get (and agree) that Trump is an authoritarian who would grasp power by any means, legal or illegal, if given the opportunity.

But what the catastophists ignore is that the ones who stood up against him were other Republicans. Brad Raffensberger was one of the heroes of the 2020 election.

There is a difference between people who prefer Trump to Biden and people who oppose free and fair elections if Trump loses. The former have shown out as willing to protect the integrity of our elections and accept a result they didn't like. The latter are a small, vocal minority who are masochistic in their willingness to be humiliated by espousing insane things.

The 2020 election was a stress test for our country. When Trump lost, and lost, and lost, and lost it showed that Americans are willing to protect democracy. All Americnas, Independents and Republicans included.

"That kind of commitment is not what I saw when I watched the news last night."

Then you should find better news programs. Every loss that Trump and those who espouse his insane claims of election fraud took should have reinforced your faith in Americans and their dedication to democracy.

Every time we have the opportunity to move forward, we take it. Sometimes we face a temporary setback like Dobbs and the implementation of anti-liberty laws by cultural conservatives, but in the long run we move past those dying gasps of yesterday and move forward.

[VinniUSMC]

Nah, not worth it.

[Michael P]

Lathrop, if you had a leg to stand on, you would argue from what the text actually says instead of blithely asserting I am wrong. You don't have a leg to stand on. The rest of what you quoted explains that Wilson saw the people-as-sovereign as that ultimate authority.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Which text do you refer to?

[Joe_dallas]

Lathrop - I have a new found respect for historical interpretation
"As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions."

Wilson statement seriously undercuts the claim that the militia clause was written to limit the Peoples right to keep and bear arms.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, on the basis of what implied assumptions do you conclude that? It seems to me you have at least assumed that you understand something about guns and the founding era that I know the historical record cannot support.

Also, you haven’t even got your complaint right. The militia clause was never meant to limit the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms. It was meant, quite narrowly, to guard a right for the people jointly to bear arms in militia units which were not under federal control. The task to protect a right to bear arms for any other purposes was not thereby excluded. It was simply left to the state constitutions to be decided variously according to differing preferences among the states.

You also overlook that Wilson is telling you that American constitutionalism is founded on the power of the jointly sovereign People to decree any system of government they want. And then, if they don’t like what they tried, to do it again differently, without limit or constraint by anything which happened in the past.

[Joe_dallas]

Lathrop - "Also, you haven’t even got your complaint right. The militia clause was never meant to limit the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms."

Yet that is the argument made by Stevens in his Heller dissent. ie Stevens stated that the government could restrict the individual right if not serving in the militia.

[Nelson]

You mean like it says in the Constitution? The monster!

[Nelson]

"Wilson statement seriously undercuts the claim that the militia clause was written to limit the Peoples right to keep and bear arms."

Only if you support direct democracy and if there are more people who believe as you do rather than as the majority of Americans believe.

Given how far right your politics run, I don't think you'd like what would happen in a direct democracy. I know I wouldn't.

[mse326]

What libertarian leaning or originalism leaning individuals say that the people can't amend the constitution? That is literally the basis of originalism, interpret to original meaning because that is what the people ratified and it is up to the people to change the constitution by amending it, not judges in interpreting it. And the notion that libertarian individuals don't put the individual people above the government is ludicrous.

[Stephen Lathrop]

And the notion that libertarian individuals don’t put the individual people above the government is ludicrous.

Not my notion. Nor James Wilson’s.

His ideas, which I channel here to get comments, were about joint sovereignty on the basis of an assembly and organization among the People sufficient to amass whatever power proves necessary to found, at pleasure and without constraint, whatever government they choose to decree.

Note that the notions of government at pleasure, and of a people superior to their constitutions means very specifically that no one has authority to demand the People follow constitutional means to amend the Constitution. The Constitution constrains the government; it does not constrain the People. If you reread that passage from Wilson carefully, you will discern that implication.

The test of government legitimacy is fealty to the Constitution, and jealous defense of the People’s power.

The test of sovereign legitimacy is power pure and simple.

The political philosophy of Wilson and other like-minded founders rejected as nonsensical any notion of an individual person sovereign over government, except in the case of a reigning monarch.

By the way, if you reread that passage from Wilson, you will find everything I have told you there, in so many words.

[Nelson]

"That is literally the basis of originalism, interpret to original meaning because that is what the people ratified and it is up to the people to change the constitution by amending it, not judges in interpreting it."

Not really, as shown by the "ignore the "militia" part of the Second Amendment" argument that has recently replaced historical interpretations. What you're saying is. "Interpret it the way I want it to be interpreted, not the way those other judges interpret it". That is activism, not originalism.

Interpretation of the law and the Constitution is exactly the role of judges and SCOTUS in the Constitution. You just think that some interpretations should be accepted and some shouldn't based on your preferences. If a specific "level" of judge can make an interpretation, the interpretations of all judges at that level have equal authority and validity. Eventually the truly knotty issues end up at the highest level the Constitution creates, the Supreme Court.

Stability, faithfulness to the law and the Constitution, and slow, but constant, change are all good things.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note that in Wilson's view the highest level the Constitution creates is explicitly not the highest level in American constitutionalism. That matters especially for its implications about limits to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over sovereign decrees. Those include not only the Constitution itself, but other specific grants of power to the political branches, and other constitutive powers such as impeachments, constraints on qualifications for office, succession in office, and oath taking. On political questions especially, the Court has been too willing to award itself jurisdiction which a more accurate interpretation of sovereign prerogative would deny it.

[Nelson]

And every single one of those things could be removed or added to the Constitution by the people, if they see fit.

You can't escape the fact that the Constitution and, through it, every single aspect of our laws and our government, are explicitly subject to alteration at any time if the people desire it.

That is, by any reasonable definition, the people being sovereign over the Constitution, the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislature.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is something worthy of discussion.

https://groups.google.com/g/uk.legal/c/SAlMtNHz6ig/m/iuMpVqxWAAAJ

Where are the women’s rights organizations?
“Where were you when Israeli women were raped and slaughtered by Hamas
terrorists?” feminists in the Jewish state demand to know.

By Rachel Avraham | Nov 15, 2023 at 12:00 pm | Topics: Hamas, Women
Share on
Women attend a rally calling for the release of Israelis held kidnapped
by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, at "Hostage Square" in Tel Aviv, November
12, 2023. Photo by Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90
Women attend a rally calling for the release of Israelis held kidnapped
by Hamas terrorists in Gaza, at "Hostage Square" in Tel Aviv, November
12, 2023. Photo by Avshalom Sassoni/Flash90
On October 7, 2023, 1,500 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel by land, sea
and air, massacring innocent youngers at a music festival, burning
people living in border communities alive in their homes, decapitating
babies, and raping numerous women. Simultaneously, Hamas fired
thousands of rockets at the Jewish state. Israeli forensic experts
have already confirmed that Hamas is guilty of rape, torture and other
crimes against.

As of today, more than 1,400 Israelis have been killed, over 5,000 have
been wounded, and over 230 are held hostage by Hamas in Gaza following
the October 7 massacre, which Yotam Polizar, the CEO of IsraAid, a
prominent Israeli humanitarian aid organization, compared to the Yezidi
Genocide in magnitude. Already, the Israel Police have begun to gather
testimonies on the rape and other forms of torture Hamas committed on
October 7.

Local Israeli media has documented countless instances of rape on
October 7. It is very hard to forget the images of 19-year-old Naama
Levy being forced into a jeep by Palestinian terrorists, with blood
flowing between her legs, an indication that she was raped. One
survivor of the Supernova Music Festival massacre told The Jerusalem
Post about the rape and murder of her friend: “As I am hiding, I see in
the corner of my eyes that a terrorist is raping her. She was alive
beforehand. She stood on her feet, bleeding from her back. But then
the situation was that he was pulling her hair. She had long, brown
hair.” As one survivor of the music festival massacre told Tablet:
“Women were raped next to the dead bodies of their friends.”

Another survivor told Haaretz of a gang rape on October 7: “They bent
someone over. I realized he was raping her and passing her onto someone
else in uniform.” The terrorist is then said to have shot her in the
head and then mutilated her body. More recently, the Israel Police
has started to collect the testimony of survivors, documenting how Hamas
massacred, raped and tortured en masse. Itzik Itah, who leads
emergency responders, told The Jewish Chronicle: “In one house, there
was a couple tied to each other with their clothes down and you can see
definitely that the women underwent rape. When she is naked faced
down, and her clothes had clearly been taken off not by her, that’s a
woman who underwent rape.”

However, following all of these atrocities, women’s rights activists
abroad have been deafly silent, while others on social media have even
had the audacity to deny that rape and other crimes against humanity
were committed by Hamas on October 7. For example, UN Women, one of the
most prominent women’s rights organizations, released a statement on
October 13 – almost a week after Hamas’s massacre and abduction of the
hostages – saying: “UN Women condemns the attacks on civilians in Israel
and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and is deeply alarmed by the
devastating impact on civilians including women and girls.” There is no
mention of the grave atrocities like rape, beheading, and mutilation
that have been committed against Israeli women and girls on October 7.

In response to UN Women’s October 13 statement, 140 women’s rights
organizations, most of them being either Jewish or Israeli, drafted a
letter stating:

“We strongly implore UN Women – and all other human rights agencies – to
gravely condemn the brutal attack and atrocities committed by Hamas on
Israeli citizens as well as the abduction of innocent hostages, to
urgently act to protect the special humanitarian rights of women and
children, and to do everything in their power to expose and recognize
these atrocious and horrific acts of violence against women and girls
and to bring the release of all hostages immediately.”

Following this, CEDAW, another prominent international women’s rights
organization, issued a statement calling for the “initiation of
inclusive peace talks, the cessation of war and an urgently needed
humanitarian corridor.” They did not mention at all the mass rapes
committed by the Hamas terror organizations against Israeli women and
girls. Following this, Nitzana Darshan Leitner, the head of the Shurat
HaDin law firm, stated in a recent YouTube video:

“Where are the women’s rights organizations? Where is the Me Too
Movement? Where were you when Israeli women were raped and slaughtered
by Hamas terrorists?”

She continued: “Where are you when Israeli girls are kept hostage,
tortured and sexually abused by subhuman animals? How come you have
not even spoken a word? Is it ok to rape Jews? Is that what you are
saying? Because we hear you all the time. All the time but now. On
October 7, women and children were brutally raped by Hamas, some of them
so sadistically that bones were broken. Young girls and elderly women
were murdered and burned alive. Others were taken to Gaza to be gang
raped on the streets and in military bunkers. Images of bleeding women
being paraded through Gaza as captives were broadcast worldwide and
nothing, not a word from you. No condemnation. Not a call to release
the women and children.”

According to Darshan-Leitner, “Rape has been recognized as an insidious
war crime. It is a horrific criminal weapon that tries to serve a
political objective. The Geneva Convention specifically provides that
‘women should be protected against any attack upon their honor, in
particular against rape or any form of indecent assault.’ Why do you
believe that this international law that you constantly wave in our
faces should not apply in this case? Why do you believe that the
international tribunals are merely a weapon to punish Israel but in no
way should be used to safeguard Israelis?”

In conclusion, she proclaimed: “There is no taking sides in this. This
is pure evil. This is inhuman. It’s rape. It’s a war crime. When you
stood up for women’s rights, you made a change. You exposed, hunted
down, shamed and prosecuted the perpetrators of rape and sexual violence
in your countries. But now you chose to sit idly because it involves
Jewish girls and women. There is only one word to describe it.
Antisemitic hypocrisy.”

Earlier this week, in a rally organized by Israeli Arab journalist Lucy
Aharish, some 1,000 Israeli women gathered in Tel Aviv, demanding that
women’s rights organizations worldwide take a stance against Hamas’s
crimes against humanity. According to her, more than 100 women are
presently being held hostage in Gaza, with some of them being children:
“We, the women of Israel, are calling for the return of the girls and
women stolen from us.” Former Miss World Linor Abargil also attended
the rally and added: “How can it be that all 268 existing women’s
organizations in the world do not rise up to cry out? I call on the
women leaders of the world to cry out.”

[John F. Carr]

I don't see much difference between a thousand murders and a thousand murders plus a hundred rapes.

[Frank Drackman]

Pretend one of the rapes is your daughter.

[Reallynotbob]

Classy.
Cuz, you know, rapes don't count.

Just to beat the dead horse: "1000 = 1000 + zero" is what you said.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Classy. Cuz, you know, rapes don’t count.

Just to beat the dead horse: “1000 = 1000 + zero” is what you said.

I’m not sure if you’re really that stupid, or if you’re just feigning profound ignorance in order to be a dishonest asshole…but I’ll toss a coin and assume the former:

What he was saying is that, at some point a set of atrocities is already so horrific that adding on some more atrocities can’t do much to alter one’s fundamental revulsion at the acts.

[Michael P]

Those people baked a living human baby in an oven as part of a pogrom. Does raping some of their victims show they are any more depraved than if they didn't rape anyone?

Rape is a terrible crime, but in their zeal to dehumanize their victims, the attackers made themselves more inhumane than I could have imagined. (Admittedly, I don't have a very good imagination for that kind of thing. They apparently do.)

[Nige]

'But now you chose to sit idly because it involves Jewish girls and women'

I'm not sure what womens' rights group would support a response to these appalling atrocities that involves the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent women.

[Ed Grinberg]

see also:
https://nypost.com/2023/10/14/feminist-nonprofit-staffer-cheers-palestine-after-hamas-rape-killing-of-women/

As someone said in a related Reason.com comment-thread:
[I]f college kids spend 4 years complaining that "words are violence" and preaching tolerance and [the need for] "safe spaces," and then turn around and endorse murder and rape of...women and children based on their [nationality / ethnic background /] religion, it kind of makes you question their sincerity...
https://reason.com/podcast/2023/10/16/does-it-matter-what-college-kids-say-about-israel/?comments=true#comment-10278161

[Nelson]

People who say, “why aren’t you setting your priorities the way I think you should” are ridiculous. The kindest thing to say about those who rage, “if you were a REAL [insert vague generality here], you would …” is that they are collosally arrogant and self-important. Plus it’s usually the case that some do prioritize their way, but the fact that not all do drives them to throw an epic tantrum.

Just roll your eyes at them and move on.

[Michael Ejercito]

The situation in Gaza in two sentences.

https://groups.google.com/g/uk.legal/c/WvKSSvGn9Y4/m/ZMWTMHNCAAAJ

Gaza made the same kind of choice Japan did on December 7, 1941.

Gaza has the same choice Japan did on August 5, 1945.

[Commenter_XY]

Here is what PA leadership had to say, just yesterday...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-falsely-says-oct-7-rave-massacre-was-committed-by-idf-netanyahu-preposterous/

That is Israel's 'peace partner'. No, the PA will not be running gaza anytime soon.

[John F. Carr]

Palestinian Authority diplomats misunderstood or misrepresented a Haaretz story and retracted their claim when the error was pointed out.

The Palestinian Authority doesn't have to be pro-Israel to win the job of running Gaza. It doesn't have to share Western values. It only has to be much better than Hamas. Stop the rockets and disband terrorist organizations. I don't know if it can keep the peace in Gaza. I know Israel is going to have a hard time if it tries again.

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on joining Dr. Ed in your nuke Gaza advocacy.

[Commenter_XY]

To be fair, I advocate something short of nuking gaza. I strongly advocate for the obliteration of Hamas members; all of them, wherever they are on Planet Earth. There is nothing to negotiate with Judeocidal terrorists who have repeatedly acted on their Judeocidal beliefs.

I advocate for gazan civilians to obey the directives of the IDF if they value their lives.

It is sad that they suffer....take it up with Hamas. Hamas can end this war in 15 minutes by doing the following:

-- release the hostages
-- unconditionally surrender to the IDF, and face Israeli justice

[John F. Carr]

What's your code name for the mop up project?

Operation Nemesis: Revenge for Armenian genocide.
Operation Bayonet: Revenge for Munich massacre.

[Commenter_XY]

Chereb shel Yitzhak (Issac's Sword)

[Nige]

'It is sad that they suffer….take it up with Hamas'

'Look what you made me do.'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I advocate for gazan civilians to obey the directives of the IDF if they value their lives.

NPR reporting (and that of others) indicates that this makes you a hopeless dumbass at best, and more likely a rage-blinded, immoral asshole.

[Reallynotbob]

I get the analogy you're drawing but can you please clarify what choice you want Gaza to make, today? I'm unclear what "surrender" would look like here, i.e. what you or the IDF might accept?

[David Nieporent]

How does anyone surrender?

1) Communicate, "We surrender."
2) Lay down all weapons.
3) Release all hostages.

[Don Nico]

I'd add
4) cooperate in destroying the "Gaza Metro."

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/380594

We don't have a problem at all, right? We might in the People's Republic of NJ. Killing Jews in the streets of NJ apparently isn't enough. Now there are grenades strapped to phone poles near shuls. A grenade. How nice.
(I know, inert -- guess that counts for something to the Misek's of the world)

It has started here.

[Frank Drackman]

Other Docs/CRNA's in my practice (probably 90% Hey-Zeus followers) keep telling me to be careful in Israel. They think I'm joking when I say I'm not somewhere really dangerous, like Detroit or Los Angeles.
Or Las Vegas, anyone here about this Black boy murdered by a pack of 15 white teenagers? Surprised there haven't been riots \

Frank

[Kazinski]

The annual Freedom in the 50 states report is out.

Of the top 10 only one is blue, a couple are purple:
1 New Hampshire 0.71
2 Florida 0.57
3 South Dakota 0.52
4 Nevada 0.51
5 Arizona 0.44
6 Tennessee 0.38
7 Michigan 0.31
8 Missouri 0.3
9 Georgia 0.28
10 Indiana 0.27

Of the Bottom 10 all are Blue

41 Minnesota –0.06
42 Vermont –0.19
43 Maine –0.20
44 Delaware –0.23
45 Maryland –0.34
46 Oregon –0.40
47 New Jersey –0.42
48 California –0.58
49 Hawaii –0.72
50 New York –0.77

https://www.freedominthe50states.org

Not many surprises except for Vermont and Maine, but I don't really know, never been there.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'll be interested to see where Michigan goes in the next few years, the analysis only goes to 2022 so it doesn't account for repealing their right to work law this year. You can already see MI losing ground in some categories though.

[Sarcastr0]

Conservative metric favors conservative states. News at 11.

[Michael P]

This is why honest people don't use the word "liberal" to describe leftists: Freedom has not been a leftist value for a very long time.

[Sarcastr0]

The pinched idea of economic liberty being all there is to liberty went out of style among non-reactionaries after the Great Depression.

You don't even seem to care much about the concepts of implementation; just another way to attack the other side. I don't know I've ever seen you evince any kind of philosophical through line; your main truth is anti-liberalism, not anything real.

