Thursday Open Thread, on Wednesday This Week

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Randal]

Thanksgiving is an imperialist institution. By honoring it, the Open Thread has betrayed humanity.

Time to cancel the Open Thread.

[Bored Lawyer]

Who is forcing you to stay? The exit door is always open.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure it's sarcasm BL.

[Mr. Bumble]

With Randal it's hard to tell.

[Sarcastr0]

'The Open Thread has betrayed humanity'

[Bwaaah]

Repeating what Randal said doesn't clarify the point. I note that you didn't try to use "Thanksgiving is an imperialist institution" as an example of sarcasm. (That would be a little too subtle for "right wing conspirators" to get the joke, eh?)

If that is indeed Randal being sarcastic, it's still hard to distinguish his sarcasm from his sincere positions. (Like Thanksgiving is one of White America's founding myths, no?)

[loki13]

Any bit of comedy that employs satire, irony, or sarcasm in a proper and correct fashion requires that some portion of the audience be confused (or even hurt) by the comedy.

Ambiguity is not a bug, but the central feature of any type comedy that plays with or invokes satire and irony. Simply put, the possibility that a reader can misunderstand the message is necessary to the proper conveyance of the message.

This ambiguity is not a bug - it is the distinguishing feature.

Congratulations- you pwned yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

'It says a lot about Randal that I can't tell it's sarcasm' is a really weak cover.

Thanksgiving is an imperialist institution is ridiculous, but less so than the over the top 'the Open Thread has betrayed humanity.'

That's why I picked it - the melodramatic upscaling of the import of an Internet comments thread.

[Krayt]

We need more imperialism, of freedom.

We should have a standing offer to take on small countries as new states if they want.

I don't think we'll get too many bites though, due to the Fundamental Theorem of Government.

Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day 1. You go ino government to get in the way, to get paid to get back out of the way

[Sarcastr0]

Tiresome.

[Don Nico]

Does that mean that you think it is a bug and not a feature.
Historically, I think it would be hard to make that case convincingly.

[Sarcastr0]

His 'Fundamental Theorem of Government' pretends policymaking is done by villains not people.
It's terminal sophomore libertarian brain nonsense.

You want to talk about the reasons for corruption, you don't start there if you want to do anything other than burnish your own self regard.

[Don Nico]

I don't think that villainy is is needed, only routine moral weakness and a representation in the population of persons with a desire for power. All of these are perfectly normal and have nothing to do with
"sophomore libertarian brain nonsense."
If fact the very structure of the Roman Republic was established to avoid the consequent perils. Yet even there it failed.

[Sarcastr0]

Read it again:

“Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day 1. You go ino government to get in the way, to get paid to get back out of the way.”

That is not humans with standard moral weaknesses, that is comic book villainy.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"That would be a little too subtle for “right wing conspirators” to get the joke, eh?"

Yes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pretty sure it’s sarcasm"

Google "Truthsgiving" or "Truthgiving".

People do want to "decolonize Thanksgiving".

[Sarcastr0]

Performatively not getting jokes so you can nutpick. Good times.

[Bob from Ohio]

We were treated to his view of Jewish "settler colonists", lots of folks like that think USA is an illegitimate "settler colonist: regime too.

[darkknight9]

I'm tired of having chicken on turkey day.

Don't they sell birds less than 12 lbs?

12 is too much for just me on Thursday.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sorry to hear that you spend Thanksgiving alone.

[darkknight9]

Its been so many years now, it would almost feel weird. Now, in Wisconsin, it falls during deer firearms season. And if I could find some folks to go hunting with that would be a-ok in my book. 🙂

[darkknight9]

(and thank you!) 🙂

[SimonP]

A four-day weekend is too valuable to waste it on stressful holiday travel, preparing a truckload of food that is itself a monstrous pain in the ass to prepare (and not that good in the first place), maintaining neutral-to-friendly conversations with less-familiar family members out of a sense of obligation, and on and on.

Thanksgiving, like Christmas, is a children's holiday. Make some pies for your live-in brats, maybe. But for grown adults it's just a two-day minimum chore we delude ourselves into thinking we look forward to. Personally, I will be spending the day riding my bike and reading in peace.

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite the outlook on life you have there. Sorry your life is so empty and no one in your family can cook.

[Estragon]

“your life is so empty”

Chronic content-free shitposter drags others for leading an “empty” life. Irony and self awareness are dead and could not be reached for comment.

[SimonP]

Imagine being the sort of person who brags over simply observing Thanksgiving.

[Mr. Bumble]

The misanthropes have spoken.

[Sarcastr0]

This is you: "Quite the outlook on life you have there. Sorry your life is so empty and no one in your family can cook."

And you accuse everyone calling you out on this petty and mean comment of being misanthropes.

Look at yourself, man.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing "petty and mean" in that comment.

SimonP 4 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User

Imagine being the sort of person who brags over simply observing Thanksgiving.
Not something I did.

“your life is so empty”

The comment was "SORRY your life is so empty."

Have a nice Thanksgiving, or not and please re-consider muting me again.

[Estragon]

“SORRY”

Oh please— no you’re not.

You were being a dick, just own it. This is pathetic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Projection is strong in you. Own it.

[Estragon]

Bless your heart

[SimonP]

I mean, I don't actually give a shit what you have to say about anything, ever; if you want to assert that I'm a misanthrope and my life is empty, go ahead. I certainly don't expect any better of you.

But you were trying to humblebrag, or something, about the wonderful tryptophan holiday you had in store for yourself. You can have your cliches and excess calories and screaming children and uncomfortable moments with your "woke" cousins, and so on. I just question whether going through those motions is any less "empty" than the life I choose for myself.

[Mr. Bumble]

darkknight9 14 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User

I’m tired of having chicken on turkey day.

Don’t they sell birds less than 12 lbs

12 is too much for just me on Thursday.

Mr. Bumble 14 hours ago

Sorry to hear that you spend Thanksgiving alone.

You certainly read an awful lot into my response to darknight9’s comment.

[David Nieporent]

.

I just question whether going through those motions is any less “empty” than the life I choose for myself.

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

[Estragon]

Bumble:

Challenge— post less than 10 times on thanksgiving. Surely you’re busy surrounded and by family and friends, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

You lose.
Happy Thanksgiving.