[Michael P]

I'm just pointing out what you glancingly acknowledged. No need to throw out stupidly wrong personal attacks in response... unless, as usual, that's all you have.

[Sarcastr0]

You either didn't understand or didn't read the first sentence of my OP.

You also continue to show your only philosophical throughline is anti-liberal.

There is more to life.

[Kazinski]

Let's examine one concept here: the power to restrain peoples liberty in any context gives the state power to use deadly force to ensure compliance.

If you doubt that, Eric Garner was killed by a cop for selling single cigarettes on the street.

I don't doubt that's the last thing the cop intended, but there it is. The more laws there are the more people the cops will kill, or just as tragically the more lives bureaucrats will ruin.

Closing down a salon for using unlicensed hair washers is a tragedy too.

[Sarcastr0]

That is an overly academic take. In reality there are plenty of non deadly actions up the ladder of enforcement. Especially once you add the corporate form to the mix.

That doesn’t mean government action is costless. But relying on the market has costs as well.

[OtisAH]

Posts like yours are why everybody here knows you to be an idiot. You not being an idiot has never been a value of yours.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Aren't you inverting cause and effect?
YOu always use a measure that suits the measured. That was my science training. Either you ignore conservative/liberal or you make it your measure. There is no other way 🙂

[hobie]

The site is glaringly opaque on how they define/reason the criteria they selected.

[OtisAH]

It’s basically “no income tax + no regulatory system = 100% freedom.” Then you reduce the amount of freedom as the levels of taxes and/or regulations increase. This is a 1:1 metric for red states and exponential when applied to blue states. I’m sure there’s an immigration-related component too, but that’s the gist.

[hobie]

Regardless, it is a highly subjective ranking. Perhaps to some economics is the most important. But to a gay man, the ability to eat a cake or use a restroom would be paramount. Also, we're slowly learning state by state that women also have want for some very notable freedoms for themselves

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That ranking appears to be a white, male, superstitious, bigoted, prudish, on-the-spectrum clinger's dream, compiled by a failed Trump nominee and former (if not current) Koch mouthpiece.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Senve unsubstantiated gueses from Reason's professional hater :)_

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But to a gay man, the ability to eat a cake or use a restroom would be paramount.

Can you identify for us in which U.S. state(s) gay men are not free to eat cake and/or use a restroom?

[SRG2]

So they value economic liberty, albeit narrowly, and don't value social or political liberty.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This. But, apparently, plenty of commenters here are either fully on board with economic freedoms are the only ones that matter or, alternatively, are dumb enough to think anything labeled a metric of "freedom" is, actually, a metric of freedom.

[jb]

This is mostly just a reflection of how they choose to value economic vs. personal freedom.

Here's the list of top 10 for personal liberty:

1 Nevada 0.278
2 Arizona 0.247
3 Maine 0.231
4 New Hampshire 0.204
5 New Mexico 0.198
6 Vermont 0.187
7 Montana 0.147
8 Missouri 0.144
9 Massachusetts 0.138
10 West Virginia 0.128
(California comes in at number 11)

And here's the bottom 10:
41 Tennessee 0.026
42 Alabama 0.026
43 Delaware 0.024
44 Arkansas 0.022
45 Mississippi 0.017
46 South Carolina 0.011
47 Kentucky 0.008
48 Wyoming 0

So for personal freedom, blue states dominate the top of the list and red states dominate the bottom of the list. Since personal freedom can only go down to zero but for some reason economic freedom can go negative, when you blend the two together you overweight economic freedom. I guess if you care about one kind of freedom more than the other that's fine but doesn't seem like a very honest attempt to blend the two.

[bernard11]

This "report" is gibberish.

Arbitrary weights, arbitrary indices, correlated variables, on and on.

It's nonsense, as are most "rankings" based on this sort of procedure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have problems putting Maine ahead of Massachusetts.

And as to freedom, Vermont has no gun laws.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

More importantly, Vermont has great beer.

[Kazinski]

Sure most places do.

I started home brewing in 1992. While I don't brew as much as I used to, because so much good beer is available now. But I'll brew something once or twice a year that I can't find on the shelf or tavern.

Last thing I made was a 9.7% Imperial Stout. A lot more bitter than standards like Old Rasputin, but certainly not as complex as seasonals like Deschutes Abyss.

I've got a stable of original imperial stouts, the Jamaican, with Molasses, the Cherry with 20% Sour Cherry concentrate in the boil.

I love the smell of liberty in the morning.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It's rare that I try an imperial stout and don't wish it were a regular stout. They mostly taste too alcohol-y to me. Have you found that in your brewing? There is often a lot going on taste wise, and your originals sound really good.

Yes, most places do, but Vermont outdoes most of the rest in terms of quality. Hill Farmstead, Frost, Lawson's, Zero Gravity, Upper Pass, Foam, Four Quarters. One outstanding brewery after another. Just don't bother with Heady Topper, in my opinion.

[Nelson]

Gee, I wonder why a measure that doesn’t include any mention of medical freedom (including abortion) under personal freedom is skewed towards red states? Statewide cable franchising literally has a larger impact on “freedom”, according to this system, than making your own medical decisions without government interference.

It’s almost like the entire thing is skewed towards cultural conservative priors and is structured to “find out” that “freedom” is more prevalent in culturally conservative states than culturally liberal states. Which is ridiculous on its face, given the use of government coersion by moralistic authoritarians bent on forcing everyone else to live by minority, unpopular, and narrow-minded cultural standards.

[not guilty]

Professor Mark Graber offers some trenchant commentary on the misguided notion that the President is not an "officer of the United States" listed in the Fourteenth Amendment, § 3, including a cogent discussion of statements made by members of the Thirty-Ninth Congress that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. https://balkin.blogspot.com/2023/11/researching-whether-persons-responsible.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Now if only there had been an "insurrection"...

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is two fold:

1. If you lower the bar for "insurrection" enough to capture what is being attributed to Trump, we've had many insurrections since 2016.

2. If you lower the bar for being responsible for an insurrection to what is necessary to attribute those to Trump, you sweep up a substantial number of Democratic office holders.

In the end, it's just more TrumpLaw, intended to be applied to Trump and his allies, and nobody else.

[Moderation4ever]

Could you elaborate on a similar case for a Democratic office holder? One who refused to give up an office and started a riot to prevent it? I thinking you have to go back to the civil wars unless you have something earlier.

[Michael P]

Trump didn't start a riot, but lots of Democrats encouraged rioting in their conspiracy to drive Trump from office.

[hobie]

It wasn't the riot that was the real insurrection, it was the fake elector schemes that were. Affirmative (as opposed to rhetorical) actions in furtherance of a crime

[Michael P]

Insurrection has historically included some aspect of violence. Do you see that in the alternate-elector schemes? If not, do you define all election crime as insurrection?

Does the enrolled bill rule teach us anything about the validity of Congress's conclusions in cases like this?

[hobie]

Whatever you want to call it, it was a deliberate attempt to nullify millions of votes in 5 states. Lord, re-explaining this over and over is tedious

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Whatever you want to call it

Words are violence....well, except that they apparently don't actually mean anything.

[Michael P]

The leftoids don't actually have a coherent theory, which is why they cannot answer simple questions about their positions and instead fall back to "whatever you want to call it" tedious evasions.

[hobie]

Cling to the idea that all criminality involved in J6 must be insurrection. I'm talking straight, garden variety fraud

[Sarcastr0]

The violence was part of the pressure on Mike Pence as part of this alternate elector scheme (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21066248-eastman-memo).
That it didn't go as planned does not make Trump any less culpable.

Trump's efforts are laid out in the indictment. But what I find extra damming is how after violence came to pass, he was pretty into it, and wanted to join it.
An innocent person would have tried to stop it.

Trump knew and intended J6.

[ThePublius]

That's baloney. J6 was a Democrat-orchestrated Reichstag fire.

[Sarcastr0]

Hahaha!

'Your sourced post is baloney!' *proceeds to wrap entire self in tin foil*

[Nige]

Why the fuck would you need a 'Reichstag Fire' for someone who just lost?

[Moderation4ever]

Thanks for being so vague in your response. I was afraid you might have a real example.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think I've already said, repeatedly, that I'm not playing that game of "Pretend 'insurrection' means exactly what Trump is accused of, and nothing else."

The 'autonomous zones' certainly qualified as insurrection. Textbook examples of it. And Democratic office holders had as much proven involvement in them as Trump did the January 6th break in at the Capitol.

[Nige]

Which Democratic officeholders were to be installed after losing elections in these autonomous zones?

[Brett Bellmore]

And there you go, trying again to restrict the definition of "insurrection" to just what you accuse Trump of, and nothing else.

[Nige]

Hey, you're the guy trying to expand the definition so widely that just following proper established procedures for objecting to election results is an insurrection in order to sepcifically protect the one guy why tried to overturn an election and whose supporters rioted in an effort to instal him as president.

[not guilty]

Brett, Trump sought to block the Congress from performing duties assigned to it by the Twelfth Amendment. How do "autonomous zones" qualify as insurrection against the United States Constitution?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Brett.

When all you've got is tu quoque, you've got nothing. Here, your kvetch about “autonomous zones” doesn't even rise to the level of tu quoque.

[Brett Bellmore]

"How do “autonomous zones” qualify as insurrection against the United States Constitution?"

How does violently taking control of a portion of US territory, announcing your independence, declaring that US law is no longer in effect in it, and defending against (admittedly feeble, hence aiding and abetting) attempts to retake it, NOT insurrection?

This is exactly what the Confederates, the Platonic ideal 14th amendment "insurrectionists", did, after all. NOT attempting to overturn an election. The Confederates didn't try to block Congress from doing diddly squat, remember. They just declared they weren't part of the US anymore. Just like the people creating the autonomous zones did.

[Nige]

'This is exactly what the Confederates, the Platonic ideal 14th amendment “insurrectionists”, did,'

Sure it was.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What do you think the zones were autonomous from?

You don't see how "autonomous" is inconsistent with "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land;"?

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Pretty sure Jeff Davis & co. tried to establish a much larger autonomous zone. And it was definitely rebellion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, so? The Confederates were insurrectionists on a larger scale, but otherwise did exactly the same, only with the point on their side of already being the legitimate local governments, so their insurrection was only against the federal government, not all levels of it at the same time.

Again, this doesn't work: You can't define "insurrection" to mean, "Exactly what we accuse Trump of, and nothing else.

[Nige]

No, we can define what Trump and his supporters did as insurrection. Your objection is that other things might alsobe insurrection. But so what? You're still going to vote for Trump.

Personally, I don't see why what Trump and his supporters did has to qualify as insurrection to disqualify him as a candidate, not officially but in the minds of voters - we know what they did, you know what they did, you support it and them and their anti-democratic authoritarianism.

[not guilty]

Tu quoque now!
Tu quoque tomorrow!
Tu quoque fo'evah!!!

[David Nieporent]

.

1. If you lower the bar for “insurrection” enough to capture what is being attributed to Trump, we’ve had many insurrections since 2016.

Huh. Didn't realize that there were many attempts to violently overthrow the government and install an unelected person as president.

[OtisAH]

Oh yeah, happens all the time. Surprised you missed it. Brett is probably organizing a list of them now but a simple Google will reveal thousands of examples of other presidents doing exactly what Turnip did, which he didn’t do, but way way worse than Turnip, who is innocent.

[not guilty]

Brett's failure to list any examples in support of his ipse dixit assertion that we have "had many insurrections since 2016" speaks loudly.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's cited Antifa and BLM as attempted insurrections.

It's very silly, and when pushed he believes those organizations are paramilitary arms of the Democratic Party, akin to the KKK back in the day.

It's political thrillers stuff, and even most of the unserious posters around here don't generally give him much support. (Brett for all his faults is not part of that group).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Huh. Didn’t realize that there were many attempts to violently overthrow the government and install an unelected person as president."

And, YET AGAIN, the definition of "insurrection" isn't, "Exactly what we accuse Trump of, and nothing else."

[Sarcastr0]

You are the one with the idiosyncratic definition.

The courts, legal academia, and just about everyone else in this blog see you broadening the definition to facilitate your defense of J6 as nothing special.

I’d think it was trolling, but I know you.

[Nige]

Again, Trump did what Trump did, why are you and the rest of the Republicans, supposedly patriotic law-and-order respecters of the institutions of the Republic, voting for him.

[Moderation4ever]

I believe Judge Wallace did find that Trump an insurrectionist. So he has been adjudicated corrupt in his business, a sexual abuser, and now an insurrectionist. He not doing well in the courts, is he?

[Bob from Ohio]

Democrats rule against Trump. Unprecedented!

[Nige]

Republicans reject the rule of law when applied to Trump! Still weird, actually!

[Bob from Ohio]

Law is just a tool. Its not our ruler.

Dems are just wielding it politically in a vendetta against Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

Law is just a tool. Its not our ruler.

People like Bob are exactly why positivist fidelity to the law is a good idea.

[Nige]

Dems aren't wielding anything. Trump's a crook.

[Commenter_XY]

Why is it trenchant?

[not guilty]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trenchant

[Commenter_XY]

I know the meaning, just did not know what stood out to you as particularly trenchant.

[Michael P]

They found one context-free quote from a guy who was the principal drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment, in a different context, that "referred to the president as an 'executive officer of the United States.'"

That seems to be it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

There are many many instances of referring to the Presidency as an office of and under the USA. You might want to start with the written record of the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, as well as what records we have of the ratification debates over 14A. Both Presidents Lincoln and Johnson used that phraseology many times.

I don't think all of that necessarily proves anything about the precise meaning of section 3. Just more weight to the "Presidency is included" side.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right. I'd never claim that Trump isn't relevantly an officer for 14th amendment purposes. I think he is.

I just say that the contrary position isn't frivolous.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Which I suppose is Prof. Blackman's point in the OP.

[Moderation4ever]

Professor Graber gets to my question about the idea of the Presidency being an office of the United States. The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution including the orderly and peaceful transfer of power. Trump violated that oath and to allow him to again hold an office and swear an oath seems wrong. How many times can you break your oath and still be trusted?

[Krayt]

Have an election and find out?

[Sarcastr0]

Neither Oathbreaking nor qualifications to hold office generally are something you put up to a vote.

They are questions of fact.

[Kazinski]

Use a better source.

One of the primary precedents he uses is:

"Conkling insisted that the president and members of Congress could hold dual offices because they were officers “of the United States,” not officers “under the United States.”

But of course the Constitution bars Congressmen, while serving, from any office "under the United States". So obviously under any of the possible distinctions of "office under the United States" it includes a position of an appointed prosecutor. I'm unaware that dicta, because it has no bearing on deciding the case, from a confessional committee that has any force of law when deciding constitutional questions in the courts.

Legislation may have a lot of bearing, but not ethics hearings especially when the dicta has no bearing on the outcome.

[Michael P]

I expect Hahvaad faculty to next produce an essay about the layers of nuance in the slogan "Arbeit macht frei": https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/11/15/faculty-condemn-president-gay-statement/

[Frank Drackman]

Like "Helter Skelter", "Arbeit Macht Frei" was just an cool song/innocuous proverb, until Charlie Manson/Goebbels stole it
From AlGores Interwebs
The expression comes from the title of an 1873 novel by the German philologist Lorenz Diefenbach, Arbeit macht frei: Erzählung von Lorenz Diefenbach, in which gamblers and fraudsters find the path to virtue through labour.[2][3] The phrase was also used in French (le travail rend libre!) by Auguste Forel, a Swiss entomologist, neuroanatomist and psychiatrist, in his Fourmis de la Suisse (English: Ants of Switzerland) (1920).[4] In 1922, the Deutsche Schulverein of Vienna, an ethnic nationalist "protective" organization of Germans within Austria, printed membership stamps with the phrase Arbeit macht frei.[citation needed]

The phrase is also evocative of the medieval German principle of Stadtluft macht frei ("urban air makes you free"), according to which serfs were liberated after being a city resident for one year and one day.[5]

Frank "Morgen, Morgen, nur nicht Heute, sagen alle faulen Leute"

[Michael P]

How exactly does one "barricade" oneself in a tent?

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/police-draw-guns-as-they-negotiate-with-suspect-in-sacramento-tent/

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

How exactly does one “barricade” oneself in a tent?

Hey, some of those tent door zippers are made really well.

[Michael P]

China gonna China.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australia-navy-divers-injured-chinese-navys-unsafe-sonar-105000164

[Kazinski]

Last week I posted about a glaring inconsistency between global warming theory and the standard Kinetic Theory of Gases.

Interestingly enough the Washington Post, and NASA has noticed the scientific community that is most skeptical about GW is physicists:

“There is a skeptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science,” Nadir Jeevanjee, a research physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote in a recent critique of Koonin’s book."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/16/john-clauser-nobel-climate-denial/

Koonin was Undersecretary of Science in the Obama Administration then wrote a book Unsettled, which makes the point that climate science is far from settled.

Other prominent Physicists that don't think climate science is settled are physicists like 2022 Nobel Prize winner John Clauser, and Princeton Physicist William Happer.

Probably one of the reasons for the relatively more climate skeptical nature of physics, is their discipline is more concerned with the mechanisms of global warming radiation absorbtion and envisions and radiative budgets, while biologists and ecologists and oceanographers are more concerned with the effects.

[Brett Bellmore]

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. Being skeptical is part of what makes you a scientist in the first place.

[apedad]

I wouldn't say skeptical because that's a judgment call - and one a person makes before a scientific investigation.

I would say scientists are curious and want to learn the how's and why's.

And yes I realize there are bad scientists on both sides.

[Joe_dallas]

apedad 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"And yes I realize there are bad scientists on both sides."

Apedad - though the advocacy scientists dominate on the left.

Numerous examples of near academic fraud level studies that are heavily pushed by leftists
Gas stove study linking 12% of asthma cases.
Most every pro - masking study.
Pushing covid vaccines for children who are at near zero risk.

just to name a few recent studies

[Nige]

None of these were fraudulent in any way whatsoever.

[Joe_dallas]

There was significant academic fraud with the gas stove asthma study. So of the most obvious blatant signs of academic fraud in the gas stove asthma study. use of PAF methodology, A meta study with a selection criteria specifically designed to eliminate contrary evidence; negative correlations . Asthma organizations which dont even list gas stoves in the top ten causes, yet the study comes back with 12% of cases caused by gas stoves. A claim the gas stoves cause as many asthma's as second hand smoke.

Nige - you have serious intellectual deficiencies if you think the gas stove causes asthma study was anything other than junk science.

Similar issues with the masking studies.

[Nige]

No, there wasn't. Your endless claims of fraud are wild exaggerations and entirely partisan.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - you keep demonstrating that you are entirely clueless on basic science. The gas stove asthma study was blatant academic fraud.

Using PAF should have been your first clue of academic fraud. Are you even familiar with PAF - obviously not - if you were familiar with PAF, then you would make such ill informed responses

[Nige]

Still not fraud.

[Tom for equal rights]

If you understood the limitations of PAF, you would know why the asthma gas stove study was fraud.

[Nige]

No, I know you just want to call some things fraud that aren’t fraud to support a thoroughly nebulous point.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige – You just admitted you dont understand PAF and do not understand why the study was academic fraud

If you understood the limitations of PAF, you would know why the asthma gas stove study was fraud.

[Nige]

No, you are lying.

[Tom for equal rights]

Nige 18 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
No, you are lying.

Nige - what lying about the inappropriate use of PAF in a meta study with multiple cofounding variables.

Did you even bother to find out what PAF methodology means or its limitations. typical Nige - accuse someone of lying while having zero knowledge of the subject.

[Nelson]

"There was significant academic fraud"

I think you are being way too fast and loose with the word "fraud". Being wrong in science isn't fraud. The number of honest, but incorrect, scientific studies and theories throughout history is incredibly high. When you are trying to understand something that isn't established yet, the chance of being wrong is very high. That's why it's called the scientific method, not the scientific instant-right-answers.

Only intentional manipulation to achieve a preferred outcome is fraud. Honest errors are part of working towards an answer and some are more successful than others at moving the line forward.

And let's be honest. Studies that accurately identify a correlation between two things are often breathlessly trumpeted as causation in headlines and in the media. Scientists are usually very careful to distinguish between the two.

Partisans looking to support their beliefs or disparage things that discredit their preferred narrative often intentionally conflate the two.

Look at climate change. The climate change catastorphists trumpet everything that highlights a looming extinction-level event and downplay anything that shows it's a problem, but not an insurmountable one. The climate change denialists trumpet anything (because there's not much) that says climate change isn't happening and downplay anything that shows it's a problem, but not an insurmountable one.

Yet the consensus seems to be coalescing around the idea that it's a human-caused problem, but one we can address and mitigate over time.

Cherry-picked studies will always mislead people. It's the sum total of results that gives the true picture in any scientific inquiry.

[VinniUSMC]

I think you are being way too fast and loose with the word “fraud”. Being wrong in science isn’t fraud.

I don’t think he was saying that. He even listed specifically what he was referring to. Most of which are affirmative choices made by the researchers to advance their cause (though I do admit to being unfamiliar with PAF). And, if that is the case, it would be a strong argument for calling it fraud.

It seems they studied in the same statistics class as the 97% consensus “study” authors. We conclude that out of everyone who we agree with, everyone agrees with us.

Cherry-picked studies will always mislead people. It’s the sum total of results that gives the true picture in any scientific inquiry.

Cherry-picked studies that are purposefully picked to mislead people are not "intentional manipulation to achieve a preferred outcome"? That's exactly what cherry-picking is.

[Brett Bellmore]

I had to look it up myself.

Use and Misuse of Population Attributable Fractions

“The population attributable fraction is most commonly defined as the proportional reduction in average disease risk over a specified time interval that would be achieved by eliminating the exposure(s) of interest from the population while distributions of other risk factors in the population remain unchanged. This also can be interpreted as the proportion of disease cases over a specified time that would be prevented following elimination of the exposures, assuming the exposures are causal.” [My emphasis.]

What Does the Population Attributable Fraction Mean?

“Depending on the types of data available, there are different formulas used to estimate the AF. Much of the discussion in epidemiology textbooks, in the section on AF in the Encyclopedia of Biostatistics (7,8), and in articles on AF in epidemiologic and biostatistical journals is devoted to the technical topic of choosing the most appropriate formula for estimating the above fraction, given various constraints, once it can be assumed that there is a causal relationship between exposure and disease.” [Again, my emphasis.]

I take it that the issue here is that PAF doesn’t actually establish a causal relationship. It’s apparently very subject to spurious correlations.

So, for example, if you were to, plausibly, assume that cooking with gas is positively correlated with access to the sort of medical care that can result in asthma being diagnosed, for instance, PAF would tell you that cooking with gas ’causes’ asthma.

[Nelson]

As I understand it, PAF is an accepted methodology in science. Joe seems to think it's fraud.

You're an engineer, so I think you have more experience with such things. Is it a fraudulent methodology?

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson 1 min ago
Flag Comment Mute User
As I understand it, PAF is an accepted methodology in science. Joe seems to think it’s fraud.

Nelson - PAF is a very accepted methodology in science. That is not in dispute. However, it has its limitations which is when there are multiple confounding variables which is the case with asthma. That issue is well documented in the professional literature.

Further a test of correlation by state as listed in the tables of the study show a positive correlation with a approx 20 states and negative correlation with approx 20 states and a neutral correlation with the remaining states. in other words a cross check of correlations confirms the paf methodology is meaningless

[Nelson]

"PAF is a very accepted methodology in science."

OK, so we sgree thst the methodology isn't fraudulent, correct. So additional evidence makes you conclude that it is fraud, nit bad science.

My opinion is that if you are going to level such a serious charge against someone, you should have some sort of evidence to support it.

I am a firm believer in Hanlon's razor. And there needs to be a lot more than speculation and conjecture to support an accusation of malice.

"in other words a cross check of correlations confirms the paf methodology is meaningless"

So incompetence. Gotcha.

[Nelson]

"He even listed specifically what he was referring to."

Not really. He made some general statements about practices that he believes are bad (but not fraudulent) or have elevated error rates (I think that's his objection to PAF methodology, although I'm not sure because it's a standard methodology), but they aren't fraudulent. They aren't considered fraudulent in the scientific community, although I gather some walk the line. I don't think any of them rise to the level of, for example, p-hacking.

"Cherry-picked studies that are purposefully picked to mislead people are not “intentional manipulation to achieve a preferred outcome”? That’s exactly what cherry-picking is."

I would disagree with you somewhat. Cherry-picking, to me, is presenting the studies that most unambiguously support the hypothesis. While the studies chosen are valid, they are chosen for their lack of grey areas and support for the hypothesis.

Think of the Ivermectin meta-analysis that convinced a lot of people that it might be effective in treating Covid. It wasn't fraudulent because the data wasn't manipulated, but it was the most positive presentation possible. The fact that its conclusions were wrong was due to a bad hypothesis, not academic fraud.

Fraud is where the data itself is manipulated in ways that result in a preferred outcome. There is no validity to those studies because their very foundation is false.

Think of the studies from the 90s that tried to prove a statistically relevant advantage to heterosexual vs. homosexual households. Those studies took situations where a parent came out as gay and got divorced, then entered a homosexual relationship (no gay marriage back then) while their ex entered into a heterosexual marriage and assigned the children to one or the other based on outcomes. So if the child ended up in trouble at school, got bad grades, or got arrested, for example, that child was attributed to the gay household even if it wasn't the custodial home. The same was done for children who got good grades, went to college, or got high-paying jobs, for example. Those were attributed to the heterosexual household, again ignoring their actual living arrangements. I believe one study in the 90s got caught literally splitting two children who lived together between the two parents because one was a positive outcome and one was negative. That is fraud.

I believe there is a difference between presenting valid data in the most positive light (not fraud) and creating invalid results by falsifying the underlying data (fraud).

I believe the gas stove study was wrong, but not fraudulent. And trying to ban gas stoves based on it is complete insanity.

[Joe_dallas]

nelson see bretts and Vinni's comment -
A) PAF / population attribution fraction is a very useful tool to determine if there is a casual relationship, however,
B) PAF can not distinguish a correlation, only a casual relationship
C) PAF can not distinguish even a casual relationship when there are multiple confounding variables. In the case of asthma, there are 10 or more major confounding variables which makes PAF analysis totally meaningless.
D) this was a meta study - ie a study/composite summary of other studies with a selection criteria that specifically omitted a study that refuted the claim.

Getting erroneous results and publishing erroneous results is generally not considered academic fraud. The definition of academic fraud includes a) publishing results that are different that the actual results obtained or b) designing a study to obtain results that are known to be invalid.
In this case , they study authors knew that the PAF would produce meaningless results and the specifically omitted a study that would refute their conclusions. Further, there are numerous other red flags that refuted their conclusions, such as the negative correlations by state/regions.

In summary, this gas stove /asthma study was academic fraud.

[David Nieporent]

In summary, Joe_dallas is an intellectual fraud, pretending to be an expert on stuff he doesn't understand in the slightest, and then citing to middle school science classes as the basis for his knowledge.

[Nelson]

See, yours are exactly the same sort of criticisms leveled at the Ivermectin meta-analysis that the heartworm-med-takers liked to point to when that was the cause-du-jour of Covid skeptics.

As much as it seemed pretty obvious it was wrong, I wouldn't call it fraudulent. It wasn't misrepresenting or manipulating data.

I think it's important to differentiate between bad science (and this gas stove study seems to be firmly in that category) and fraud. Fraud is much more than using accepted methods, but applying them in the wrong way.

For the record, I agree with you about the ... we'll say questionable ... conclusions of the study. It seems to be way out of whack on its face. I'd just need a lot more evidence of intentional data manipulation before I would call it fraud.

[Brett Bellmore]

Skepticism is fundamental to science because science advances by disproving bad hypothesis, not proving good ones. And only skeptics TRY to disprove hypothesis.

[Nige]

Demanding more skepticism beause you don't like the results is just dumb.

[Nelson]

He isn't. He's pointing out the way good science is practiced.

Scientists should always be skeptical, especially of their own results. "What am I missing?", "Does this really say what I think it says?", and "Am I making the right assumptions?" (because all science requires some base assumptions so everyone isn't bogged down re-inventing the wheel) are some of the most important questions a scientist can ask themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

But he's being both too broad or too narrow.

Too broad in that his bland invocation of 'skepticism is always good' doesn't mean disbelieve everything. Which is how he's using it.

Too narrow because he brings this up specifically on stuff like Covid and Climate where he's not actually skeptical, but a true believer of the other side.

Bottom line, don't mistake Brett's dogma disguised as skepticism for the real thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I do not use "skepticism" to mean "disbelieve everything". Maybe "doubt everything"...

"Too narrow because he brings this up specifically on stuff like Covid and Climate where he’s not actually skeptical, but a true believer of the other side."

Still incapable of distinguishing between me and that cardboard cutout in your head, I see.

[Sarcastr0]

I have never see you offer either a limit to your skepticism paeon, nor apply it to anything not seeking an outcome aligned with big standard conservative positions.

Not only that, but you believe things without skepticism regularly. Have a reputation for it in fact.

Skepticism is good. You invoke it badly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I wouldn’t say skeptical because that’s a judgment call

No, you wouldn't say it because, like so many in the IFLS camp, you're profoundly ignorant of what science is all about. Skepticism is absolutely fundamental to science.

[Nige]

Skepticism seems like the word you use when you think scientists should be disbelieving their own findings.

https://themessenger.com/tech/earth-ice-climate-change-sea-level-rise-report

'Warming of 2 degrees Celsius will lead to "extensive, potentially rapid, irreversible sea-level rise from Earth's ice sheets." In fact, some of the new research pinpoints thresholds for ice sheet collapse at well below 2 degrees — a range of warming the globe is already only fractions of a degree from reaching.'

[Brett Bellmore]

"Skepticism seems like the word you use when you think scientists should be disbelieving their own findings."

Richard Feynmann: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Yes, scientists should be skeptical about their own findings. "Disbelieving" is a possible end result of skepticism, not what it means.

[Sarcastr0]

You shifted definitions from what Nige said.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you under some impression that I'm under some obligation to use Nige's oddball definitions?

[Sarcastr0]

You quote him so…yeah that would make it clear what you are talking about.

[Nige]

It's still just something you pull out when you don't like the results.

[Nelson]

"Richard Feynmann: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”"

What a great man. Completely mad in the best and most delightful ways. "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" is hilarious and thought provoking at the same time. The Challenger O-ring incident was simple science at its best.

[Sarcastr0]

Last week you posted how you didn't understand the elementary physics behind the greenhouse effect. Which was described in the 1800s.

Now you are cherry picking to pretend there is a split in the scientific community, which has become so old hat I didn't realize people bothered anymore.
Oh, and it doesn't look like anyone you linked is going with your kinetic theory of gasses debunks global warming effect.

[Kazinski]

I didn't understand?

Sorry Sarcastro, as I remember it you are the one claiming that greenhouse gasses cause blackbody radiation.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that sounds like something I would say.

[OtisAH]

^^^ Posts this shit no less than twice a week, every week, for months maybe even years. And still hasn’t learned one fucking thing about it. ^^^

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"Interestingly enough the Washington Post, and NASA has noticed the scientific community that is most skeptical about GW is physicists:"

Kaz - of course physicists are the most skeptical of the AGW theory - Because they deal in the hard sciences , not the agenda driven advocacy version of science.

[Brett Bellmore]

Also because there’s a huge gulf between physicists’ idea of statistical significance and the “Only a 1 in 20 chance we’re wrong” standard being used by the global warming researchers.

The level of significance that’s treated as proving global warming theories would be considered barely suggestive in most branches of physics.

[Sarcastr0]

But see medical science and high energy partial physics and social science and economics.

[Ben_]

You also could look at systems behavior. They say the climate has strong positive feedback: small changes feedback into the atmosphere to cause bigger changes.

But systems with positive feedback are inherently unstable. Stable systems seek equilibrium. Unstable systems swing wildly toward catastrophic breakdown points and then correct wildly as breakdowns transform the system.

Does Earth's historic temperature show equilibrium-seeking? Or does it show wild swings and catastrophic breakdowns?

[Sarcastr0]

That is hardly the consensus. And even those who have such predictions don't say we're in the positive feedback regime yet. For exactly the obvious reason you lay out.

[Ben_]

No period in any record of the past supports strong positive feedback.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not an expert, but neither are you.

My instinct is that you're overdetermining your definition of 'strong positive feedback.'

For fun, I googled 'climate strong positive feedback.'

NASA was the first hit:
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
"Climate feedbacks: processes that can either amplify or reduce the effects of climate forcings. A feedback that increases an initial warming is called a "positive feedback." A feedback that reduces an initial warming is a "negative feedback.""
...
4. Ice albedo. Ice is white and very reflective, in contrast to the ocean surface, which is dark and absorbs heat faster. As the atmosphere warms and sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat, causes more ice to melt, and makes Earth warmer overall. The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.

I appears that in climate, strong positive feedback is being used differently from the way it's used in engineering.
That was news to me, as well. But seems to address the issue.

[Ben_]

All the "tipping point" talk is based on the idea of strong positive feedback.

Without that narrative, climate change is too boring.

[Sarcastr0]

It looks like the mere existence of a strong positive feedback loop need not lead to a tipping point in an integrated science model until certain conditions are met.

So your initial point about positive feedback being inherently unstable and thus ridiculous to have in your model doesn't seem right.

I'm not a climate catastrophist, so I agree with your overarching purpose - a lot of this tipping point stuff doesn't have me convinced. But more for reasons of model fidelity than your argument that relies on a definition that you have not understood properly.

[Nige]

I reckon if the NAC gets altered sufficiently, a point will have been tipped, to name but one example.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure - the key is what is sufficiently.

[Nige]

I don't know about anyone else but I actually don't want to have to find out.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but if you peg the cost-risk side of the ledger to infinity you're going to have a degenerate policy analysis that brooks no compromise and convinces no one not already buying into the specific model you adopt.

And that's the optimistic view - politics is the art of the possible, and there's enough partisan cussedness there's a lot that's just not possible.

That's why I go in for the geo-engineering solutions in addition to reducing what we politically can, nationally and worldwide.

[Nige]

Effective geo-engineering solutions will be solutions to specific effects of global warming, not solutions to the problem of global warming. So I have mixed feelings about them.

[Nige]

On the 17th the world briefly rose to 2 degrees warmer than 1850-1900 levels. We're pretty much heading to breaching 1.5 on a regular basis.

[Artifex]

"Last week I posted about a glaring inconsistency between global warming theory and the standard Kinetic Theory of Gases."

You are missing some concepts here. That being said, to a large extent I do not blame you. What you need to work through is that just because someone is a Sarcastro class moron, it does not automatically imply that the opposite of what they are saying must be true. With the dishonest, there is a lot of slip and slide between what is actually solid science and what is politically convenient. Actually working through the problem without taking the experts on faith is what science is all about. There is a lot of work between understanding a good model and having something to say. Don’t be a Sarcastro. Rather than spitting rhetoric, do the work.

We have been accurately modelling electromagnetic transmissions through atmospheres for decades. A quick google search on “Modtran” should give you all you need. This isn’t to say that there are not unknowns, clouds being a big one, but the problem you are claiming really isn’t one of them. You really believe we can’t accurately model the transmission jet engines or rocket plumes through an atmosphere at this point ?

I believe the one of the pieces you are missing with your claim is conservation of energy. If you are actually interested, go read through Science of Doom’s website. He has some excellent discussion of the basics in some of the posts. The issue is that some parts of the problem are well modelled, others are much less so. It can be simultaneously true that I can accurately model the re-radiation through an atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases and also that hucksters and grifters are pushing “global warming solutions” and the usual slimy weasels are playing motte and bailey games between what is modelled well and what is not.

[Commenter_XY]

Congrats to Javier Milei, elected as President of Argentina. https://www.jpost.com/international/article-774107

What is the difference between an anarcho-capitalist and a libertarian? ????

[John F. Carr]

I have enjoyed the different descriptions of his politics in media.

"Far-right," said PBS. "Ultralibéral," said France 24. Not ultraliberal in the modern English sense. The French word libéral is closer to libertarian, or the old fashioned meaning of liberal.

[Commenter_XY]

Heck, I am just scratching my head, and saying....Wait, what is that again, anarcho-what? How does he get anything done, without a coalition in the legislature. The guy has his work cut out for him.

[defaultdotxbe]

An anarcho-capitalist can still hold non-libertarian positions on issues other than the fiscal/economic area. Milei certainly appears to be less libertarian on social issues. I've always said though you need to have economic stability before you start to see pressure for social reforms. Hard to care about that stuff if you are struggling to buy groceries and pay rent, Maslow's hierarchy and all that.

[OtisAH]

There’s an argument that anarcho-capitalists exist in real life?

[Ben_]

Labels don’t tell you much of anything.