[darkknight9]

I appreciated the comment for what its worth. 🙂

[Kenneth Almquist]

Turkeys breeders have been breeding turkeys with more meat on them over the past hundred years or so. I thought about buying a turkey today when I saw some for$0.99/lb., but they were just too big.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hard for me to relate to this, as my problem was always finding the biggest bird possible. Back when my parents and in-laws were alive I would often make two turkeys so that there would be leftovers for sandwiches and another meal.
Don't either of you have a freezer, or how about buying just a breast (don't know if drumsticks are sold separately)?

[darkknight9]

I've got a freezer/fridge but I am currently at no room in the ice box after buying stuff over the past 6 months when its on sale and saving it for when needed. I've thought about going the chest freezer route again (had one when married) but I'm just too nervous with the power outages here in the summer that I'd almost want a small generator before committing to filling a space that big with vittles.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just don't open it -- between the insulation and the mass, you'd be surprised at how long a full chest freezer stays frozen.

[darkknight9]

The longest its had to go was shy of 13 hours... there was another time that was longer but I didn't really have squat in the freezer. In fact I dined on sugar free popcicles that night. 🙂

With it packed together and surrounded by packed country style ribs (only leaving enough for the cold air vents to be unblocked for normal operations) those puppies *all* stayed frozen. Including the last 2 popcicles.

What scares me is the last small chest freezer I had was no where near as good as the ol fridge was at keepin stuff cold... That was 20 years ago now that I think about it... perhaps they are even better now?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If I routinely had summer power failures and a few pennies, I'd buy a portable generator to run the AC. You *don't* have to wire it into your house, buy an extension cord with 12 gauge wire (smaller number is bigger wire), unplug the AC (or freezer) from the wall and into the cord which you then run OUTDOORS to the generator.

Even though there are at least three warnings, one of which you must physically destroy to put fuel into it, people STILL run these indoors and then die of CO poisoning....

[Dr. Ed 2]

CAVEAT: Get a generator with a rated capacity well above what your freezer takes -- three reasons.

First, the compressor in your freezer, like most motors, take a LOT more electricity to start than to run. While most generators list two figures (a surge and a supply) you don't want to get too close to this because voltage drops as you approach maximum available amps, ("brownout") and this can burn out your freezer.

Second, while a 12 gauge wire is rated for 20 amps, at 100 feet your are going to have some loss and that's going to be coming from the total produced by your generator. My basic rule of thumb for all things electrical is to consider an amp to be 100 watts and not the 118 watts it actually is (also makes the math simpler) and then try to downgrade a couple of amps from there.

Third, overload a generator and it will stall -- and unless you are there to restart it....

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Reddy Kilowatt.

[John F. Carr]

How long an outage? You could put bags of ice in. "Ice box" used to mean literally a box with ice. Companies would harvest ice in the winter and sell it for refrigeration.

[Stephen Lathrop]

During the 19th century companies in New England would cut ice out of ponds, pack it in sawdust in the holds of sailing ships, sail half-way around the world, crossing the equator twice, and sell it to the British in India to put in their drinks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course all of this was before global warming when lakes would freeze during the winter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You raise an interesting point -- the Penobscot River where a lot of the ice was cut is actually tidal -- even though the ocean is something like 40 miles away, the salt water pushes itself that far upriver at (actually several hours after) high tide.

Salt water freezes at 28 degrees, not 32...

[Martinned]

Water freezes at zero degrees. That's the whole point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

DISTILLED water freezes at 32 degrees, or 0 degrees Communist.

Mixtures of water and other things freeze at lower temperatures. For example, a 50/50 mixture of ethylene glycol and water will freeze at nearly -40 on either scale.

Salt melts ice by lowering the freezing temperature of water, that's why we use it on roads. Salt in the concentration found in the ocean lowers the freezing temperature to about 28 degrees.

[Mr. Bumble]

“Water freezes at zero degrees. That’s the whole point.” Not always, Mr Know-it-All and currently about 16 different types of ice are know.

[Martinned]

currently about 16 different types of ice are know.

And none of them involve a phase shift at 32 degrees, which is a wonderfully balmy temperature for swimming in the sea or the swimming pool.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, ice was cut and sold well into the 20th Century -- it was widely used from the Civil War (when the US Army created the demand for hospital use) to after WWII when refrigerators became affordable to the general public. Also a lot more efficient and much safer as the earlier refrigerants were both lethal and in some cases also quite flammable. (Methyl chloride, leaking from the AC system, is now believed to have been the cause of the 1942 Coconut Grove fire.)

For pictures, see: https://darik.news/maine/a-century-ago-brewer-was-the-center-of-maines-blue-ice-industry/472912.html

[SRG2]

FYI Einstein and Leo Szilard jointly patented a fridge with no moving parts

In 1926, the pair started working together on a solution to the widespread problem of killer refrigerators. As in-home refrigerators replaced iceboxes, lurid stories proliferated in the press of methyl chloride, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia leaking into people’s homes. The culprit was usually the pump valves.

Einstein and Szilard eliminated the risk of leakage by jettisoning the mechanical pump. Working under the auspices of various German engineering firms, they created a device with no moving parts

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, Servell refrigerators had no moving parts, they used a propane fire to heat an ammonia/water mixture that then evaporated to cool the inside and dumped that heat on the outside. I don't quite know how they work but they do and are popular today in places without electricity. It does take a long time for them to cool things, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

As a kid I can remember the message "Gas cools too" painted on storage tanks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Believe it or not, large institutional air conditioning systems use steam. I still don't understand how, but they do.

[David Nieporent]

Those guys sound pretty smart.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But it was a commercial non-starter. Despite no moving parts, it made too much noise.

[Kazinski]

I have a propane refrigerator at my cabin with no moving parts. It works by evaporating ammonia and water which then separates and the ammonia reacts with hydrogen and expands absorbing all the heat from the interior of the refrigerator then condenses and gravity feeds down and remixes with the water.

It’s based on a reaction that Michael Faraday discovered in 1820.

http://www.warehouseappliance.com/blog/functions-of-a-propane-refrigerator/

It's very quiet, and a 5 gallon tank of propane lasts about 2 weeks.

[Estragon]

To add absolutely nothing to this conversation, in my area ice was actually harvested from caves that stay cold year-round

[Mr. Bumble]

Including the one you lived in?

[Estragon]

Painfully lame. 30+ comments and counting on this open thread…. But it’s others who have an “empty” life, right?