I suggest understanding things and people instead of mindlessly assigning them to a particular box.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2023/11/15/nikki-haley-social-media-name-verification-censorship/
https://reason.com/2023/11/15/blessed-are-the-shitposters/

A Republican presidential candidate proposes something (arguably) unconstitutional -- lots of libertarian outrage from Reason.
In the meantime... (see below)

[Krayt]

I’ve complained about it. She was doing so well after the drubbing she gave that grinning jackass about Ukraine, too. Now throwing away even pseudo-anonymity. Nobody cares anymore because the government knows exactly who everybody is. Just keep an eye open for abuses. And yes, I realize this has already violated the principle of not building tools of tyranny to begin with, so they can't be abused.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://vdare.com/articles/vdare-com-lawfare-crisis-intensifies-federal-court-judge-frederick-j-scullin-dodges-protecting-our-and-our-writers-1a-rights-from-hyperpoliticized-nyag-letitia-james

Crickets. Reason libertarians are nowhere to be found.

[David Nieporent]

Grifter might get in trouble for grifting. What's the libertarian angle?

[John F. Carr]

Last year a team of researchers said there was no racial profiling by Massachusetts police. Reporters have investigated how such an implausible claim was made. The government didn't want racial profiling to exist.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/11/20/massachusetts-police-racial-profiling-study-flawed/71651560007/

Another story in the same series said that police would check the wrong box on a form to make it look like more white drivers were being stopped.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if certain races wouldn't commit crimes way out of proportion compared to other races, they wouldn't get profiled.

[Michael P]

Related: base rate fallacy and the comment quoted at https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-school-closures-that-took-50.html .

[bernard11]

Well, police officers in MA aren't exactly noted for their integrity.

[Sarcastr0]

But MA is liberal, therefore I think you and I need to melt away due to cognitive dissonance.

[bernard11]

I find MA's politics to be a mix of liberalism, old-fashioned ethnic identity politics (ethnic origin, not just race), nepotism/cronyism/patronage, some Western MA vs. Eastern MA resentment, and who knows what else.

Maybe John Carr or another resident of the Commonwealth has more insight than I do.

[Ed Grinberg]

Senate Dems block effort to deport Hamas sympathizers

Would they be any more willing to deport actual members of Hamas? Members of its "military wing"? Participants in the 10/7 attack? Hard to say...

[Frank Drackman]

No it's not, they wouldn't/won't.

[David Nieporent]

I learned something from that Colorado court decision on Trump as insurrectionist: the "The J6 committee was illegitimate because no Republicans served — other than the two Republicans who did serve, of course" is even more pathetic of an argument than I had previously surmised. The GOP had members willing to serve, but McCarthy wouldn't let them:

Congressman Buck testified that he had asked to be placed on the January 6th Committee after then-Speaker Pelosi rejected two of the five Republican nominees, but his request was turned down by Republican Party leadership.

(Of course, McCarthy couldn't literally stop him, any more than he could stop Kinzinger and Cheney, but he could threaten punishment if he served.)

[Michael P]

Other things Ken Buck has said:

Too many Republican leaders are lying to America, claiming that the 2020 election was stolen, describing January 6 as an unguided tour of the Capitol and asserting that the ensuing prosecutions are a weaponization of our justice system.

As shown by the video linked above, he almost had a solitary point: it looks more like a guided tour.

[Sarcastr0]

If I showed you pictures of Hitler playing with his dog, would you now doubt WW2 happened?

[Michael P]

J6 was not like WW2, Gaslight0.

[apedad]

J6 was not like a guided tour.

FTFY

[Sarcastr0]

Your logic covers both.

[Michael P]

I am just borrowing some of your logic: We should find arbitrary things to quote as part of "credibility determination" of some speaker. I guess that makes you a Hitler fan.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, big Hitler fan here. You got me.

But my point is your argument of 'here's a pic where there was no violence...violence debunked!' is extremely dumb.

[bernard11]

Are you crazy? If I show you a video of a man walking into a bank and saying hello to a guard, does that prove he didn't rob the bank? Or that his accomplices didn't?

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

It dces if the claim that he robbed has no footage. After all, saying "hi" is what most people do and most are not robbers.

[Moderation4ever]

What I learned long ago is that no good deed goes unpunished. Leader McCarthy refused to appoint members to the committee to please Trump. After testimony started McCarthy was criticized by Trump for not appointing members.

[David Nieporent]

A lot of people noted as the hearings went on how much of a strategic blunder it was for McCarthy to throw his faux temper tantrum. It scored short term points for McCarthy with the MAGA base, but it meant that McCarthy lost any opportunity to play any role in what the committee said or did.

(It wasn't like MAGA wasn't going to be represented on the committee; Troy Nehls, for instance, is far right and he was named by McCarthy and accepted by Pelosi.)

[Kazinski]

Well I for one did criticize the judge for using a partisan committee report for fact finding.

One of the key features of our political and law institutions is the adversarial system, where both Congressional hearings and court hearings feature questioning of the witnesses and opposing witnesses, for whatever reason that report was not the product of that process.

One other thing is that the judge does not even mention Section 5 in the decision. The Arizona court, which was upheld by the AZ Supreme Court, ruled that Section 5 required a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt to trigger section 3. I'm not claiming that settles the question conclusively, because state courts ruling on novel federal constitutional issues seldom settle things conclusively.

[not guilty]

Team Trump had ample opportunity at trial before Judge Wallace to controvert the 31 factual findings of the House January 6 Committee that the Court relied upon. He elected not to do so, resting before the time allotted to the Respondents expired.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Also, Democrats and some Republicans wanted to create a January 6 commission with five members appointed by the Democratic Congressional leadership and five members appointed by the Republican Congressional leadership. McCarthy opposed the commission, but the bill creating it passed the House anyway. The bill died in the Senate due to as successful filibuster supported by McConnell. Pelosi then created a select committee to do the work that the commission would have done if Republicans had not blocked it.

McCarthy telling Republicans not to participate on the January 6 committee is entirely consistent with his opposition to the commission. He knew that the facts were not favorable to Trump, and that Republicans participating in the investigation couldn't change that. His best shot at burying the facts was to prevent Republicans from participating and then dismissing the results of the investigation as partisan.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3233

[Mr. Bumble]

So, will Dr. Jill be donning Marilyn's iconic dress and singing Happy Birthday Mr. President?

[OtisAH]

Yes. What’s your next stupid question?

[Absaroka]

If you eat brown eggs, you are an environmental rapist (non-paywalled reprint of WaPo article).

OK, I'm overstating it ... it's an article about global warming and farming ... that says "white eggs (are) more sun-reflective, another small carbon gain".

That's both true, and an example of why we can't have nice things. Yes, white eggs (if the chickens laid them outdoors!) will probably absorb/reradiate less heat than brown eggs, and also have a surface area that is so small it matters not at all. It's like suggesting we all wear white hats to combat global warming (which would actually have a much larger, but still uselessly small effect).

Journalism isn't just about the wordsmithing; you need some tiny quanta of understanding about the subject of your article, or you are just producing aesthetically pleasing garbage.

(I hope this doesn't degenerate into another global warming pro/con-fest: hopefully everyone realizes that whatever your views on that, the color of chicken eggs isn't a factor)

[hobie]

Why oh why do I get the impression this is a strawman for skin color, Absaroka? If not, lord this is a lame subject and interpretation

[Absaroka]

"Why oh why do I get the impression this is a strawman for skin color, "

You didn't read the article? You think about skin color waaaay too much?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's projection.

[hobie]

Nature of this blog makes one wary

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean the nature of the commenters, don't you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Nature of this blog makes one wary

Stop blaming others for your own stupidity.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Why oh why do I get the impression this is a strawman for skin color, Absaroka?

Because you have the IQ of a rock?

[Ben_]

Climate religion declares brown eggs a sin.

These people are exactly Ned Flanders and Rev. Lovejoy.

[Bored Lawyer]

I was wondering why brown eggs are more expensive. Now I know -- it's those carbon credits they have to pay for. I mean why should only Al Gore and John Kerry only have to pay those for their private jets?

[Bored Lawyer]

"It’s like suggesting we all wear white hats to combat global warming"

Well, white hats do identify the good guys.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yeah, I’ve read some truly dumb “climate change” stuff, but this is bottom-of-the-barrel stupid:

White chickens are more feed-efficient

That’s racist!! But seriously…to which “white chickens” are they referring? There are many. And efficient in what way? If they’re talking only about efficiency in converting feed to eggs then they likely are talking about the White Leghorn (by far the most popular breed for commercial egg production). But the story claims that they don’t kill make chicks, and instead raise them as meat birds…which undercuts the idea of the breed they’re using being “more feed-efficient” than…well…most other breeds raised for meat, as WLs are fairly scrawny birds at adulthood, which is why almost nobody raises them for meat. The more efficient (arguably most efficient) breed for feed-to-meat conversion is the Cornish Cross which, while also a white-feathered breed, is nigh useless for egg production. It’s possible they’re referring to some white (or mostly white) dual-purpose breeds, but simply saying these things of “white chickens” is utterly meaningless.

This seems to be yet another bit of “journalism” written by and for the topically ignorant.

and their white eggs more sun-reflective

The stupidity of that should be self-explanatory.

[Ben_]

What the government does:

https://x.com/itsallrisky/status/1723746934593106404

US Fish and Wildlife required SpaceX to "calculate" the probability one of their rockets goes off course and lands in the ocean and hits a shark.

That’s what they spend their time on. And that’s not the whole story either. Watch the video. (Less than 1 minute.)

[Moderation4ever]

I cannot help but think what we are seeing is Elon Musk deflecting from the fact that he has bitten off more than he can chew. That he is ahead of the technology and that he is trying to get a rocket that is too big off the ground. So, he is deflecting and blaming the environmental rules.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We're also seeing from Musk antisemitism that Profs. Bernstein, Blackman, and Volokh are too cowardly, partisan, and hypocritical to acknowledge.

It's about time for one of them to vent screeching outrage over a student on a mainstream campus they deem insufficiently committed to the continuing deaths of innocents in Gaza, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Musk just tossing something off is not really enough to get angry at.
Have you considered doing even a little research, Ben? I've worked on a few IES, and they're serious business, and sometimes get a bit silly. But nothing like this I ever say.

Here is the actual requirements, as the EPA flows down to the cognizant agency:
https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process

to wit: "Environmental consequences: A discussion of the environmental effects and their significance."
So where does the specific factor of shark impacts come in?

I could see some fish and wildlife dunderhead over the phone getting jumped up but as of right now, none of this is established.

[Ben_]

I just research it. Rockets don’t crash into sharks according to my research.

Government workers like you have time in your "busy" schedules to listen to 20 different podcasts and spend all day shitposting on forums.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you research *whether that kind of stuff actually shows up in an IES*
Because it sure doesn't look like it's part of the formal requirements.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, your anger at my fun podcast post from last week speaks pretty badly of you.
I listen to podcasts in my commute and other nonwork time. And plenty of podcasts updates much less than weekly.

I’m quite busy at work, and do my job extremely well. You know nothing about me and what I do and when so quit thinking you do.

[Nige]

‘I just research it.’

Between brown eggs and sharks (my favourite Dr Seuss book) you make up a lot of bullshit.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck did I say about brown eggs that has you spun up?

[Nige]

Easy? To pick out when they break? HOW FUCKING DARE YOU SIR!

[Sarcastr0]

Thought you were Ben LOL.

Well played on your response to my nonsense!

[Krayt]

100% of rockets that crash into the ocean crash into sharks. It’s Sharknado in reverse!

Even that case is statistically insignificant, so why bother asking, unless you are a wildcat regulator running terror regimes to help politicians get magical donations.

[Sarcastr0]

Did this ask actually occur? The source is not the most stable guy in the world...

[NOVA Lawyer]

OMG, you people actually believe Musk when he claims the government required SpaceX to research whether a rocket would crash into a shark?

Yes, why bother asking? No good reason, which is why, with 99.99% certainty, no one did. And then you see Sarcastro actually looked at the request and, nope, they didn't.

If you don't understand that (a) Musk is entirely unreliable, and (b) hyperbole is a thing that people, most especially including Musk, use, then you really should get off the internet.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

And then you see Sarcastro actually looked at the request and, nope, they didn’t.

You are, as always, completely full of shit. And while Musk's flippant description of the nature of the ecological impact assessment was hyper-simplified, the fact is that it did involve calculating...among other things...the likelihood of some part of the vehicle (either intact or in fragments) striking various species of aquatic creatures (including sharks).

https://www.faa.gov/media/27236

[Nige]

Yeah, focus on some outlier rather than the actual damage he actually did.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"the fact is that it did involve calculating…among other things…the likelihood of some part of the vehicle (either intact or in fragments) striking various species of aquatic creatures (including sharks)."

Nope. It doesn't.

[Michael P]

Well, there’s this:

Direct strikes by debris from Starship are extremely unlikely for all species of concern, fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals. This is due to the small size of the components as compared to the vast open ocean. If debris from the vehicle struck an animal near the water’s surface, the animal would be injured or killed.

And this bit from the assessment of an explosion rather than direct strikes:

Very little published literature exists on giant manta ray occurrence and behavior in U.S. waters, and population trend information is not clear or available for the oceanic whitetip shark (NMFS 2019, U.S. Navy 2018). As density estimates are not available for these two fish species, it is not possible to conduct a quantitative effects analysis for these species.

Musk was accurate.

[Sarcastr0]

That’s not much if a calculation, chief.

[Michael P]

In addition to being a "big Hitler fan", S_0 calculates numbers to irrelevant detail in order to be able to later claim that he was required to do so by the government?

[Sarcastr0]

‘it is not possible to conduct a quantitative effects analysis for these species.’

This alone establishes that Musk lied.

[Michael P]

Go back and read what I wrote when quoting the report. You'll find that you were once again pre-debunked.

[Sarcastr0]

Where is the probability calculation?

Musk's quote from the OP: 'US Fish and Wildlife required SpaceX to “calculate” the probability one of their rockets goes off course and lands in the ocean and hits a shark.'

[Nige]

He's whining that they made him do an environmental impact assessment about his big explodey rockets? Why does he keep talking about the low probability stuff but not the high probability stuff? What about actual assessments of the actual environmental damage he's caused?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Not a calculation, Michael P. They explicitly said, the ocean is too large, it's extremely unlikely. They didn't calculate it and didn't make Musk calculate it. Plus, he said the possibility of hitting sharks, specifically, so definitely not "accurate."

From the snippet, re manta rays not sharks (eye roll): "it is not possible to conduct a quantitative effects analysis for these species"

From you: "...rather than direct strikes"

Rather than, means, instead of what Musk said. Also, as you helpfully quote, it didn't involve or require a quantitative analysis. In other words, there was no calculation.

You could say the gist of his point was valid (too much regulation, etc.) if you wanted to, you could say his hyperbole was persuasive, you could say a lot of true or at least opinion-dependent true things. Saying Musk was "accurate" is perhaps the one thing that is definitely, definitively, not true.

But that's Michael P for you, always able to find a way to be wrong. If he was a shark in the ocean, he'd find a way to get hit by Starship debris.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Not a calculation, Michael P. They explicitly said, the ocean is too large, it’s extremely unlikely.

So you're not just a clueless, dishonest asshole...you're a clueless, dishonest pedantic asshole. Bravo.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Wuz,

Thanks for admitting I was right. Not in the classiest way, but I don't expect class from you.

[Michael P]

P.S. This is why we call him Gaslight0, and you are earning a spot next to him.

[Sarcastr0]

You still indulge in name calling that shows you don't know what gaslight means.

[Michael P]

You once again got caught blatantly lying about facts that are in plain evidence. Take the L and be better in the future -- if you can.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Michael,

Are you that dumb or that dishonest that you don't understand Musk was, most charitably, using hyperbole when he said "US Fish and Wildlife required SpaceX to “calculate” the probability one of their rockets goes off course and lands in the ocean and hits a shark." Because it's clear they didn't require that. The two quotes you provided demonstrated that quite nicely.

[Nige]

Amazing, you are talking about it crashing into sharks when, for the second time, one of his rockets crashed into a protected natural reserve.

[Michael P]

S_0:

I’ve worked on a few IES

I can only assume this means you’ve carried copies from the printer to the people who actually create or review them, and nothing more.

The formal requirements are written extremely broadly and generically, with the objective of requiring people to undertake broad reviews of potential effects and hazards specific to the proposed activity. The requirements don’t explicitly say “estimate the likelihood that you’re going to hit a shark” because only some activities risk high-speed impacts and protected sharks only live in some areas. The requirements say to include “discussion of the environmental effects and their significance” and expect the authors to identify which specific effects should be assessed.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like Musk is complaining about stuff his folks decided to do.

And as noted above it doesn’t appear to be a calculation, just a pretty normal note.

[Nige]

His rockets keep exploding and raining down on a protected nature reserve.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Clingers like Ben (and most of the Volokh Conspiracy fandom) look for reliable news from the guy who is still asking us to wait for confirmation of the Paul Pelosi gay gigolo story.

That's part of the reason conservatives -- and their stale, ugly, delusional thinking -- are increasingly uncompetitive in the culture war.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This polemical right-wing
blog with a vanishingly thin
academic veneer has
operated for no more than

THREE (3)

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

FORTY (41)

different occasions (so far)
during 2023 (that’s at least
41 different, distinct discussions
that include racial slurs,
not just 41 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,
Palestinian-hating, 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.

(Those two provided much relief for disc jockeys.)

[Aunt Teefah]

In Palestine, children are fed hateful propaganda from an early age. A toxic brew of ethnic supremacy and religious fanaticism results in even elementary school-age kids singing songs in the same vein as Hitler Youth.
https://twitter.com/intifada/status/1726532919001239986

[Bored Lawyer]

Yeah, singing about destroying the "swastika bearers" is the same thing as singing about killing all the Jews.

How utterly pathetic.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not to mention this was put out by a private group, not used by Israel's education ministry. Not the case among the Palestinians, whose government schools indoctrinate hatred of Jews.

Much of which is funded by UNWRA, in turn funded by the US taxpayer. For whom someone here expressed great concern last week.

[Aunt Teefah]

How about "within a year, we will annihilate everyone"? Or "love sanctified with blood"? Or "the pretty and the pure"? It would be difficult to imagine a song more brazenly fascist. Riefenstahl would say this is too over-the-top.

And of course, there are no "swastika bearers" in Gaza. Hamas is motivated by Islamism, not any European ideology. But again, lying about the motivations of their adversaries is a common tactic of fascists.

[Bored Lawyer]

And of course, there are no “swastika bearers” in Gaza. Hamas is motivated by Islamism, not any European ideology.

You really are clueless, aren’t you. Hamas and the Nazis have the same goal — wiping out the Jews. Hitler is widely admired in the Islamic world. Your excuse is as bad as saying that the swastika is just an ancient Hindu symbol.

As for "everyone," look up the word "antecdent." You might learn something, although I doubt it.

[Sarcastr0]

Hitler is widely admired in the Islamic world

Hitler's views on the Arab race are a matter of record.