[SRG2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_house_(building)

[Brett Bellmore]

I know people were still using them when I was a child in the 60's. We had a lake cottage in Canada we shared with my aunts and uncles, (Granddad had gotten it during the Great Depression.) and it had one.

Actually made sense to, since it was dirt cheap, and only used a small part of the year.

[Krayt]

22-23 lbs. seems to be close to max in supermarkets. 25 lbs. and you're pushing getting the standard turkey cooker pan closed.

[BrotherMovesOn]

See Bumble, this is why people consider you a chronic, content free shit-poster.
You reply to an innocuous post about old time ice harvesting with a effeminate insult.
You are an idiot. Everyone is dumber for having read your inane 'posts' for the last 18 or so months.
You are not an attorney. You're not even Dr. Ed.
Please find another simpleton Facebook group or somewhere to haunt.
IOW GTFOOH
Happy Thanksgiving!

[Mr. Bumble]

Congratulations on your promotion to Person Who Speaks for Everyone.
Happy Thanksgiving.

[Commenter_XY]

Mine is $10/lb....then again, mine is pasture raised, organic with no soy or corn feed, no GMO in feed. Two turkeys set me back roughly 400 bucks. Have never done that before, usually get Empire (kosher) or Wegmans organic.

I am very curious to see if there is a taste difference.

[defaultdotxbe]

I've never been able to justify the price of organic stuff, we get our birds from whatever is on the best sale (59 cents/lb this year, we got 2)
We made one over the weekend and will probably do the other this coming weekend (we are doing the holiday itself at my sister's house) we make stock out of the bones and then soup with that and the meat which we freeze, so leftovers aren't an issue.

[Commenter_XY]

Making bone broth afterward was a primary consideration behind paying the price we did.

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious. Just what does "organic" mean to you? There are no uniform standards for classifying food as organic and multiple studies have shown no difference in nutritional value .

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, you are right to a great degree. There is always USDA organic, but even then...what is the point of buying USDA organic chicken or eggs if the chickens are fed corn all their lives and antibiotics+ hormones and live a stressful life? So you have to be choosy. And make compromises that you understand.

Beef: Pasture raised (no pesticides), grass fed, grass finishes; no hormones, no antibiotics, no corn feed. I have found a supplier from TN. The hook: you need to buy 1/2 cow (or more) in one shot. Wegmans and Whole Foods in a pinch. I rarely order steak outside the home.

Chicken: pasture raised, organic works (Wegmans is Ok). Free range is best....No antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, animal protein feed, or corn feed.

Eggs: Pasture raised, organic. Wegmans or Whole foods can work as a compromise.

Pork: Bacon is organic. Any pork is organic. It is rare for me.

Seafood: wild caught. I will not touch farm raised anything.

I am very choosy about spices and water for cooking. Spices are forms of medicine. The spices you use in everyday cooking matters. Water is crucial; the body is mostly H2O, right?

I willingly spend a little money on the food I eat, and do what I can to eat 'clean'. Red wine is my weakness...LOL. Drives my friends nuts when I will have red table wine (I have a very unsophisticated palate).

Hope you have a great Thanksgiving holiday.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the same to you!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know how you raise chickens without corn feed.

People I know who have their own have to buy bags of feed -- even letting them pick through the lobster shells (which makes orange/red egg yokes) isn't enough. If you confine them to small enough of an area to protect them from predators, there aren't enough bugs for them to eat.

[SRG2]

if the chickens are fed corn all their lives

So-called "free-range": but "bug-free". I want chickens that eat bugs as part of their diet - and their eggs.

[Commenter_XY]

Me too! = I want chickens that eat bugs as part of their diet – and their eggs.

[hobie]

What's wrong with corn as feed? It is natural, nutritious food and animals love it

[Don Nico]

Yikes, that is very expensive. I'd never pay that much for turkey.
Do let us know if you could taste a difference

[Mr. Bumble]

I spent $400.00 on groceries over a month and got the turkey for free.

[Commenter_XY]

Don Nico, as a man of science, you know that sacrifices must sometimes be made (in this case, my wallet). 🙂 This is a self-funded science experiment. LOL.

I'll report back. I have two turkeys, so will be trying two recipes. Of course, I will be brining a southwest funky bird at least once.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

no GMO in feed

Because...?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Kosher" turkeys?!?

These are animals so stupid that they have to be raised on chicken wire lest they eat their own feces, and have to be raised under cover lest they drown in the rain. (They look upward at the rain with their mouths open, and somehow manage to drown...)

Wild turkeys are a different story, they're quite bright (and more than a little bit aggressive) but domestic turkeys are STUPID...

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

These are animals so stupid that they have to be raised on chicken wire lest they eat their own feces, and have to be raised under cover lest they drown in the rain. (They look upward at the rain with their mouths open, and somehow manage to drown…)

Neither of those old myths are true...which is why they're referred to as "myths".

[bernard11]

The animal's intelligence has nothing to do with whether it's kosher or not.

Many kinds of fish are kosher, for example.

[Kazinski]

My brother lives in a semi-rural area in N. California that's infested with wild turkeys.

That's what I would like to try.

Shooting one is probably out of the question, but I'm sure a wrist rocket would do nicely. They come around daily to raid his garden, so it's not like we'd have to stalk them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just don't miss, especially if it's a Tom with hens. You'd be surprised how fast and how aggressive they can be.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They can actually fly -- if they want to. Up to 5 stories I am told.
They are also known for landing on the hoods of moving vehicles....

[darkknight9]

Cockiest animals I've ever seen. The day before turkey hunting season began in SoCal I'm visiting my friends in San Diego and I went with them to an idpa shoot. 1/2 way through the shoot they had to pause for 10-15 minutes because 4 wild turkeys were walking, stopping, walking again on the berm behind the targets.

Brazen Butterballs 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

They had turkey-sized brass balls. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

What they have are raptor like talons.

[darkknight9]

LOL

[Brett Bellmore]

I like to buy them on sale, break them up into parts, and repackage them in meal sizes. Legs/drumsticks for turkey confit or soup, breast for marinating and grilling, or ground for my wife's lumpia, wings for roasting, (My favorite part of a roast turkey!) the carcass for making soup stock. Having a FoodSaver helps with this, of course.

It's really hard to beat sale turkey for price.

I do get concerned at times about how much meat we have in the freezer. I wonder if there are any good canning recipes for turkey?

[defaultdotxbe]

Butterball sells a "Lil Butterball" which is 5-9lbs.

[darkknight9]

Unfortunately they don't sell any of the Lil ones within 50 miles of home. Thank you for the suggestion though!

[Krayt]

Butterballs + lawyers = “Does not actually contain butter.”

I wonder if any study has been done that their turkeys are slightly less dry than other brands au natural.

[SRG2]

Butterballs + lawyers = “Does not actually contain butter.”

likewise butterface, I assume

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Butterballs + lawyers = “Does not actually contain butter.”

Imagine if you washed that down with a glass of almond "milk".

[Kenneth Almquist]

The basic recipe for brining a turkey is to create salt water (3/8 cup salt per gallon of water), add flavorings as desired, chill the water, and totally submerge the turkey in the water for about 12 hours. One of the things that happens during brining is that the turkey absorbs some of the water, so the turkey is slightly less dry. My understanding is that brining is a procedure that is pretty tolerant of minor deviations, so probably if you did a side by side taste test of a turkey brined by Butterball and a turkey brined by someone else, the only difference you would notice would be the choice of flavorings.

I have no idea what flavorings Butterball uses, but since the flavorings have to be water soluble, it's safe to say that they don't use butter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Some stores sell half turkeys -- they cut it in half, while still frozen, with the band saw. Or if it will fit in your freezer, have them cut a whole one in half for you and wrap up & keep half for later.

Or you can buy just the turkey breast although those often cost more.

[darkknight9]

Have them cut it in half... Damn I am so trying that next year if I can fit it. Thank you!

[Commenter_XY]

d9...If you can live with turkey breast alone, there are a lot of possibilities. It is tough to pick up just one turkey leg at the grocery store. And I like both: light, dark meat of turkey.

If you want to just do a breast, I posted a brine recipe last week (Emeril Lagasse southwest funky bird brine). It was originally made for brining just turkey breast.

Happy Thanksgiving, and good luck.

[darkknight9]

I like both also. About 25 miles from home is a meat market that sells just legs, and getting a breast with gravy packet is available at about ~ $4 a pound.

I will def check out the brine but a quick question on that... is there something wrong with the text on my laptop or is there actually such a thing as jalapeÒos?

[Commenter_XY]

It is jalapeno.

[darkknight9]

I had a recipe that I cooked with my ex that had green apples, walnuts, and I can't remember what else but it turned out divine. 🙂

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!

[Don Nico]

It is definitely easier to brine a breast alone ad the breast is what gains most from brining. If you are going to do that be sure not to buy a pre-injected breast which provides you with water at the price of meat.

[darkknight9]

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!

[John F. Carr]

Song lyric from 40 years ago about a woman spending Christmas alone: "A&P has provided me with the world's smallest turkey."

[BrotherMovesOn]

Luckily for her he forgot cranberries too.

[Sarcastr0]

Welp now I'm listening to that as I pack.

[Don Nico]

1) You could go to a local hotel for turkey dinner.
2) You could buy and roast a turkey breast (6 pounds) or turkey drumsticks (if that is you meat preference)

[Commenter_XY]

Happy Thanksgiving Don Nico. Enjoy yourself! 🙂

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Freeze what you don't eat tomorrow.

[ducksalad]

Next year buy a turkey chick from the local farm/ranch supply in the last week of September. Ought to be about chicken size by Thanksgiving, but of course it’ll be a turkey. Think of it as turkey veal.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Buy a pound of lunch meat! Boar's Head Honey Roasted Turkey is delicious!

[Kazinski]

I'm having leg of lamb, and I'm very thankful I don't have to eat turkey.

The only thing I'll miss is my post thanksgiving dark meat turkey hash.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Early on in our marriage my wife and I spent a couple of years living far away from any extended family, and so our first couple of Thanksgivings were just the two of us (and in the second year, our newborn daughter). So rather than cook a turkey for the first one we opted to treat ourselves to a couple of whole Maine lobsters instead.
It wasn't until years later that we learned that was likely more authentic "First Thanksgiving" fare than the bird would have been.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One once could pick lobsters out of tidepools...

[Mr. Bumble]

Hard to believe it's sixty years ago that "Camelot" (it never really was) died in Dallas.

[Frank Drackman]

Still hard to believe it was just a "coincidence" that tricky Richard Milhouse was in Dallas that morning.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 1960, there were 679,684 people living in Dallas, along with a whole lot more who "just happened to be there" for whatever reason.

In fact, a whole bunch of them lined up to see the Presidential motorcade go by, at least one actually taking a movie of it.

Now if we were talking about a remote town of 60 or even 600, then it would be significant if someone just happened to be there that day. But a city not only of 600K but a thriving commercial hub of everything from oil to the space race?

[Frank Drackman]

In November 1963 Tricky Milhouse was living in NYC.
It was only 3 years since an erection many Repubiclowns said was "Rigged" (actually they said it was stolen) when the "late" (literally) vote in Illinois went for JFK.
It's like if Parkinsonian Joe was assassinated today in some Amurican big city and "45" just happened to be there a few hours before.
The really weird thing is Joan Crawford was there to, staying at the same hotel as Milhouse.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't forget why Kennedy went to Dallas -- he was not popular in his own party, Dallas Dems were calling him a Communist and worse.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I highly recommend Howie Carr's Kennedy Babylon I & II.

The whole Kennedy Administration was coming off the rails at the time, they reportedly were "running a 'Murder, Incorporated' in the Caribbean" and lots of people were pissed about the Bay of Pigs.

I don't think the CIA actually dd it as much as it was one of their (several) hare-brained schemes to kill Castro and this one somehow went tragically very wrong. Or it was a pissing contest between them and the FBI -- *how* could someone like Oswald not have been on their radar?

LBJ as much as openly stated that he wanted a coverup so as to avoid a nuculear war which is where he feared things would have gone had the public believed that either Cuba or Russia was involved. It's a tough call, but not necessarily the wrong one.

[Martinned]

And 60-odd years before that McKinley. (62 years actually, but that ruins the symmetry.)

[Kazinski]

I was 8 years old in 3rd grade when I heard two teachers talking about Kennedy being shot. I was In the cafeteria eating lunch and my ears pricked up when they mentioned the possibility of the students being sent home early (I was that shallow in 1963 too).