You don't need to traffic in anti-Muslim tropes to defend the Jewish people.

[Absaroka]

"Hitler’s views on the Arab race are a matter of record."

Which ones?

"writing in Mein Kampf: "As a völkisch man, who appraises the value of men on a racial basis, I am prevented by mere knowledge of the racial inferiority of these so-called 'oppressed nations' from linking the destiny of my own people with theirs""

or:

"In public and private, Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler made complimentary statements about Islam as a religion and a political ideology, describing it as a more disciplined, militaristic, political, and practical form of religion than Christianity, and commending what they perceived were Muhammad's skill in politics and military leadership"

Source

If you read that, some of the Muslim world thought the Nazis were pretty spiffy, some didn't. It's a long read, because it's not a topic that can be summarized in a sound bite.

(This tidbit was news to me: " For instance, Anwar Sadat, who later became president of Egypt, was a willing co-operator in Nazi Germany's espionage according to his own memoirs")

[Sarcastr0]

Keep scrolling...down to 'Nazi persecution of Arabs.'

"While Arabs were a small population in Europe at the time, they were not free from Nazi persecution. Racist incidents against Egyptians were reported as early as the 1930s. The Nazis also sterilized hundreds of "half-breeds", Germans of mixed Arab/North African heritage.
On the onset of war, Egyptians living in Germany were interned in response to the internment of Germans in Egypt.There were also tens of thousands of French colonial prisoners of war in Germany during the war.

The historian Gerhard Hopp confirms 450 Arab inmates in Nazi concentration camps"

Further down is the part most aligned to BL's position that Muslims love them some Hitler, "Arab perceptions of Hitler and Nazism."

It starts: "According to Gilbert Achcar, there was no unified Arab perception of Nazism" and goes on to demonstrate exactly that with a bunch of contemporary quotes.

I'm sure there are some in the Islamic World who admired and do admire Hitler.
But BL's broad brush smacks of anti-Muslim bigotry.

[Michael P]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/middleeast/uae-first-arab-nation-holocaust-mime-intl/

If BL was wrong, the above wouldn't be news. You're arguing against a very different claim than he actually made. But even for the point you are arguing, you ignore major things like https://www.dw.com/en/how-nazis-courted-the-islamic-world-during-wwii/a-41358387:

Non-Jewish Turks, Iranians and Arabs had already been explicitly exempted from any official racial discrimination in the 1930s, following diplomatic interventions from the governments in Tehran, Ankara, and Cairo. And during the war the Germans showed similar pragmatism. Muslims everywhere, it was clear to every German officer, were to be treated as allies.

[Sarcastr0]

‘ Hitler is widely admired in the Islamic world’.

Not having a Holocaust memorial doesn’t mean you admire Hitler.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, and if the only evidence of his being widely admired in the Islamic world were the absence of Holocaust memorials, you might actually have a point. As it is, you don't.

[Absaroka]

"Keep scrolling…down to ‘Nazi persecution of Arabs.’"

I did read the whole article. Which is why I said "It’s a long read, because it’s not a topic that can be summarized in a sound bite."

"It starts: “According to Gilbert Achcar, there was no unified Arab perception of Nazism” and goes on to demonstrate exactly that with a bunch of contemporary quotes."

Yes, that's why I said "some of the Muslim world thought the Nazis were pretty spiffy, some didn’t."

I'm glad we agree!

[Aunt Teefah]

"Your excuse is as bad as saying that the swastika is just an ancient Hindu symbol."

Let me be very clear, I am not offering any excuses. I am accusing you (and the authors of the song lyrics) of lying. You, they, and everyone else know perfectly well that no one in Gaza is motivated by Nazism. You claim that they are because you think it justifies your desire to massacre them. But you are fooling no one.

[Bored Lawyer]

Still clueless, I see. Or willfully blind. Try to think of the commonalities between the two ideologies, and how children whose parents were murdered by followers of one ideology (that's who is singing) might feel about it.

Meanwhile, I am waiting for your concern for US taxpayers to manifest itself at our subsidy of vile, anti-Jewish indoctrination by UNWRA schools in the Palestinian territories.

Or your acknowledgment of the difference between a video by a private PR company (which incidentally was refused being shown on Israeli TV) and the official policy of a quasi-govt. throughout its educational system.

But not holding my breath on either one.

[Bored Lawyer]

For those interested:
https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-new-report/

[Aunt Teefah]

"might feel about it"

Oh, so now facts DO care about your feelings. Very convenient.

Either Gazans are Nazis or they aren't. This is a question of empirical observation, not yours or anyone else's "feelings". Least of all the feelings of anyone who says “within a year, we will annihilate everyone”, or “love sanctified with blood.”

As to the question of US support, my preference would be a policy of neutrality. It should recognize both an Israeli and Palestinian state, and require that both respect the full sovereignty of the other. It should intervene in the region only on behalf of the side whose sovereignty has been invaded. Other than that, it should stop funding both sides completely.

[David Nieporent]

They’re not “motivated by Naziism” if by that you mean “I never held an opinion until I read Mein Kampf, but now my eyes are opened and I agree with it.” But they’re motivated by genocidal ideology against Jews and view Nazis as allies and fellow travelers.

[Commenter_XY]

Both Nazis and gazans are motivated by Judeocide.

[bernard11]

You, they, and everyone else know perfectly well that no one in Gaza is motivated by Nazism.

Well, in the sense that Gazans are not interested in building a thousand-year Reich for Germany, and wiping out "inferior" peoples, you are correct.

But they sure like to kill Jews, which seems like the appropriate comparison.

[Aunt Teefah]

Do they like to kill Jews? Or do they want to kill the people keeping them under blockade, denying them clean water and medical supplies, keeping them on a near-starvation diet, and terrorizing and killing their civilians with impunity? Who, if put to those conditions, wouldn't want to kill their oppressors? Or do whatever it took to make it stop?

[Commenter_XY]

Do they like to kill Jews? Answer: Yes, Hamas has stated that publicly. And that they would happily try another Simchat Torah pogrom. And the civilians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are very supportive of that. They are more interested in killing Jews than getting a state.

What do you expect of a people stewed in a toxic brew of Jew hatred, with Judeocide served up as the main dish?

[Bored Lawyer]

"Or do whatever it took to make it stop?"

Other than agreeing to live peacefully with Israel. Can't expect them to do THAT, can we?
That's the chance the had in 2005. They choose the path of war, rockets and genocide.

[Aunt Teefah]

They haven’t been offered the chance to live in peace in generations, at least not any peace that doesn’t come under the thumb of the Israelis. Rabin offered a possible path for peace and sovereignty, but even that mere possibility was enough to get him killed by the Israeli right. Since then, there has been no serious offer of peace (and no, the Camp David proposal of a couple of bantustans in the West Bank subject to Israeli de fact control was not a serious offer). They certainly were not given a chance in 2005.

Fact is, the only peace offered to Gazans by Israel in most of their lifetimes is the peace of the grave. To expect them to unilaterally disarm and put themselves at the mercy of their oppressors is absurd.

[Commenter_XY]

The fact is, Hamas is dedicated to the elimination of Israel, and extermination of all Jews worldwide. Hamas enjoys very widespread support with Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The palestinians have a track record, they prefer killing Jews to making peace deals. The policies that got us here - oslo, two-state delusion, disengagement, conflict management - are very costly failures.

But first: Hamas members must be hunted down and killed.

[Bored Lawyer]

"They certainly were not given a chance in 2005."

You are either clueless or a liar. Israel was pressured to leave in 2005. The locals had every chance to develop a peaceful nation. The blockade was of armaments only. They blew it, badly.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You are either clueless or a liar.

"or"?

[David Nieporent]

.

Do they like to kill Jews? Or do they want to kill the people keeping them under blockade, denying them clean water and medical supplies, keeping them on a near-starvation diet, and terrorizing and killing their civilians with impunity?

It's the first one of those.

[Nige]

Hamas for sure wants to kill Jews. Now, you can call this an unfortunate intersection of a poisonous European anti-semitism with a prolonged and bitter Middle Eastern conflict, or a paralell development that eventually meshed or some other complex and subtle thing, but there it is. What a pity Netanyahu thought it was good policy to support them.

[Aunt Teefah]

You could say that of Hamas maybe. I don't doubt that many of them do. But Gazans generally? I doubt that very much. I mean, any group treated the way the Gazans are will necessarily develop a hatred toward their tormentors. I don't think it makes any difference whether those tormentors are Jews or any other ethnic group.

[Nige]

I would be of the opinion that the number of Gazans that want to kill all Jews potentially rises with every bomb dropped and Natanyahu and the commenters here think this is a good thing for some reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I would be of the opinion that the number of Gazans that want to kill all Jews potentially rises with every bomb dropped"

You have a lot of silly opinions. The percentage of Gazans who want to kill all Jews is so high that no bombing campaign is going to move that needle any further.

The "hate Jews" needle being permanently pegged, Israel is now going to see if the "fear Jews" needle still has some budge left to it.

[Absaroka]

"Or do they want to kill the people keeping them under blockade"

Let's go through what is and isn't OK:
1)You are the Palestinians. You announce you will shoot at any vessel that interferes with the free passage of your maritime traffic. An Israeli navy ship does so and you sink it: OK
2)Israeli ships make a habit of that, and you modify a jet ski into a drone and send it into an Israeli naval base and preemptively sink their ship: OK
3)You are in the French Resistance and you chuck a molotov through the window of a German officer's club, even if unbeknownst to you one of the officers has brought his 6 year old: OK (and tragic)
4)Deliberately killing a 6 year old (not accidental or unavoidable collateral damage): Not OK, ever. Not even if it's one of Himmler's kids.

[Aunt Teefah]

I don't disagree, and certainly do not support killing kids. But I'm not following what this has to do with the question of whether they hate Jews qua Jews, or whether they hate the people who are imprisoning and torturing them, who in this instance happen to be mostly Jews, but could just as easily be any other ethnic or religious group.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

I wouldn't blow off the connection just because you don't like it.
Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam
by David Dalin

"show how al -Husseini ingratiated himself with his hero, Adolf Hitler, becoming, with his blond hair and blue eyes, an "honorary Aryan" while dreaming of being installed as Nazi leader of the Middle East. Al-Husseini would later recruit more than 100,000 Muslims in Europe to fight in divisions of the Waffen- SS, and obstruct negotiations with the Allies that might have allowed four thousand Jewish children to escape to Palestine."

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you DO know the connection

[M L]

I was surprised to see this footage and these facts from "J6;" how is it possible that I haven't seen or heard about this before?

If you do a search for rubber bullets being used on J6, what you get from the mainstream media is bizarre whining that "if it was black people, they would have been shooting them with rubber bullets!"

But it appears the police were spraying rubber bullets into the crowd and even shooting people in the face intentionally, which is deadly force and not how they're supposed to be used, and throwing flash bangs and stinger bombs at people's heads and using chemicals and so on, against people including elderly women who were just standing there and doing nothing wrong . . . . allegedly, before the crowd became riotous in response to these actions. With the encouragement of Ray Epps and other agitators of course. Seems noteworthy if true.

Cops on J6: "Let's Go! Fucking Shoot Them!"

https://twitter.com/InvestigateJ6/status/1707478818494075344

JANUARY 6 POLICE BRUTALITY UNCOVERED!

POLICE BROKE THE LAW, VIOLATED CIVIL RIGHTS AND STARTED THE RIOT!

Congress released the Jan 6 tapes today, but forgot the West Plaza CCTV footage and police bodycams that show the illegal police brutality that kicked off the riot. #J6CoverUp

https://dailyhaymaker.com/j6-video-rubber-bullets-to-the-face-flash-bang-grenades-to-the-head-by-cops-amped-up-violence-at-capitol/

J6 video: Rubber bullets to the face, flash-bang grenades to the head by cops amped up violence at Capitol

..When the police started shooting people in the face and throwing flash grenades at the unarmed crowd, everything changed on January 6. The government opened fire escalating the protest..

The crowd became livid as they watched cops shooting deadly rubber bullets, tear gas, and flash bangs or “sting balls” at civilians, often aimed at their heads. . .

There was a shooter and a guy recording. From the guy recording next to him, you hear someone telling the shooters who to hit. ‘Hit the guy in the red shirt.’ ‘Hit the guy in the green hat.’ ‘Hit the guy in the brown jacket.’ We got them saying who to hit and the people they were hitting were just standing there.

“Is it a rubber bullet?” another protester asks Black.

“I don’t know,” Black responds, pouring water over the wound as the bullet protrudes through the left side of his mouth...

Stunned and outraged, the crowd angrily confront the officers in the police line standing idle as Black bled out...

[Sarcastr0]

I was surprised to see this footage and these facts from “J6;” how is it possible that I haven’t seen or heard about this before?

'I was quite surprised to hear all these facts and theories about the Earth's shape when I went to theearthisflat's twitter, and InsaneTheoriesAreReal.com.'

how is it possible that I haven’t seen or heard about this before?'

[Jason Cavanaugh]

With minimal effort...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

Beyond that, the editorial characterization is laughable and generally disputed not only by the practical realities of the situation, but the video itself.

I doubt you know what I'm talking about, or you wouldn't have posted what you did.

Watch it a few more times with some attention focused on the specific, dramatic allegations.

[Absaroka]

So, that's not real persuasive. Maybe point out exactly what video you think is problematic? I clicked through your link to another and watched two videos and didn't see obvious excessive force. There were people rushing the police barricade; when you do that and the tear gas/rubber bullets start flying, innocent people in the crowd might get hit; that's not necessarily excessive force. Whether it's Proud Boys at J6 or Antifa at the Portland courthouse.

"officers in the police line standing idle as Black bled out…"

He didn't bleed out; he kept on with his activities. There are pics of the wound; you don't bleed out from a wound like that. That kind of spin doesn't indicate a reliable source.

[M L]

I found it to be quite persuasive in establishing that rubber bullets were used on J6. My main point is that I was surprised I’ve never heard before that rubber bullets were used, and surprised that I’ve never seen any of this footage. After so much reporting/yammering.

So after seeing that footage, I went searching for more information. Even now, if you try to search for news coverage about rubber bullets being used on J6, as far as mainstream sources go, you will somehow instead get . . . results about rubber bullets being used in June 2020, when BLM/Antifa had set D.C. on fire. And results contending that the police response to J6 was a racist double standard and not harsh enough because not enough protestors were killed compared to BLM/Antifa where things like rubber bullets were used (Joe Biden made a statement along these lines as well, and it’s the opposite of the reality).

Remember the endless howling from the media when a little bit of "tear gas" or whatever was used against BLM/Antifa? Then the same thing happens here and it's somehow black holed.

Secondary to that, there is a claim being put forth that this use of deadly and other force was unjustified in the particular circumstance, and that it helped incite the riot. I don’t have much of a basis for evaluating that claim one way or another. What I do know is that mainstream sources aren’t interested and won’t help me become informed or evaluate such things, as illustrated above.

Another claim from this Twitter account:

“J6 protestors were fired upon with NO warning. USCP Chief Waldow lied saying he gave warnings but never did.”

https://twitter.com/InvestigateJ6/status/1699455735288021400

[jb]

I have to admit, I'm getting confused. Wasn't the argument up higher in this comment section that the cops were politely guiding the tourists around?

[M L]

I'm confused. Wasn't your argument up higher in this comment section that the cops politely guiding tourists around doesn't mean that other things didn't happen at other times and places?

Apparently, both of these things happened, unless you are saying the videos are fake or something.

[jb]

Great. So sounds like we agree on the following two points:

1) The fact that some non-violent stuff happened on J6 does not really tell us anything interesting about whether violent stuff also happened, and
2) Sometimes cops use more force than is necessary or reasonable.

[M L]

Your points are generalized axioms that say nothing about J6 in particular. Rewording to make them meaningful:

1) Cops allowed people into the building and guided them around the building.
2) Cops used quite a lot of force at the particular time against that particular crowd in the video on J6 . . . perhaps more than justified, it sounds like you agree. And even though I expressed agnosticism on that point above, watching it again the crowd appears to be peaceful, doing nothing objectionable at the moment when they begin firing rubber bullets and tossing explosives/chemical weapons into the crowd.

[jb]

Sure, but just like it's possible for #1 and #2 to both be true, it turns out there's also ample evidence for:

3) Some other people violently broke into the Capitol, many of them with the express intention of disrupting the transition of power from Trump to Biden.

If your narrative of the day just contains #1 and #2 and misses #3, you're either not understanding the situation very well or intentionally trying to mislead about it.

[M L]

Sure, yes, they were protesting what they thought was a stolen election or something, expressing dissatisfaction and some were causing mayhem and disruptions etc. I don't think anyone thought they were going to overthrow a government or anything like that, though.

[Aunt Teefah]

Who uses human shields? According to Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, the Israeli military does.

https://www.btselem.org/human_shields

"Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli security forces have repeatedly used Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip as human shields, ordering them to perform military tasks that risked their lives. As part of this policy, soldiers have ordered Palestinian civilians to remove suspicious objects from roads, to tell people to come out of their homes so the military can arrest them, to stand in front of soldiers while the latter shoot from behind them, and more. The Palestinian civilians were chosen at random for these tasks, and could not refuse the demand placed on them by armed soldiers.

This use of civilians is not an independent initiative by soldiers in the field, but the result of a decision made by senior military authorities."

[Commenter_XY]

AT, I'll go out on a limb and say that the kinder Israeli 'Man on the Street' would call B'Tselem useful idiots. Other Israelis call them traitors. They are very, very controversial within Israel.

I think Hamas has cornered the 'human shield' market, lately. 😉

[Aunt Teefah]

"They are very, very controversial within Israel."

I don't doubt you on that point. Their work suggests that they see Palestinians as human beings entitled to human rights. As a result, I am sure they are not popular amongst a society that chooses Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich as its leaders. But that does nothing to undermine their findings - if anything, it bolsters them.

[Commenter_XY]

As I said, they are very, very controversial inside Israel. It says a lot for Israeli democracy that B'Tselem operates as they do.

That would never happen in Judea, Samaria or Gaza under Hamas or the PA.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Jonathan Lewis. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Jonathan (HT Barry Hussein Osama). OK, except for the long hair, and he might still be alive because I wouldn’t have sent him to a Racial Jungle (HT Parkinsonian Joe)

Frank

[Ridgeway]

Can anybody explain WTF is happening at OpenAI, and what the issues are between the Board and the non-former CEO?

[Longtobefree]

No.
Even those involved don't really have a clue.
(But Microsoft is laughing up it's sleeve)

[loki13]

I could, but it's really stupid.

The short version of it is this. There are two competing camps in AI.

Camp A is associated with effective altruism. The EA camp likes AI, but is very worried about the Terminator scenario.

Camp B is associated with effective accelerationism. The ACC camp likes AI, and thinks our AI overlords are inevitable, so let's get there as quickly as possible.

Anyway, OpenAI was set up as a non-profit, and the Board is associated with EA. Altman wants to make lots of money, and get things out as quickly as possible (Silicon Valley = move fast and break things). The investors in AI, including MS, like Altman.

The Board pulled off the firing without getting the investors or the employees on board, because they were worried that Altman was moving too fast. Over the weekend, the investors and staff started to rebel. And then a big-time investor (Micorsoft) grabbed Altman and co to set up their own AI.

That's the real quick, real simple version. Good?

[M L]

"because they were worried that Altman was moving too fast."

I'm skeptical of such immediate, pat public explanations being very accurate.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, Loki did preface the explanation with "The short version of it is this" ...

Feel free to contribute a longer-form explanation.

[M L]

Loki summarized the story just fine, I think. I'm just saying it makes sense to be skeptical, in situations like this, that the initial public story that people put together is very accurate or complete (i.e. what's really going on).

Also, someone with a perhaps more cynical perspective might think that these events are more likely to be explained by self-interested struggles for control of what the participants believe will be the world's most powerful and profitable technology or even a singular technological revolution unto itself, as opposed to being explained by differences in well-meaning moral and ethical philosophies.

[Sarcastr0]

Well done.

[Ridgeway]

Thanks.

And I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords, and would like to remind them that as a dutiful corporate drone, I can be helpful in running their vast silicon mines.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Crap! I guess I'll be wielding a pick down in the hole.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The ACC camp likes AI, and thinks our AI overlords are inevitable, so let’s get there as quickly as possible."

I don't think that's quite an accurate summation of accelerationism.

Of course, there are a wide range of views that fall under the term "accelerationism", ranging from what you describe, to "worse is better" revolutionaries who think unbridled capitalism would crash and burn, heralding the arrival of world communism.

But, focusing on the relevant variety of accelerationism, they actually think (Among other things...) that, if superhuman AI is going to create AI overlords, it's best to bring it so fast that we haven't yet become mortally dependent on AI, and can pull the plug on them. Instead of going slow and having that AI born in an already thoroughly automated world it can take over in an eyeblink.

The general idea of technological accelerationism is that there's a tsunami coming whether we want it or not, and the only way to survive it is to ride the crest of the wave, instead of being smashed to bits by it.

[Nige]

'it’s best to bring it so fast that we haven’t yet become mortally dependent on AI, and can pull the plug on them'

This is profoundly, deeply nonsensical. It sounds exactly like the kind of bullshit tech-bros believe or claim to believe as they urgently make the most useless, least innovative, most resource-hungry tech in the history of the planet.

[Sarcastr0]

It's also hardly the only rationale tech cite for accelerationism.

One thing the right and the left can agree on is that Silicon Valley wants to do policy work, but really shouldn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It’s also hardly the only rationale tech cite for accelerationism."

Possibly why I said, "Among other things.", even.

[not guilty]

It looks like the appeal of the partial gag order on Donald Trump was argued before a hot bench of the D.C. Circuit. The argument reportedly went on for almost two and a half hours. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/11/20/trump-gag-order-hearing-jan-6-case/

[David Nieporent]

See for yourself if you want!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngUhSD35DoA

Trump's lawyer did not do a great job, continually fighting the hypos and refusing to directly answer the judges' questions. But he's stuck with a bad position because of his client, forced to essentially argue that there can be no restrictions.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any indication as to when a decision will be coming?

[not guilty]

There's not a hard and fast deadline, but the briefing and oral argument were fast tracked. I surmise that the decision will come quickly.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thoughts on further appeal?

[David Nieporent]

If it doesn't come down Trump's way, it is 100% guaranteed he'll appeal. I guess he could go en banc, but that seems pointless.

[not guilty]

If the Court of Appeals panel affirms the partial gag order, it will almost certainly dissolve the stay immediately. Team Trump likely would then seek a stay from SCOTUS pending filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari. Five justices would be necessary to grant a stay, while four justices are necessary to grant cert.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks to both of you, but you both assume Trump loses.
Would the government take the loss if Trump wins or would they in turn seek to appeal (either for an en banc hearing or for cert by the SC)?

[not guilty]

If the panel rules in Trump's favor, I would expect the government to seek en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit seeking to reinstate the District Court order. Whether to seek certiorari would likely depend on the particular content of the Court of Appeals reasoning.

[Mr. Bumble]

...to be continued.

[David Nieporent]

If the panel rules 100% in Trump's favor, I expect an appeal to the en banc court. If the panel merely narrows the gag order, I do not expect the government to appeal.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I quit after wading through half of it, but Trump’s lawyer (aside from declaring his client to be “President Donald J. Trump,” which might be the only way he could have a chance to be paid) seemed very able, better than has been generally seen from Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force.

He had problems because he did not like the judges’ efforts to obtain answers, likely because he did not want to say aloud what his client wanted, even when the judges pressed him to dispense with the platitudes and discuss rules of decision, specific consequences of positions, etc.

He might have soiled himself when the judges questioned, at length, whether granting the requested relief to Trump in this context might interfere with effectiveness of the conditions of release that (1) his client signed and (2) are currently keeping Trump out of jail. First, I don't think he had thought of that.
Second, imagine going back to Trump with ‘well, sir, I have some good news and, well, some, uh, some maybe somewhat not quite so good news . . . '

[Commenter_XY]

Sorry...what is a 'hot bench'?

[ThePublius]

a judge or panel of judges that actively questions lawyers presenting appellate arguments.

[David Nieporent]

ThePublius answered. As a lawyer, basically the worst scenario imaginable is to get up to make your argument and the judges sit there bored or stone faced and don't say anything. You'd much rather have the judges actively engaged and quizzing you about your position and how far you'd go and how you'd apply your proposed ruling to various hypotheticals. (Of course, if you aren't prepared for questions, you can look bumbling, but it's still better than desperately trying to get them to show any interest in what you're saying.)

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, I get it. Yeah, it is like that in consulting too = the worst scenario imaginable is to get up to make your argument and the judges clients sit there bored or stone faced and don’t say anything.

That is like dying a thousand deaths. It has happened to me.

[John F. Carr]

From the chutzpah files:

A woman sued her ex-husband for not paying alimony as provided by a separation agreement. The court ruled that her attempt to chop up her ex and their son with a hatchet violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in all contracts. He was justified in stopping payments.

Rabinowitz v. Schenkman (Mass. App. Ct. November 16 2023)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

She really butchered her case.

[Commenter_XY]

The husband said, "You got me chopped if you think I am paying alimony"

[bernard11]

gehackte tsuris

[Commenter_XY]

Mince meat....nice one.

[Bored Lawyer]

If she had succeeded in chopping up her husband, alimony would have ceased, right? So arguably that's a waiver.

[Frank Drackman]

His name is Jonathan Lewis.
Watsa matta? he didn't have a high enough Melanin Content?
Hair not nappy enough to be Jonathan Hussein Obama?
Wasn't killed by 1 Cop's knee but 15-20 "Utes"?? (I'll give Nevada this much, some have been arrested and charged with murder, but what are their names? How will "White Shoe" Manhattan Law Firms know not to hire them in 10 years?)
This is exactly the same as when Emmett Till was murdered in 1955, nobody gave a shit then, because it was Klingers killing a (redacted), nobody gives a shit now because it was (redacteds, The Reverend's "Bettors" who are "replacing", I mean killing us) killing a Klinger.
His name is Jonathan Lewis

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Answering my own question,
will miracles never cease, 4 of the murderers have actually
been named,
Captain Renault's "The Usual Suspects"
Treavion Randolph
Damien Hernandez
Gianni Robinson
Dontral Beaver
won't link to the booking photos, but you already know what
they look like.
Of course they've only been charged, and considered innocent until convicted in a court of law.
His name is Jonathan Lewis.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"won’t link to the booking photos, but you already know what
they look like."
Obama's son (if he had one)?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, this should be interesting:

"A federal appeals court struck a major blow to the Voting Rights Act on Monday, finding that black voters alone cannot challenge maps under the 1965 law, teeing up a likely Supreme Court dispute.

The decision was made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which ruled 2-1 that black and minority groups alone cannot bring racial gerrymandering suits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Instead, such lawsuits filed under that provision must come from the Justice Department, the appeals court ruled."

More at the linked article

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/appeals-court-voting-rights-act-supreme-court-fight

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Two Trumpers issue a decision affirming another Trumper's decision that should hearten white nationalists, racists, Federalist Society members, white supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, Volokh Conspiracy fans, Stormfront readers, and other clingers. The decision: More than a half-century after enactment of the Voting Rights Act, it has been divined that the Act requires a complaint from the Department of Justice (rather than from victims of the harms outlawed by the Voting Rights Act).

If the Republicans on the Supreme Court affirm, this would be one more reason to enlarge the Court and another issue for an enlarged Court to reconsider.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Seriouslly I am amazed at how little you know and hoe deficient are you reasoning powers

Do what you recommend on the Court and what MUST ASSUREDLLY happen is that legislative races will turn in to proxy Judicial elections.

[Nelson]

As I understand it, this is an outlier that reverses a lot of precedent. Will that make it more likely that SCOTUS takes it up?

And if so, would it be more likely to be on the regular docket or the shadow docket?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Interesting historical tidbit. Justice Louis Brandeis recused himself from hearing a last-ditch appeal to save the life of Sacco and Vanzetti, because his wife had become friendly with Sacco's wife.

Well, I thought it was interesting anyway.

[VinniUSMC]

Interesting historical tidbit. Justice Louis Brandeis recused himself from hearing a last-ditch appeal to save the life of Sacco and Vanzetti, because his wife had become friendly with Sacco’s wife.

I had to go look it up, and it appears that the SC ruling was unanimous. Is there any chance he would have dissented? Maybe Justice Brandeis just took the opportunity to not have to rule against his wife's "friend"?

"Happy wife, happy life"?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He didn't really explain in detail his reason for recusing. You may be right, or maybe he believed more in the "appearance of conflict" standard than do today's Justices.

It's hard to say, but I think he may have dissented. Not that that would have done Sacco and Vanzetti any good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bill Ackman, whose strident call for suspensions, disciplinary action, and hiring discrimination with respect to students he deemed antisemitic was endorsed by this blog a couple of weeks ago, has (like the Volokh Conspiracy, Ron DeSantis and many other partisan cowards) switched to a different tune.

Ackman on Elon Musk's most recent (but maybe not worst) antisemitic spasm:

@elonmusk is not an antisemite. I agree with @benshapiro
’s assessment of the situation. It is remarkable how quickly the world stands ready to attack Musk for his shoot from the hip commentary. Musk is not perfect, but the world is a vastly better place because of him.

At least Ackman has the courage and character to say something. The Volokh Conspirators have suddenly lost their voice with respect to Musk's bigoted statements, as is longstanding and customary at this blog in the context of right-wing bigotry.

Carry on, clingers.

[Ben_]

Latest data tells us Covid kills about half as many young people 0-19 as Flu & Pneumonia:

https://checkyourwork.kelleykga.com/p/an-update-on-pediatric-covid-deaths?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Flu & Pneumonia is twice as dangerous to young people as Covid.

[Nige]

Cut loose from the idea that the vaccines are poison, this doesn't seem like anything new or revelatory concerning a highly contagious virus that's killed millions in a few years.

[Nelson]

Which variant, Ben? The original variants were much more deadly (I believe it peaked at .1% case fatality). Since then they have become steadily less deadly, allowing for more transmission, because a dead host can't infect others if they're dead.

For what it's worth, that is typical for a novel virus as it seeks to achieve maximum dispersal. There is a balance between lethality and transmission that provides the optimal transmission scenario.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10066022/

[Ben_]

Read the link. That’s all the info.

Hawaii is mandating masks indoors again. But not for flu, even though flu is twice as dangerous — at least for 0-19 year olds.

[Nelson]

So today’s much-less-virulent strains. In that case it’s not very surprising.

The flu virus has a much higher fatality rate than where Covid has ended up. Covid started out 10x more deadly than the flu, but today’s variants are about 30% lower last time I looked into it. Which makes sense, since influenza is a long-established virus and SARS CoV 2 was a novel virus four years ago.

I've never understood the anti-mask frenzy. It helps a little, but not enough to justify mandates, in my mind. But it isn't something to get worked up about. It's just not that big a deal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Jan 6th tapes prove Biden prosecutors knowingly falsified the charges that caused Matthew Perna to kill himself

"Thirty-seven-year-old Matthew Perna came to Washington DC on January 6, 2021 to peacefully protest Joe Biden’s election. During those protests, Perna admitted he entered the Capitol through a door that had been opened by others (possibly government security police themselves). While inside he said he had walked through the building for a few minutes, didn’t touch or damage anything, and simply stayed within the normal walking path for visitors as he took pictures.

For this “criminal activity,” Biden prosecutors at the Department of Justice had charged him with multiple crimes, including a felony for committing terrorism that could have resulted in a twenty-year prison sentence. While Perna was willing to accept a trespassing misdemeanor — he recognized he had entered a closed facility without clear authority — the felony for terrorism crushed him. He knew the January 6th trials were imposing the harshest penalties. He knew the prosecutors and judges were not taking reasonable plea deals. And he knew that even if he agreed to a deal, the best he could expect would still be many months or even years in prison.

This unjust fate was something he could not face. On February 25, 2022 he killed himself."

The prosecutors who charged him with terrorism had exculpatory evidence, and hid it. It appears the January 6th trials were this nation's largest Brady violation in post-Brady history.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

JFC you gobble up anything that fits your conspiracy narratives.

What proof do you have that any Brady violations occurred, other than 'random tinfoil-hat website says so without any proof of its own?'

Stop going to these idiot-magnet websites and you'd look like less of a fool. Either that, or stop telling everyone about what you read there.

[M L]

Prosecutors doing wrong? Ridiculous! Lawfare against political targets? Conspiracy!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Please prove the following allegations:

The video was exculpatory to the charges to which he pled guilty.

The video was withheld by prosecutors.

So far, the only ‘proof’ is that the tin-foil idiot author says so. As he is neither a lawyer nor was he a member of the defense team for Perna, I’d say his source-free allegations can be understood by most people here as utter bullshit.

I'm not surprised to see you mouthing off in support of this nonsense though. You were fooled just as easily as Brett earlier in this day's postings.

[M L]

The argument obviously seems to be that since the video shows this individual being led around by police officers and in the presence of a number of other police officers, all of whom don't appear to have any problem with him and others being there, all while generally behaving calmly and strolling around, this supports the idea that he entered an open door into the building that many people were using, and didn't bother any police or walk through any yellow tape or break stuff or anything like that. This in turn, I assume, supports the notion that he lacked the necessary mens rea or other elements of whatever crimes for which he was charged, as well as the general notion that his behavior should not fairly be considered gravely criminal, felonious, or terrorism. Looking into it further, it appears one of the crimes at issue was "Obstruction of Congress" which requires that a person "corruptly" tried to influence Congress through force or threats.

Anyway, I didn't have any position on whether the footage is actually exculpatory and all that. I just think you bootlickers are funny, with your passionate knee-jerk whiteknighting of the federal government, and the play dumb responses, when you're retarded to begin with playing dumb takes it to an amusing level.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yeah. I'm a 'bootlicker' because Brett makes unfounded bullshit accusations and I called him out on it.

"Anyway, I didn’t have any position on whether the footage is actually exculpatory and all that."

It would appear that you're the one with intellectual difficulties. Allow me to pretend to be shocked.

[Sarcastr0]

ML crabwalking away again!

[M L]

Quit whiteknighting, bro. She's not going to sleep with you.

"unfounded bullshit" - Cogent analysis. I look forward to hearing more brilliant insights.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"The prosecutors who charged him with terrorism had exculpatory evidence, and hid it."

There is no evidence for that conclusion whatsoever. None. Zip. Zada. Zilch.

What other words would you like for me to use to describe it other than "unfounded bullshit," since that is precisely what it is? Unless, of course, you actually have evidence which proves Brett's conclusion?

I didn't think so.

You are exhaustingly stupid or disingenuous, or an embarrassing combination of both.

[M L]

You apparently think the footage is not evidence favorable to the defendant, but refuse to explain why or address the argument I laid out above. Instead you just like to fling poo and repeat bare assertions.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Learn to read:

“The prosecutors who charged him with terrorism had exculpatory evidence, and hid it.”

Why would I need to address any argument you've laid out, when you've repeatedly and deliberately ignored Brett's baseless accusation that the allegedly exculpatory evidence was hidden?

You continue to white-knight on his behalf, despite allegedly not having an opinion on the matter, all the while you ignore his evidence-free conclusion.

"Anyway, I didn’t have any position on whether the footage is actually exculpatory and all that."

If the evidence was exculpatory, as you and Brett claim, why did he plead guilty? If the evidence was hidden by the prosecutors, where is the statement from Perna's defense team about it?

You are stupid and disingenuous.

[M L]

You think Perna has a "defense team" long after he's dead?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

His lawyer is still alive and easily reachable. A responsible journalist would have done so before making evidence-free assertions of malpractice and civil rights violations.

Thank you for confirming that no such effort was made because the half-wit dipshit you two are defending is not a journalist, and that the evidence supporting Brett's accusation (and yours, despite your wide-eyed idiotic attempt to deny your clear opinion on the matter) does not in fact exist.

Which is what I've said all along, you fucking dolt.

Perna's lawyer was J. Gerald Ingram. Why don't you ask him yourself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ingram%2C+Cassese+%26+Grimm%2C+LLP&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[M L]

Sure. He'll just check with his client to get permission to discuss the case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another desperate attempt at dodging the fact that there isn’t any evidence for your idiotic conclusion.

You know that excuse is bullshit too, right? I suggest you actually learn about what is and isn’t protected by privilege.

Keep swinging Casey. I’m sure your homerun is imminent.

[David Nieporent]

So far, the only ‘proof’ is that the tin-foil idiot author says so. As he is neither a lawyer nor was he a member of the defense team for Perna, I’d say his source-free allegations can be understood by most people here as utter bullshit.

It's worse than that. Everything the guy wrote was a lie. He has no idea why Perna killed himself. He has no idea what Perna was thinking. He's lying about "harshest penalties." He's lying about no reasonable plea deals. He's lying about the sentence Perna was facing. He's lying about what happened after Perna killed himself. (Prosecutors "dropped the charges" because that's automatic when the defendant died, and they did not "admit" that the felony charge would have been dropped. (Though note that this allegation directly contradicts the guy's claims about harsh sentences.)) He's lying about a terrorism charge; there was none. He's lying about this video being exculpatory. And he's lying about the government violating Brady.

[apedad]

Brett...do you see terrorism charges here?