[defaultdotxbe]

The Federation, of Star Trek, is often cited as an example of socialist utopia, but I think it is more like an ultimate expression of capitalism.
Their moneyless society did not come about as a result of collective ownership of the means of production, state redistribution of resources, or central planning of the economy. It is the result of production costs falling so low as to make the market price of goods essentially zero, due to the dual technologies of antimatter reactors (producing effectively unlimited energy) and replicators (converting that energy into equally unlimited tangible goods)

[darkknight9]

They were an all electronic monetary system federation. You still bought things, it just came off of your account.

In 2267, Uhura offered to purchase a tribble for ten credits.
In 2364, Beverly Crusher bought a roll of cloth and had her account on the USS Enterprise-D billed.
Quark accepted credits in his bar when doing business with Federation citizens.

No papers or coins, but still currency.

[defaultdotxbe]

The Federation probably maintains some system for trading outside of the Federation with governments that still use money (all of your examples are of this) but its been noted on several occasions that the Federation itself doesn't use money normally.

Star Trek IV
Kirk: "They're still using money. We've got to find some"

Gillian: "Don't' tell me they don't use money in the twenty-third century."
Kirk: "Well, they don't."

TNG
Some rich 20th century guy: "Then what will happen to us? There's no trace of my money. My office is gone. What will I do? How will I live?"

Noonien Soong: "What's so important about the past? People got sick, they needed money. Why tie yourself to that?"

First Contact
Picard: The economics of the future are somewhat different. ...You see, money doesn't exist in the twenty-fourth century."
Lily: "You mean you don't get paid?"

DS9
Nog: "It's my money, Jake. If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money."
Jake: "I'm human, I don't have any money."
Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement."

Voyager:
Paris: "Well, er, when the New World Economy took shape in the late twenty second century and money went the way of the dinosaur, Fort Knox was turned into a museum."

Some of these could be taken to apply only to physical currency, but others only make sense if the Federation has no internal monetary system whatsoever. The exchange between Jake and Nog is particularly interesting since Jake's excuse is that he's human (as opposed to not having a job) which would seem to indicate that the external "credits" system may only be for those serving in Starfleet, and not for Federation citizens generally, since as you note Quark has no problem accepting electronic credit transfers.

[Don Nico]

Just remember the first Ferengi Rule of Acquisition"
"Once you have their money, never give it back.!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like government.

[apedad]

Actually the govt has absolutely no problem giving money out.

[Sarcastr0]

The govt is more like root beer.

[Don Nico]

Good link!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The idea of Star Trek was born in 1964, at the height of the Cold War, and the United Federation of Planets is the United States of America.

However, how much cash is there aboard a submarine? Pay is dealt with back home, they aren't making port calls, and their meals and lodging are provided. Remember that, initially, it was a five year mission -- at which point the crew would actually get its pay.

Of course with all that faster-than-light travel, they'd come back to find their friends and family a whole lot older than they, but details...

[darkknight9]

"Of course with all that faster-than-light travel, they’d come back to find their friends and family a whole lot older than they, but details…"

I LOL'd 🙂 Good stuff right there.

[defaultdotxbe]

I was thinking we have little insight into the life of a Federation citizen outside of Starfleet, likely a narrative decision as I imagine a writer would be hard-pressed to explain how the "dirty jobs" get done outside of the sense of duty that would exist among Starfleet officers.
However as I noted above there are several examples indicating that the Federation has abandoned money entirely, not just within Starfleet.

[John F. Carr]

Science fiction series by Iain M. Banks ("Culture") and Neal Asher ("Polity") were based on the premise that the middle of a computerized utopia was too boring to write about, and the edges were where the interesting action was. I am not limiting the setting to those authors. They come to mind immediately.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Of course with all that faster-than-light travel, they’d come back to find their friends and family a whole lot older than they, but details…

In the Trek universe, warp "speed" is a misnomer as it does not involve actually moving at faster-than-light velocities, but rather warping space around the ship within a "subspace" (which is an imaginary attribute of spacetime) bubble, so there are no relativistic effects involved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have actually proven time slowing down -- the USAF took two atomic clocks, set to the same time, put one on the runway and flew the other around for a while, and when it came back, it was slightly slower than the one on the runway.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

We have actually proven time slowing down — the USAF took two atomic clocks, set to the same time, put one on the runway and flew the other around for a while, and when it came back, it was slightly slower than the one on the runway.

Yes, I’m well aware of that. It’s why GPS systems must incorporate the effect into their calculations, which is further proof of it. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what I said.

[Brett Bellmore]

"due to the dual technologies of antimatter reactors (producing effectively unlimited energy)"

Anti-matter is a way to store energy very compactly, but since you don't find much in nature, not a source of energy.

The original ST series got that right: In the episode Where No Man Has Gone Before, the Enterprise visits an anti-matter factory planet. This is an uninhabited planet with huge fusion reactors providing power to manufacture and accumulate anti-matter, an extremely hazardous activity.

In the Next Generation series they were manufacturing it on their ships as needed using an unexplainium reactor; They weren't nearly as concerned about making the tech plausible at that point.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Star Trek's utopia is from this brief era where folks thought technology would make us better people. See also Asimov. It's not realistic but it is a rare example of aspirational sci-fi. You don't see it very often these days, so I treasure it.

2. You can't have capitalism without scarcity. Maybe capitalism was the path, but that's not where Trek ended.

3. Except kinda it did - they ended up introducing currency and scarcity in DS9. Failure of imagination if you ask me. Voyager same. Discovery same.

4. The idea that you can have a post-capitalist society that retains the drive for innovation has me skeptical, but is fun to see.

Utopia is a nontrivial constraint to write to; Trek without that constraint can be phenomenal top shelf sci fi, but it's a bit less special than the weird 60s and kinda pompous 90s stuff I love.

[defaultdotxbe]

I fully agree on #4, but suspension of disbelief is necessary for fiction, sci-fi in particular.

[Sarcastr0]

No doubt.

On the hardness-softness scale I think Trek hits the sweet spot of not going too hard, allowing no shortage of fun and flavorful tecno-magic but lampshading it via technobabble rather than going full science fantasy.

YMMV on technobabble, but I like it.

[Bob from Ohio]

TNG was the only real "scarcity free" version.

TOS had farming colonies and mining colonies and traders. Not everything was produced by replicators, that was for star ships so re-supply would not limit their travel.

[OtisAH]

“MLK was really a conservative” comes early! A thanksgiving miracle!!

[Nige]

More accurately, a post-scarcity society; it could have transitioned from hyper-capitalism or socialism or a mixture of both, but the point is that both were effectively rendered obsolete by utopian tech breakthroughs.

[Krayt]

To paraphrase from Contact, why is it the egghead crowd always talks of post-capitalism, and gleefully, as if that wasn't what was generating your salaries. Do you think the need for invention has ended?

But that isn't the point. Will half the world live post‐dictatorship, or will the iron boot on their faces press down a little more forever-er?

[Sarcastr0]

Declaring Star Trek something for 'the egghead crowd' says a lot about you.

People are motivated by more than money even today. A passion for invention needn't be married to greed.

One of the conceits to Star Trek is that once you don't need to compete for resources, self-actualization is a sufficient engine for innovation.

You can write all the 'socialism is bad' Star Trek prequel fan fiction you want, though!

[Krayt]

I have no problem with technobabble. Or social-babble explanations. I just have a healty doubt about this self-actualization, or that greed in the sense of going after increased wealth is a bad thing.

When it's put to work in lands where corruption is kept down, it works wonders. When greed rules through corruption (which is the reason for corruption) progress suffers.

Still, it's fun to imagine a fantasy world where genies, sorry, replicators make all your stuff, and pee on the hard workers who invented it for you.

[Sarcastr0]

It's fiction.

I like capitalism in the current era as an engine for innovation. But who knows what the far future will bring.

Maybe your greed as only reliable motivator take on human nature is right, but don't insist everyone must agree with you or else they're shallow.
Just don't watch it.

Capitalist futures are really common - Trek's take is rare; correct or no that novelty is why I like it.

Fiction is not a weapon for your partisan bullshit.

[Nige]

'and pee on the hard workers who invented it for you.'

Or pee on the people who wanted things to be easier and better for future generations. Either way.

[Nige]

'as if that wasn’t what was generating your salaries'

'Thanks for paying us to make our economic system obsolete!'

'or will the iron boot on their faces'

What iron boot? In Star Trek?

[Krayt]

“Wheeeee!” say the Star Trek lovers! “Unburdened we are from labor! No capitalism!”

No incentives to work? Which includes scientific and technical progress? Everybody will work due to self-actualization. Which I assume is the latest on the euphemism treadmill of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Anyway, the iron boot comes in from the blinkered view ignoring the state of half of humanity.

[Sarcastr0]

Which I assume is the latest on the euphemism treadmill of from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

If you want to argue about Star Trek, maybe watch some Star Trek first.

[Nige]

'No incentives to work? Which includes scientific and technical progress?'

'Oh no, I can't imagine a world not run on fear!'

'Everybody will work due to self-actualization.'

That's what the robots are for, I thought.

'Anyway, the iron boot comes in from the blinkered view ignoring the state of half of humanity.'

In Star Trek?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, he knows it's post-scarcity but still hauls out 'from each according to his abilities.'

He's just wanking about.

[Nige]

I think he's objecting to the very concept of a society where people are free from the fear of being denied food and shelter if they don't perform labour.

[Sarcastr0]

It is a pretty bleak view of humanity where the only sustainable motive is avoiding starvation.

See also the Darwin-driven life.

I'm reading Going Infinite now and the bits about efficient altruists are so sad. Quantify life and lose the point of the thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think avoiding starvation is the only sustainable motive for getting people to work. But people have to get something in return for working, and it needs to be both visible and desirable. You could probably have a sustainable society where you were guaranteed survival level support, and nothing more, but if you were guaranteed a nice life?

Yeah, a large and growing fraction of the population would chose to be parasites. And in a democracy, they'd vote to keep the dole coming, too.

That may appear to you to be a bleak view of life, but that doesn't imply that it's wrong. We live in a world, a universe, which at the deepest level is defined by the laws of thermodynamics, where entropy can only be kept at bay by continual effort. This rules all things. ALL things.

Anything not actively sustained decays, without fail. You can complain about it, but that's not changing; A society built denying this will fail, and fail ugly.

[Nige]

'But people have to get something in return for working, and it needs to be both visible and desirable'

Personally I think those are the two things capitalism as it is currently developing seems utterly determined to drain out of all forms of work.

'Yeah, a large and growing fraction of the population would chose to be parasites.'

Dehumanising people who just want to enjoy a nice life is pathologising capitalism - if fear and suffering are withdrawn, and how do you get people to do your shit work for you? Therefore maximise the fear and suffering and hatred of anyone who want something different.

'That may appear to you to be a bleak view of life, but that doesn’t imply that it’s wrong.'

It's not that it's right or wrong based on some fundamental unversal principle, it's a choice you make about what sort of society you want to live in.

'A society built denying this will fail, and fail ugly.'

Well we're talking about magic tech that bypasses such concerns, but we're also talking about rejecting choices that mean succeeding generations have to endure less drudgery because it seems to me you can do a lot to get closer without needing magic tech.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's true that most people you see around you would continue to work even if free of want. Have you considered that this might just be because they grew up in a society where everyone around them was working, and they had to work to avoid being desperately poor, and are habituated to it?

This may just be one of the reasons that extreme poverty is self-perpetuating: People don't grow up expecting to work for a living if they don't see the people around them doing it.

The Federation, in the Next Generation series, was something of a left-wing utopia, and remember "utopia" means "no place". The original series had a much more realistic society.

[Nige]

Yes, work as it is currently construed is like a psychological dependency, one that can be exploited, like the idea that if you’re not paying for bad health insurance you’re not free. Part of that is blaming poverty on the poor. It’s certainly true that poverty is corrosive and self-perpetuating and in a system where everything seems so stacked against you it hardly seems worth trying, but if you grow up surrounded by poverty you grow up with people struggling and scraping and the daily grind taking its toll; the images of people not working that are most likely to make an impression are those of the super-rich beamed in through various media.

[JasonT20]

This may just be one of the reasons that extreme poverty is self-perpetuating: People don’t grow up expecting to work for a living if they don’t see the people around them doing it.

Or, they grow up expecting that work offers low rewards because they see the people around them that are working earning poverty wages.

*I am defining poverty wages as those where a 40-hr work week does not rise one above the poverty level. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 would be right around the national poverty level for a single individual supporting only themselves.

Yes, only ~2% of workers earn minimum wage (or less, since that figure counts workers not covered by minimum wage laws), but it provide a floor. Some liberal groups talk about "near minimum wage" employment and come up with estimates for that. An article from Pew Research Center in 2014 claimed around 30% of hourly wage earners fell between the federal minimum and $10.10 per hour that Democrats at the time were pushing the federal minimum to be raised to. Since a large chunk of those workers were in food service, some might actually earn more when tips are included (if they worked at restaurants rather than fast-food).