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1377916/download

[Don Nico]

Brett,
Please show use the terrorism charge.

[John F. Carr]

Terrorism is a sentencing enhancement in the January 6 cases.

If you commit certain enumerated crimes, such as felony vandalism of government property, with a political motive the judge is expected to sentence you to decades in prison. See US Sentencing Guidelines §3A1.4. For politically motivated crimes other than those specifically listed, Application Note 4 says

However, there may be cases in which (A) the offense was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct but the offense involved, or was intended to promote, an offense other than one of the offenses specifically enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B); or (B) the offense involved, or was intended to promote, one of the offenses specifically enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), but the terrorist motive was to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, rather than to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct. In such cases an upward departure would be warranted, except that the sentence resulting from such a departure may not exceed the top of the guideline range that would have resulted if the adjustment under this guideline had been applied.

Because these are sentencing guidelines that do not increase the statutory minimum or maximum sentence they need not be charged in the indictment. The government has convinced some judges to sentence January 6 defendants as terrorists and failed to convince others. In one case the government appealed what it considered an unreasonably low sentence for a January 6 terrorist.

The statutory definition which I summarized as "political motive" reads "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct."

[Absaroka]

"such as felony vandalism of government property, with a political motive...or to retaliate against government conduct."

How expansively can that be read? If someone causes more than $felony of damage by spray painting 'No Blood for Oil' on some government building during the Iraq war, could that really get a decade plus sentence?

[John F. Carr]

I think it could. Prosecutors hold back on requesting terrorism sentences because they don't want to take heat for putting anti-war or BLM protesters in prison for long periods.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/04/doj-domestic-terrorism-sentences-jan-6-526407

A guy in Colorado built a pipe bomb to retaliate against a law enforcement officer who murdered his friend. At sentencing he was looking at a 20 year difference in prison terms depending on whether the murder was considered an official act. If the LEO was on the job at the time, the defendant was a terrorist retaliating against government conduct. If he was off the job, it was a private dispute.

[M L]

Reportedly, at the time of pleading guilty Perna believed he might get 6-12 months. Then after pleading guilty, DOJ added terrorism enhancement for 9 years.

[Don Nico]

Please provide a citation.

[M L]

Here's what I found beyond various tweets.

Perna was initially charged with trespass, a charge he reportedly accepted. But when the Department of Justice decided to add a terrorism enhancement, it was more than he could take.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg-gutfeld-any-video-that-didnt-fit-committees-narrative-ditched-like-one-bidens-grandkids

In December, at the behest of his defense attorney, Perna agreed to plead guilty to all four counts. With no criminal record and no violent conduct on January 6, Perna and his family expected a prison sentence of less than a year; Perna’s sentencing hearing was scheduled for March 3, the seven-year anniversary of his mother’s death.

But Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia handling every January 6 prosecution, intervened and asked the court to delay Perna’s sentencing so his office could make sure Capitol defendants are punished equally. “While every case and every defendant are different, the Government is attempting to ensure that similarly situated January 6 defendants are treated in the same manner,” Graves wrote in a motion on February 11. “The Government is attempting to do that in this case and that requires additional time for the Government’s internal review process to be completed.”

This was very bad news for Perna. Graves’ office has sought lengthy prison terms for defendants who plead guilty to the obstruction felony. In the case of Jacob Chansley, who, like Perna, committed no violent act on January 6 and was allowed into the building by police, Biden’s Justice Department sought 51 months in jail and three years probation. (Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced him to 41 months.)

In sentencing recommendations on obstruction pleas, prosecutors have compared defendants to domestic terrorists and asked judges to act accordingly. “The need to deter others is especially strong in cases involving domestic terrorism, which the breach of the Capitol certainly was,” one of Graves’ prosecutors wrote in Chansley’s sentencing memo. “The sentence of this Court must drive home this fact for this defendant, and any others who may wish to emulate him: crimes committed against this country and democracy will be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law.”

That appears to be what Graves would have demanded in Perna’s case as well.

https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/27/the-suicide-of-a-january-6-defendant-they-broke-him/

[Zarniwoop]

Brett claims:

The prosecutors who charged him with terrorism had exculpatory evidence, and hid it.

Citation to credible evidence required. Even a hint of what the alleged “exculpatory evidence” that was allegedly “hidden” consists of might be nice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to think that leading with a link to a discussion of said evidence was more than nice. But I guess you're committed to pretending it didn't exist...

[Jason Cavanaugh]

WHAT EVIDENCE? Do you understand what "evidence" actually is?

Where is a statement from Perna's defense lawyer saying the video was never shared? How about a lawsuit from Perna's estate claiming the same?

The fact that YOU didn't see the video until today doesn't mean that nobody saw it until today.

You never fucking learn.

[M L]

Brett: "Jan 6th tapes prove . . . "

Leftist commenters in unison: "What proof is there? What evidence is there?"

[Nelson]

Probably because every time a Jan. 6th apologist breathlessly proclaims they have irrefutable evidence that the trials are pure political persecution and everyone was a tourist, not doing anything illegal, it turns out that such evidence is always refutable.

When you can't acknowledge that smashing into the Capitol, yelling about hanging Mike Pence, occupying the floor of Congress, and assaulting law enforcement officers are all criminal behaviors committed by criminals who should be prosecuted, you lose all credibility.

[M L]

Found a good article on this from back in February before this footage was released:

Matthew Perna did nothing wrong on January 6, 2021.

The Pennsylvania man walked through an open door on the Senate side of the building shortly before 3 p.m. that afternoon. Capitol police, shown in surveillance video, stood by as hundreds of Americans entered the Capitol. Wearing a “Make America Great Again” sweatshirt, Perna, 37, left after about 20 minutes.

Less than two weeks later, Perna was ensnared in what the former top U.S. prosecutor called a “shock and awe” campaign to round up Trump supporters and deter them from demonstrating at Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021. After he discovered his image on the FBI’s most wanted list for January 6, Perna immediately contacted his local FBI office and voluntarily submitted to questioning; on January 18, six FBI agents arrested Perna at his home.

His life from that point turned into a nightmare. Perna was indicted by a grand jury in February 2021 on four counts including obstruction of an official proceeding and trespassing misdemeanors. Despite his nonviolent participation in the events of that day—he did not assault anyone, carry a weapon, or vandalize property—Biden’s Justice Department and local news media nonetheless made his life pure hell. . . .

Whole thing: https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/27/the-suicide-of-a-january-6-defendant-they-broke-him/

[M L]

Three others like him:

Biden’s DOJ Tormented These Four J6 Protesters To Death

https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/21/bidens-doj-tormented-these-four-j6-protesters-to-death/

[Ben_]

Democrats cheer.

[Magister]

Except for Perna, these three individuals faced relatively short sentences; I've previously heard the argument that, for those who killed themselves after the January 6th insurrection, there must have been underlying causes unrelated to the insurrection. The last one listed killed himself on January 9th, 2021, which hardly seems like it could be Biden's Department of Justice responsible.

One has to wonder what evidence against Perna there was that the charges against him were so much more severe.

[David Nieporent]

A good article? That's an article by the lying bitch Julie Kelly, a bimbo who knows nothing about the law but writes as if she does and even expressly excuses child molesting if it's in service of a MAGA agenda.

[Magister]

From the Statement of Facts

PERNA claimed that he was pushed into the building by a crowd that had gathered behind him. PERNA claimed that it was not his intention to enter the Capitol.

PERNA claimed that he was inside the Capitol building for only five to ten minutes. In a later interview, PERNA admitted that at one point he become frustrated, and, using a metal pole, tapped on a window of the Capitol building.

There are several pictures of him from a video chanting "U.S.A" and filming on his cell phone, and not looking like somebody who didn't mean to be there or is unaware of what's going on. He had a metal pole, which would probably be a weapon; he admits to "tapping" on a window with it. This is the best face he could put on his actions. (There is no explanation of what frustrated him.)

He admitted entering the Capitol Building "with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress" and posted a video to his Facebook page in which he said "lt's not over, trust me. The purpose of today was to expose Pence as a traitor."

Looks like this QAnon supporter did a lot of wrong things.

[M L]

Yeah. Chanting USA? Filming on a cell phone? Tapping on a window? That's a lot of "wrong things" indeed. This is the worst face you can put on his actions. Man, that's crazy. Definitely terrorism.

[Magister]

It rebuts his claim that he was there unwillingly; he had a weapon (the metal pole); the comments he posted on his Facebook page don't sound like the unaware Mr. Magoo tourists always claimed by apologists for insurrection; and what are the chances that his claim that he only "tapped" the window is the full extent of that? In any case, his lawyer's advice was to plead guilty (agreeing that the government could prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt), so it's not clear what other evidence he and his lawyer were aware of. At the very least, the wrong things he did include four crimes he entered a guilty plea to.

Or maybe his lawyer was actually mind controlled by the Justice Department; better double the thickness of tin foil in your MAGA hat, M L.

[Ben_]

Democrats are cool with that.

[M L]

Image of the day

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvfU5vIWYAM0LS2?format=jpg&name=medium

[Nelson]

If voter fraud is something that only Democrats do, why are most of those caught perpetrating voter fraud Republicans?

https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2023-11-21/woodbury-county-supervisors-wife-found-guilty-of-52-counts-of-voter-fraud

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, ever been to Lakewood, QA?

[Commenter_XY]

Israel can live with a cold peace. That has been the case with both Egypt and Jordan. Israel has agreements with other regional countries (UAE, etc). It is not like Israel is incapable. The Israelis have shown they can live with cold peace.

OTOH, the palestinians appear much more interested in killing Jews than having a state of their own. Consider the high degree of support for Hamas in Judea and Samaria; not just gaza. They're handing out candies to celebrate the Simchat Torah pogrom. And then spinning some wild-assed conspiracy theory that the IDF killed hundreds of Israelis. You just cannot make this up.

Israel can live with a cold peace. What Israel will not live with is Judeocidal terrorists on or within their borders. That is not unreasonable.

[Commenter_XY]

There is absolutely a taste difference between pasture raised, organic...and regular eggs. Personally, I prefer the organic. As I age, food quality becomes way more important. If I had to characterize the difference, it is mildness.

Duck eggs are pretty 'strong' on the egg taste scale (for me, anyway).

[Mr. Bumble]

Your concern for the right of chickens to roam free is duly noted.
As for the color of eggs:
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/why_are_chicken_eggs_different_colors

[Moderation4ever]

Reminds me of my father comment that, "the best tasting eggs come from the chicken scratching and pecking on the manure pile".

[Bored Lawyer]

Color of eggs is a function of the breed, not whether they are free-range. You can buy free-range eggs of both colors.

[Sarcastr0]

I like brown eggs because it's easier to pick out the shell if some falls in.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you show that by calling me a dumb ass?

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 22 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Yes, geologists, biologists, meteorologists, etc., don’t work in the hard sciences!

those scientists generally do the hard work, though few of those subfields are active in the AGW science.

[Moderation4ever]

It is pretty hard to beat Prince playing in the rain. If for nothing else than the determination of the dude to keep playing when others would pack it in.

[loki13]

Great question!

Let's see. I think that Prince is easily number 1.

Number 2? Up With People! Naw, just kidding.
I'd probably go with Dr. Dre and Co. That was something.
Three was Madonna.
Four? Bruce.
Five? Personally, I liked The Weeknd's show. But I might be the only one. So I'd put U2 in there.

But I don't think anyone can dispute the number one.

[Bob from Ohio]

Grambling band in Super Bowl II.

Pop music has no business playing at a halftime.

[Kazinski]

They are all dreck.

But if I had to pick one it would be the Janet Jackson Justin Timberlake reveal.

[John F. Carr]

I was gifted some tea purchased in China. I asked my phone to translate the writing. "Duck shit fragrance." The tea plants are fertilized with duck droppings.

[VinniUSMC]

The US is less diverse than Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium…

By what possible metric is that even in the realm of truth?

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 26 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
It’s arguable that the more responsible (though yes, surely “cold peace” types) Palestinians have never been offered much of a state at all."

Thats because the palestinians havent behaved in a manner that would justify the creation of a state. Take time to understand the history of the palestinian people since the fall of the ottoman empire and lets us know when their behavior would warrant a "state"

[David Nieporent]

There’s all kinds of problems with the PA, but they’ve consistently been a viable alternative for a peace process

I mean, they may be a viable alternative for a peace process, but since Oslo they've been rather disappointingly unviable as an alternative for a peace deal.

"The PA is better than Hamas," while true, makes the phrase "damning with faint praise" like a dramatic understatement.

[Bored Lawyer]

LOL. Truth in advertising.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

“Duck shit fragrance.”

You can drown that out with a dash of cock sauce (a nickname for Fuy Fong Food's brand of sriracha sauce due to the prominent image of a rooster on the label).

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 8 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"What’s the behavior necessary to be granted autonomy?"

Typical leftist with no knowledge or concept of history.
Queen - quit being the typical leftist and read up on the history of the palestinian people and the history of israel. Get you info unbiased sources.

[Bwaaah]

"What’s the behavior necessary to be granted autonomy?"

The behavior is to accept the offer when it is tendered. (Pretend you seriously considered the 2000 Camp David Summit, and then continue with your excuses.)

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 50 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
joe dallas, amateur expert climatologist, epidemiologist, historian!

Queen - another leftist admitting they lack basic knowledge of history ( and basic sciences).

[Joe_dallas]

Belgium actually has several major ethnic groups, french, flemish, dutch, wallons. though it should be noted that they are all caucasians . So it is high on the diversity list. Belgium has allowed a large migration from the arab countries.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Don't argue with morons. He fails before that
1) why is more diverse better? It isn't.
2) Is more diverse consistent with high crime, bad governemtn, and social inequaliyt. SURE IS.
3) Does that person allow you to be part of that diversity ? Again, obviously not...
...so you are dealing with a moron.

[Nige]

'Israel can live with a cold peace.'

Current events say otherwise. Current events say that living with a 'cold peace' was one of the stupidest, most destructive and idiotic things Israel could have done.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Israel can live with a cold peace.

With American political, military, and economic skirts to hide behind, sure . . . but what about after America loses its appetite for subsidizing Israel’s violent, immoral, superstitious right-wing belligerence?

Checked recent polls on young Americans’ opinions concerning American support of Israel. They are illuminating, vindicated by young people’s conduct, and, in my judgment, significant.

Not substantial, which many people mean when they use significant, but instead significant.

What is Israel going to do without American support? And what are you going to do when Israel loses that support, Commenter_XY. Are you going to head toward Israel to try to prop up the Israelis for an extra minute or two after that cold peace concludes?

[Nelson]

"The Israelis have shown they can live with cold peace."

Of course they can. Given enough time they will have put illegal settlements populated with ultra-Orrhodox terrorists in enough places in the West Bank that they will take over the entire region and force the Palestinians out.

Hamas needs to be wiped out, root and branch. There is no excuse for supporting Hamas or any terrorism (including the Jews in the West Bank). But pretending Israel is angelic and all Palestinians are Hamas is patently ridiculous. Israel needs to take care of business and destroy Hamas, then they need to work honestly towards leaving the West Bank. Gaza should remain under Israeli control.

[Nige]

Arguably rejecting unacceptable offers from far more powerful states seeking to bully them into submission suggests gretater worthiness of autonomy than meek self-subjugation. If you were trying to make that sort of argument.

[Joe_dallas]

Bwaaah 34 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“What’s the behavior necessary to be granted autonomy?”

The behavior is to accept the offer when it is tendered. (Pretend you seriously considered the 2000 Camp David Summit, and then continue with your excuses.)"

Bwaah their behavior has actually been a long standing problem dating back to the late 1880's. The reason they didnt get a state the same time as Israel was created in 1947 was their behavior which as continually gotten worse.

Apologists such as Nige fail to grasp the full history, instead cherry picking a narrow one sided view.

[Nige]

Amazing how the people with the least power and wealth take all the blame, eh?

[Bwaaah]

"Amazing how the people with the least power and wealth take all the blame, eh?"

Yes, because that's just you explaining things using your tired orthodoxy, and not addressing the actual reasons they're being blamed. They're being blamed because of their hatred of Jews, their desire to see them killed, and their support of people who kill Jews.

And they don't want The West's "Two State Solution." So you have three choices here: 1) favor the Jew haters, 2) favor the Jews, or 3) ignore the sentiments of the people involved, as your explanation does, and pretend a third way makes a difference.

[Nige]

Well, ignoring them is what led to Oct 7th and subesequent 10,000 plus deaths, so maybe that's the shittiest solution and some of the others would have been worth the effort.

[Bwaaah]

And with another 9 million dead [Jews], you'll arrive at the solution that the majority prefers.

[Nige]

Why do you prefer that?

[Bwaaah]

When I was a kid, I turned on each sprinkler zone from the basement of our house, and then looked out out a little window for my father to give me that sign. I would then turn off that sprinkler zone and move on to the next.

That’s how he tried to instill my pride in “whiteness.” But I was thickheaded, and thought he was telling me that the sprinklers were working. Now, 50 years later, I have received my proper education in whiteness from The Woke.

(So much idiocy.)

[Nige]

Most people are familiar with brutalised and impoverished groups of people being characterised as subhuman and unworthy of freedom and autonomy.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen - you need to be able to distinguish between the rank and file geologists and meteorologists vs the activists running the advocacy boards of the members organizations. You are easily hoodwinked by the activists

[Krayt]

We love democracy, until we don’t. Kick him off the ballot in a couple of purple states so he has zero chance to win!

You have convinced the true believers. You have not convinced his supporters. Hence kicking him off the ballot is a dirty weasel trick so you can avoid a democratic judgement on the situation. And yes, I recognize the irony of that statement in a context of Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

It's in the Constitution, chief.

Our *explicitly* anti-democratic Constitution.

[Nige]

'You have not convinced his supporters.'

His supporters support his authoritarianism, his efforts to overthrow the election and his exemption from laws.

[David Welker]

It gives you a different and more accurate picture of the protests.

Notice that you are using the phrase "BLM protests" whereas some who opposed the protests would want to argue "BLM riots."

I think you would want to an accurate and full picture of the event rather than a characterization of the whole thing by what may be the actions of a few people.

I actually find it surprising that I have to make this argument, but it just shows how partisan bias overcomes points that would otherwise be obvious.

[Tom for equal rights]

There was vastly more violence at the average BLM protest than there was at J6

[Nige]

You need to distinguish between the scientists who say things that can be interpreted in such a way as to sort-of support Joe's climate-change denialism and everybody else, who aren't real scientists by definition.

[Nelson]

“you need to be able to distinguish between the rank and file geologists and meteorologists vs the activists”

And your method of distinguishing between them seems to be that those who support climate change are activists and those who don’t are not?