Finally, though, A single parent with two children would need to earn around $12/hr to be at the poverty level in a 40hr/week job. Only 19 states have a minimum wage that high. And most of those have higher than average costs of living.

[JasonT20]

It is the result of production costs falling so low as to make the market price of goods essentially zero, due to the dual technologies of antimatter reactors (producing effectively unlimited energy) and replicators (converting that energy into equally unlimited tangible goods)

I’d have to look up what the more obsessive Trek nerds than me say about this, but I always assumed that antimatter still had to be produced somehow. (Probably fusion) After all, one of the big mysteries we currently have in cosmology and physics is what happened to result in a matter universe where all the antimatter is gone. (There should have been equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the earliest stages after the Big Bang, which would have resulted in a universe of neither and only energy, I guess.)

Thus, antimatter is a fuel and general power source used in starships that would need to be replenished at starbases periodically, but planets would use something else.

But the larger point is correct. Basically, it is a post-scarcity economy. There essentially are no scarce resources necessary for basic technologies and daily life. However, there clearly are some things that are hard to find, as TOS episodes had multiple episodes involving the Enterprise being on missions to obtain something like dilithium crystals. It must just be that it is generally easy, perhaps even trivial at a large scale to find ways to encourage people to do the jobs to obtain those kinds of resources.

Most importantly, we aren’t really supposed to question how such a post-scarcity economy is supposed to actually work. We are just supposed to take it as a given that both technology and human society will eventually get there as a way to contrast that utopian future with our present reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

In TOS, they had dedicated planets running automated fusion powered antimatter factories. People would only visit at intervals to collect the fuel for starships, otherwise they were avoided as too dangerous to be around. This was perfectly realistic from a known physics standpoint, just required massive technology. In fact, TOS was fairly sparing with imaginary physics. FTL travel and communications were about it.

In TNG, they had bafflegarb reactors that converted matter directly into anti-matter via a process that violated everything we know about physics. But TNG was really heavy on imaginary physics and new age psychic crap.

[John F. Carr]

A mentally ill 19 year old has been charged with vandalism for drawing a swastika in the dirt of a softball field. A statement by the Hudson, Massachusetts police chief implies the charges are due to what was drawn and not the fact that somebody had to smooth out the dirt. The man was summonsed to court rather than arrested. Are police guilty of civil rights violations?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think that a lot of these small-town police departments need to get stomped on.

Have you been paying attention to what has been going on in Canton? Indicting a journalist was a new low.

[John F. Carr]

My local police force shouldn't exist. Most of the work isn't police business at all. A child was spotted not walking with an adult. An animal is in the road. Of the police work, most is serving papers and running speed traps as a show of force without ticketing any upper middle class white residents. The state police are not far away. We could abolish the police department and life would go on. Merge the dispatcher with some adjacent towns. You do need somebody to call when a construction worker's truck spills a box of screws in the road. I called that one in and it was cleaned up within 20 minutes.

[Magister]

Wow, two unexpected adherents of the "defund the police" movement.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Wow, two unexpected adherents of the “defund the police” movement.

Not even close.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When you were young, did you have a sense of humor?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I still do. I just don’t find stupidity as amusing as you do. I guess you're just more able to relate to it than I am.

[Sarcastr0]

Grumpus claims he laughs, but at a better set of jokes than you or I.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Alpheus' was good though.

[Sarcastr0]

One shot, one kill.

[apedad]

Hypothetical:

Suppose a foreign group that supported Nazism was identified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), by the US State Department.

https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

Could then US persons who took actions in support of this group - like drawing swastikas - be arrested for supporting a FTO?

Like the kid in Philly?

[apedad]

Teen Arrested in Federal Terrorism Probe to be Prosecuted by Philly DA

https://phillyda.org/news/teen-arrested-in-federal-terrorism-probe-to-be-prosecuted-by-philly-da/#:~:text=Teen%20Arrested%20in%20Federal%20Terrorism%20Probe%20to%20be%20Prosecuted%20by%20Philly%20DA,-August%2014%2C%202023&text=PHILADELPHIA%20(August%2014%2C%202023),of%20a%20federal%20terrorism%20investigation.

[John F. Carr]

"Material support" of a foreign terrorist organization is assistance to that organization in particular, and not merely sharing its mission or working independently to the same end. Calling for the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea is not material support for Hamas. Mediating the recently-announced cease fire agreement could be a crime if done by a U.S. citizen without government permission, because it involves helping Hamas.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Could then US persons who took actions in support of this group – like drawing swastikas – be arrested for supporting a FTO?

The problem here is your ignorance of what "support" means in this context. Hint: It doesn't include tracing shapes in a plot of dirt.

[Defenderz]

New York's ridiculous background check for ammo regime is causing gun shops to close, as the system has been buggy, unreliable and expensive.

Shame on SCOTUS for tolerating all of these new laws for more than a week. They should never have let anything "percolate." Every new law should have been met with an immediate injunction and summary judgment.

[Moderation4ever]

The recent conviction of the wife of a northwestern Iowa county supervisor who was running as a Republican for Congress in 2020 tells us two things. Republicans cheat and it is harder to cheat than many might think. Maybe this woman believed all the Trump hype about stealing and election and thought she could do so. She found out that it is not as easy as the Republican have said.

[apedad]

I read that story too but really don't think it's a 'Republican' or 'Trump' thing.

Seems like it was a super-overzealous wife trying to get her husband elected into Congress - at any cost - and used (abused?) her local Vietnamese connections to stuff the ballot box.
---------

A jury spent about five hours deliberating before convicting Kim Phuong Taylor on 52 counts of voter fraud in federal court Tuesday in Sioux City. Taylor faces up to five years in prison on each count. A sentencing date hasn’t been set.

Prosecutors say Taylor took advantage of other Vietnamese immigrants by illegally filling out election forms and ballots. Her husband, Jeremy Taylor, lost a GOP primary for the U.S. House and won election to the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors in 2020.

https://www.iowapublicradio.org/ipr-news/2023-11-21/woodbury-county-supervisors-wife-found-guilty-of-52-counts-of-voter-fraud

[darkknight9]

"...convicting Kim Phuong Taylor on 52 counts of voter fraud in federal court Tuesday in Sioux City. Taylor faces up to five years in prison on each count."