Unless you have a list of those who count as “rank-and-fike” scientists or “activists” based on their actual scientific rigor? No? I thought not.

[SRG2]

The orientation of the hand is what makes the difference, just as there is a difference in England between the "V for victory" sign and the v-sign (meaning "fuck off").

[Bob from Ohio]

Cold peace refers to Jordon and Egypt. Its been that way since 1977, the governments of Jordon and Egypt are satisfied with not getting beat in war but their population is still mainly anti-Israel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

living with a ‘cold peace’ was one of the stupidest, most destructive and idiotic things Israel could have done.

Dumber and more consequential than (1) promoting support of Israel's disgusting right-wing dumbassery as a left-right divider in American politics, (2) choosing to align with the losing side of the American culture war in that endeavor, and (3) establishing a trajectory toward finding out how it could operate without American support?

[Ed Grinberg]

You either support the right to online anonymity or you don't. The political orientation of the speaker shouldn't matter. (If you have principles, that is.)

[Commenter_XY]

Understood. What you did not know is that there was a synagogue directly across the street from the utility pole. I pass through on occasion, I recognize the intersection.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? On that list, the countries you mentioned only rank higher than the US in ethnic diversity, not linguistic or religious diversity.

And we all know that when "leftoids" talk about diversity, they're not talking about different kinds of white people.

[VinniUSMC]

A prime example of how to lie with statistics.

Belgians count as "diverse" if they are German/Italian/French descendants, for how many generations? When are they just Belgian?

[Armchair]

That's pretty amusing, how they "lie" with statistics.

To understand this, you need to understand how the diversity score works. Basically, it's the chance if you take two random people in a country, whether they'll be of different ethnic groups. The math is pretty simple. Obtain the fraction of the population that is of each ethnic group. Then square the fraction for each ethnic group, and sum them all up. Then subtract that number from one, and it gives you the diversity score.

So, in a given country with three ethnic groups, X, Y, and Z, if X = 50% of the population, and Y and Z each = 25% of the population, the math looks like 1 - (0.5^2 +0.25^2 + 0.25^2) = 0.625 diversity score.

To have the US have a diversity score of 0.49 is pretty amazing. Not only did they need to categorize all white people together, they would have had to eliminate Hispanics as a group, putting them with white people too. Note, Arabs are "white too"

Meanwhile, for Canada to have such a high score, they would have not only have had to count Arabs as a minority group, they also would have had to count French Canadians as different from English Canadians.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree: white supremacists should have to comply with the law just like everyone else.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

Anonyjity was not only the most used form in the Founding Era, it was the default form, and named comments were considered unnecessarily distracting from the issue being discussed.

As I think appears in some of the DICTA in the case that slapped Kamala Harris for doxing people who donated to causes she didn't like Even the ACLU was appalled at her.

[Nige]

Fair point.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why Sadat was killed by his own soldiers and not Israelis.

[Frank Drackman]

Not kind or gentle

[Nige]

'And we all know'

There's no accounting for what you all 'know.'

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How often should the once-a-week racial slur habit of an ostensibly serious legal blog -- which misappropriates the names and reputations of (some) legitimate educational institutions in an effort to make obsolete, bigoted right-wing thinking more palatable among mainstream Americans -- be mentioned, in your judgment?

Or were you requesting a couple of other outstanding tunes?

[Krayt]

I find it hard to believe any performer would pack it in in the middle of a halftime show.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, gonna go out on a limb here,
but how about "Up with People"?
so good they got to perform at five half times!

Frank

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes! 100 percent agree with Bob! I've wished for a long time that the halftime show would be the current national champion Drum and Bugle Corp. People would be absolutely amazed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. Yes, we add know. Do you think the Flemish benefit from AA at Harvard?

[NOVA Lawyer]

It only gives a more accurate picture of the protests if the context of both is shown. The implication of this video would seem to be that some protestors were escorted into the Capitol while excess Capitol police officers just stood around chatting. Which seems, to put it mildly, doubtful, given there were officers fighting for their lives at some of the entrances and radios exist.

Otherwise, these are protestors being escorted out after having been part of a violent mob that forced its way in. I suspect someone will ask, then why weren't they being arrested instead of led outside? I presume because the sheer number and the first goal was to get everyone out of the Capitol who was not supposed to be in the Capitol and if they could go peacefully, then all the better.

But just showing this video and pretending it undercuts anything about J6 is silly. When was the video taken, where, and what were the general circumstances.

And shorter: It doesn't matter how many hours of footage you have of home invaders calmly walking around the house or, even, being escorted out of the house by a resident, if you knew they broke the front door to get in and beat the owners to within inches of their lives.

Then people will say something about the BLM protests, because an act of violence....J6 protestors were part of a group with a very specific, common purpose, to stop Congressional counting of the electoral votes. People gained access to the Capitol by violently forcing their way in. They did, through their violence, delay the counting of the electoral votes. In other words, the mass had a goal of stopping a constitutional process that was happening at a specific time in a specific place and the result was nearly achieved with the help of violence.

BLM protests were not protesting a specific act at a specific time and place. They were large crowds in open public areas. Some members of those large crowds committed violence or tried to enter buildings they had no right to access, but that wasn't what the crowd was there for. Some people gaining unauthorized access to government or private business wasn't the goal of the majority of any of the BLM crowds and stopping a specific governmental act occurring on that day, or the next, or the next, was not the intended goal nor was it furthered by any of the violence.

These attempts to excuse J6 are lame and dangerous. You want to make a point that some of the people who entered the Capitol were innocent in that maybe they were unaware of the violence and they didn't realize they were allowed inside and they didn't do anything untoward once they got inside, that unicorn probably exists. But that's not the story. That's a story of an innocent Mr. Magoo, not the reality that was going on around them.

[Nelson]

“It gives you a different and more accurate picture of the protests.”

So what sort of ratio are you looking for? There were approximately 120,000 protesters at the mall on Jan. 6th. Let’s assume every single one of them went to the Capitol (not the case, but I’m skewing everything as far to your advantage as possible). There had been 1,046 arrested and charged as of September, 2023. Let’s assume they have arrested all of the criminals already (again, not remotely likely, but we’re giving you the benefit of every doubt). Also, we’ll round down to 1000. So with all factors weighted as far as possible in your favor, there was a criminality rate of .8% on Jan 6th. And none.of them could realistically be assumed to be unrelated to the protests, fair?

There were between 15 and 26 million protesters in the George Floyd/BLM protests. Again, let’s assume the lowest estimate to give your position maximum favor. To match the Jan. 6th protests, there would have had to be 1.2 million criminals at the BLM protests. There were an estimated 14,000 arrests. Let’s again weigh things in your favor and call it 20,000. Even then, it would be a .1% criminality rate at the BLM protests.

And that’s weighing everything in favor of Jan. 6th and to the detriment of the BLM protests. Jan 6th criminals were 8x more prevalent than BLM criminals.

So what would be fair, in your mind? Keeping in mind that with everything maximally skewed towards your position and leaving out the difference between protesting police brutality vs. trying to stop a free and fair election, what would a “different and more accurate picture” look like?

[Tom for equal rights]

Nova lawyer - "It only gives a more accurate picture of the protests if the context of both is shown. The implication of this video would seem to be that some protestors were escorted into the Capitol while excess Capitol police officers just stood around chatting. Which seems, to put it mildly, doubtful, given there were officers fighting for their lives at some of the entrances and radios exist."

Fighting for the lives - perhaps there would be videos of police officers actually fighting for their lives. Instead all we have are videos that dont even remotely indicate actual "fighting for their lives"

[David Welker]

My point is that ALL information should be considered, including information you want to argue isn’t very significant.

Release of the information first, THEN arguments about the significance or insignificance of the information second. That order is important, because sometimes there is a path dependence regarding our inclinations to decide what is important and what isn’t.

[David Nieporent]

That you close your eyes and put your hands over your ears and yell lalalalalalalaican'thearyou does not mean that we don't have lots of videos showing exactly what you pretend we don't have.

[Nelson]

We have video of a police officer being crushed in a door that the .on was trying to push through. We have video of single or pairs of officers facing dozens of angry protesters. If you think they didn't think, "Shit, I'm about to die", you're not being honest.

The fact that almost no one died isn't proof that no one thought they could die or that they didn't call for help.

I've seen those "officers escorting people into the Capitol" pictures since Jan. 6th. They invariably are officers escorting people out of the Capitol. When you're outnumbered, helping the ones who are done being low-level criminals leave so you can focus on the more dangerous criminals left is called "a good plan".

[Nige]

Notable victims of discrimination in the US, the Flemish?

[Nige]

There was only one Jan 6th protest, with violence. There were thousands of BLM protests, how many had related violence? A hundred? Average-wise, BLM is way less violent.

[Nelson]

"There was vastly more violence at the average BLM protest than there was at J6"

See above for a back-of-the-napkon estimate. With everything maximally factored in the Jan. 6th riot's favor, Jan. 6th was 8x more criminal than BLM. And virtually all of those people were connected to the Jan. 6th protests, unlike many of those arrested for looting at the BLM protests.

You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Not because it has any basis in fact.

[Tom for equal rights]

Can you link to a video where the police are actually fighting for their lives.

I have seen numerous videos of J6, none of which could be characterized as fighting for their lives - not withstanding a serious distortion of the meaning of the phrase.

[Sarcastr0]

I also wouldn't call them consistent anything.

[bernard11]

The smartest thing ever said about the Palestinians, attributed to Abba Eban, is that,

"They never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

[Reallynotbob]

Will you accept videos with police officers being severely beaten, hurt, nearly trampled (in a door)...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXS-DvhQSog

[NOVA Lawyer]

And, of course, Tom will run away now because that video unequivocally and graphically shows exactly what he asked for.

[TwelveInchPianist]

AA is about increasing diversity, remember?

[NOVA Lawyer]

David,

First, it's actually impossible to consider all information. At least, for the vast majority of people. All information should be available, though, I presume you really mean that. And that's a fair point.

It doesn't change the fact that culling all of that video to find peaceful moments doesn't change the fact of violence. The episodes of violence and mayhem are the most relevant events from J6 given the stated goal of the crowd ("Stop the Steal") and the fact that they chose the Capitol precisely because that is where electoral votes were being counted.

Consider war. You could find plenty of footage of WWI soldiers standing around doing nothing. And you could, if there were cameras, find footage of soldiers in opposing armies trading cigarettes or playing (international) football and the like in WWI and WWII. And, yet, even though the peaceful footage would constitute the majority of the footage (because most combat soldiers were not getting shot at and shooting most of the time), the most relevant footage is what was happening while they were fighting. Hence, the old saying:

"war is long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror'"

Showing lots of video of the periods of boredom doesn't really tell you more about Hitler's (or General Lee's or Putin's) aims or the wrongness of his both his goals and his means of achieving them. Such video, like Putin's visits to unbombed peacefully occupied neighborhoods in a captured Ukrainian city, were propaganda, not truth.

Should it all be available? Sure. But nothing being touted as "newly released" footage now changes what was attempted and what happened J6.

[Nige]

Was, you mean, white people got rid of it because it increased diversity.

[Nelson]

"AA is about increasing diversity, remember?"

No, it wasn't. Affirmative action was created under LBJ to counter the deliberate and intentional lack of opportunity that minorities (specifically blacks) had been subjected to in the 100 years since the end of the Civil War. Oversimplifying it to make your ideological square peg fit reality's round hole isn't an honest presentation.

Part of the reason that people like me, who accept that we are still a country that struggles with racism, see the removal of affirmative action as a good thing is that there have been three generations who were provided with that help.

It was designed to level the playing field regarding the generational disadvantage that blacks suffered from due to being denied college admission, promotions, and educational/financial opportunities due to their race.

But that field, while still not leveled on an individual level (because there will always be racists), has largely been leveled at the organizational level, particularly in education. To me, that means it largely did what it was designed to do and therefore should end.

And before Nige jumps in with some college-lefty criticism, it hasn't eliminated racism. Not only was it not designed to do that, it wouldn't be an achievable goal. People like to have reasons to diminish and disparage others. The laziest, often in personal success as well as intellect, choose to do so based on race. There isn't a program that you could create that can change human nature.

[VinniUSMC]

TP: AA is about increasing diversity, remember?
Nelson: No, it wasn’t.

Past vs present. It wasn't about increasing diversity. It is now about increasing diversity.

Setting that aside, I mostly agree with the rest of your post, Nelson. Pretty sensible.

[VinniUSMC]

What the fuck are you talking about QA?

I clearly responded to a specific interaction.

[Bwaaah]

Still trying to teach me what my father was doing? Or just trying to make the idiocy sound sensible?

LAUGH. (if you can)

[Brett Bellmore]

The thing that amazes me, after several years of this idiocy, is that this literally started as a 4-Chan prank, people KNOW it's a 4-Chan prank, and you still insist that it's real.

Just because some real neo-Nazis thought it was funny and trolled you with it!

[SRG2]

Fingers up, OK. Fingers down, white power. How hard is that to understand?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There is absolutely a taste difference between pasture raised, organic…and regular eggs.

I don't know that I'd characterize it so much as a taste difference as a difference in richness, if that makes any sense. (Of course that depends on exactly how one defines "taste".) I'd say the same of the difference between chicken and duck eggs, due to the latter's lower water and higher fat content. And of course, when it comes to free-ranged hens it also depends a great deal on their foraging diet, which itself tends to vary a lot depending on the time of year.

[Absaroka]

I think it's harder than you think. For example, wikipedia disagrees with you. They have the fingers pointing up for the 4chan/white power version, so the fingers form the W, of course.

Perhaps you are thinking of the 'circle game' version.

In any event, the article lists enough variant meanings that saying that it means anything, sans context, seems unwise.

(from the article, 4chan dubbed their "let's prank everyone by saying the OK sign is racist campaign "Operation O-KKK" ...nice!)

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Color of eggs is a function of the breed, not whether they are free-range. You can buy free-range eggs of both colors.

And you can get them in a wide array of different colors from a backyard flock. My favorite hen is an old "Easter Egger" (generally an Ameraucana x who-knows-what cross) who is just now past her laying years, but used to produce the coolest blueish-green pastel eggs. She also has a lot of character for a chicken, which is what caused me to form an emotional attachment to her. She's getting on in years now and it's going to break my heart when she finally goes.

[Nameless But Highly Opinionated]

Where in the 14th amendment does it explicitly say the 14th amendment is anti-democratic?

For that matter, where in the entire constitution does it explicitly say the constitution is anti-democratic?

[Sarcastr0]

By it's nature, it constrains the democratic process of the states. Equal Protection, Due Process, etc. All anti-democratic.

Similarly, constraining who people can vote for is anti-democratic, but also well within the expected structure of our republic.

[Defenderz]

Your numbers are complete bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ironically, all views that were disproven by skeptics. (Though for a long while the flat earth theory has just been a long running joke, not a serious position.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You probably shouldn't be the person trying to bring up what constitutes 'idiocy.'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/co-opt

[Nige]

4 chan, famously free of white nationalsts and Nazis, who gave us pizzagate, which turned into a real thing about a thing that wasn't real. Neo-Nazis using it somehow is not proof that neo-Nazis use it.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's not wrong about the origin of this.

But the thing with shibboleths, is if a group decides to adopt something as a shibboleth, even as a joke, it is now a shibboleth.

But I stay away from the whole thing for the most part these days; white supremacists are emboldened enough they don't really hide much these days.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

KInda dumb to bifurcate Trump from all those issues you name, as if it is black vs white. Do you ever read a newspaper ???

[Sarcastr0]

Blind skeptics are all noble and we should listen to them is a really simplistic take.

[Absaroka]

"if a group decides to adopt something as a shibboleth, even as a joke, it is now a shibboleth."

Oddly enough, my local group of puppy haters recently adopted the rainbow as emblematic of our hate for puppies. Henceforth, anyone displaying rainbow flags/shirts/bumper stickers is clearly a puppy hater and should be shunned.

My apologies to the gay community - I support gay rights and thought the rainbow was a pretty clever symbol, but a minuscule minority has decided to co-opt your widely understood symbol, so you're SOL and need to immediately switch to some new symbol.

And having switched, if someone decides to co-opt your new symbol in a couple of months, well, time to change again!

'Anyone can completely change commonly understood meanings on a whim and everyone must now comply' seems like a great way to run society.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair point, I did not go into the other bit of a shibboleth - that to work as a symbol of group solidarity, you need to use it in a way that will stand out.
Which is why you had that era where a bunch of white manchildren would be at a table all flashing the OK sign. Or rando white guy with a gun and the OK sign.

That does mean you got some witch hunt silliness, as intended by the trolls. (See also 1488).
But no need to pretend it wasn't a thing. Just don't go Internet sleuth with it. Or anything really.

[Tom for equal rights]

powerline had a good comment on Clintons deal with arafat

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 20, 2023 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN HAMAS, ISRAEL
WHY THERE CAN NEVER BE A TWO-STATE SOLUTION
One of the surprises in the weeks since October 7 is that two of the clearest voices on the matter are Bill and Hillary Clinton. To be sure, there is a personal reason behind this: Bill Clinton in particular resents Yasser Arafat for refusing to take the highly generous two-state deal Clinton helped broker at great length back in 1999 and 2000. Clinton managed to get Israel to agree to massive concessions, which Clinton describes in the short clip below (where it sounds like he is standing up to a pro-Hamas heckler): “I had a deal they turned down that would have given them all of Gaza… between 96 and 97% of the West Bank, compensating land in Israel, you name it.”

It has long been rumored that Clinton curses Arafat for costing him (Clinton) a certain Nobel Peace Prize and a more substantial presidential lagacy if the deal had gone through. Instead Arafat launched the second Intifada. I suspect Israel may have offered such sweeping concessions to call Arafat’s bluff.

For all of his political skill, Clinton didn’t understand why Arafat couldn’t take this deal—or any deal with Israel—quite aside from pure Jew-hatred: If Arafat had made a deal with Israel, he would have been assassinated, just as Anwar Sadat was killed for making peace with Israel. This is why there can never be a two-state solution. The most radical Islamists don’t want it. We ought to take them seriously when they say “From the river to the sea.” There is never going to be a two-state solution, but not because Israel won’t agree to it.

[Brett Bellmore]

And maybe they could do all the stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner, instead of just the first.

I've always wanted to see that happen; Some celebrity is brought in to sing the song, belts out the first stanza. The band starts to put their instruments down. He or she starts into the second, the band hastily resumes playing. Finally the whole thing is heard on national TV for the first time in decades.

[Nelson]

Really? Then tell me, what are the "real" numbers? You'll want to find figures for the George Floyd protests, the Trump rally on the National Mall, and the J6 arrests.

[Nelson]

Still looking? I'm waiting for your "real" numbers so we can do some math.