G-U-L-P!!!!

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear, she does not in fact face up to five years in prison on each count.

[darkknight9]

That seemed like a hell of a lot of time 😀 😀

[Voize]

 

Seems like it was a super-overzealous wife trying to get her husband elected into Congress

In the 2020 general election she cast fraudulent votes for her husband as county supervisor, but also for other Republican candidates including Donald Trump.
For all the GOP trumpeting about ballot fraud, a disproportionate number of the few cases actually proven seem to be committed by Republicans. In 2020 Donald Hartle in Nevada voted for his dead wife. In Pennsylvania Bruce Bartman voted for his dead mother, and Robert Lynn did the same, while Ralph Thurman tried to vote for his son. In Ohio Edward Snodgrass voted for his deceased father. In Colorado Barry Morphew voted for his dead wife (charges alleging she was dead because he murdered her were dropped). All convicted or pled to voting illegally, and all Republicans.

[David Nieporent]

.

In 2020 Donald Hartle in Nevada voted for his dead wife. In Pennsylvania Bruce Bartman voted for his dead mother, and Robert Lynn did the same, while Ralph Thurman tried to vote for his son. In Ohio Edward Snodgrass voted for his deceased father. In Colorado Barry Morphew voted for his dead wife

Quibble: when you say "voted for," I think it would be clearer if you wrote, "voted on behalf of."

[Voize]

Yeah, or "voted as". It's a bit more compact so scans better after the sixth repetition.

[santamonica811]

Much thanks for the clarification. I actually had thought--after a quick skim--it was "...cast a ballot, using write-in, to put in the name of [fill in the name of beloved family member]." It definitely could have been written more clearly, to ensure that readers understood that it was being used to mean, "cast a ballot while pretending to be___"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The recent conviction of the wife of a northwestern Iowa county supervisor who was running as a Republican for Congress in 2020 tells us two things. Republicans cheat and...

Now tell us what you think the conviction of a black American on some violent crime charge tells you generally about black Americans, if anything.

[Nige]

Don't worry there's a few people will likely be along to tell you exactly what it means shortly, I'm sure.

[Moderation4ever]

I take your point. I was attempting to address the hypocrisy that suggests in election cheating only one party is guilty. Based on the evidence prevented to date, most speculation, a person could speculate that in 2020 it was not Trump who was cheated, but rather Biden and that he won a larger victory than was reported.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A person could also speculate that Elvis is still alive and working at a Dunkin' Donuts in Boise, ID.

[ReaderY]

I think the district court’s reasoning in GenBioPro v. Sorsaia, the case where a manufacturer of an abortifacient sought to overturn a state abortion ban on grounds federal approval of its product preempts state law, was a reasonable basis for resolving the case. The court eschewed introducing big, ideologically-prone ideas into the case and sought to resolve it on narrow grounds.

It began by characterizing West Virginia’s abortion law as a kind of morals legislation, akin to state laws against horsemeat and California’s law against pork produced from pigs raised under conditions the California legislature considered inhumane.

It ruled against GenBioPro’s claim that FDA approval and the associated federal regulatory scheme preempts West Virginia’s law based on cases holding that the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for slaughtering and inspecting horses for horsemeat does not preempt state laws prohibiting horsemeat and horsemeat slaughter, deducing that in general a federal regulatory scheme for a product does not preempt a state ban on the product, and bringing the FDCA’s express anti-preemption savings clause (anything not explicitly pre-empted is reserved to the states) to resolve any doubt.

It ruled against GenBioPro’s claim that West Virginia’s abortion ban violated the dormant commerce clause based on the recent Supreme Court case of National Pork Producers v. Ross, holding that West Virginia’s abortion ban is directly analagous to California’s inhumanely-produced pork ban, and the Supreme Court’s holding that bans on products based on non-economic morals grounds do not violate the dormant commerce clause accordingly applies here as well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amazing how something championed by the left (CA ban on pork) comes around to bite the left (WV ban on abortion pills).

Of course, I would have argued that states have the right to regulate the practice of medicine and that includes the manner and quantities of drugs prescribed. While (I think) every state has a prescription monitoring program now, some monitor more drugs than others, and both criteria and quantities allowed vary from state to state (i.e. Maine is more restrictive than Massachusetts, or at least Maine MDs say so).

So if a state can regulate every other drug, why not this one? And if you can tax without accepting payment for the tax, then you could establish prescription criteria that did not include actually prescribing the drug.

An interesting aside -- decades back when Marijuana was illegal, Maine wanted to also tax it so that they could seize drug dealer money. Only problem is once they passed that law, stamp collectors wanted to buy the tax stamp because they collect rare and assorted stamps.

Problem was that once the state sold the stamps, the Marijuana would arguably be legal if someone had the proper number of stamps, which raised the issue I never understood -- how can you tax something that is illegal in the first place?

[John F. Carr]

Taxing marijuana was a trend around the 1980s. Under Massachusetts law a tax stamp did not make your marijuana legal. It only protected you from a tax evasion charge, and then only if it was affixed to your marijuana. The courts here ruled that because this law was simply an attempt to pile on extra charges in drug cases the tax charge had to be tried at the same time as the possession charge. It was not to be treated like failing to pay taxes on criminal income, which could be charged separately from the underlying crime.

[Magister]

A friend who collected stamps told me that marijuana tax stamps were primarily purchased by collectors.

To avoid the risk of posting an easily rebutted anecdote in the style of Dr. Ed 2, I followed my own advice and searched the internet; it's possible Tony was talking about earlier examples like the federal 1937 marijuana tax stamps in light of the Wisconsin ones that were being instituted at that time, in the late 1980s.
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1386&context=mulr
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/reefer-madness-high-times-and-420-there-was-marijuana-revenue-stamp-180958823/

[Dr. Ed 2]

" In the 1980s, many states enacted drug tax stamp laws requiring those selling illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin to pay exorbitant taxes and affix stamps issued by the state to the product. Their underlying purpose was not to achieve compliance but rather to collect additional tax-related fines and penalties for those convicted of drug offenses. The laws fell out of vogue after courts concluded that it violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to require purchasing of tax stamps for illegal products unless the state created a “firewall” between revenue officials and drug enforcement officials. See, e.g., Waters v. Farr, 291 S.W.3d 873 (Tenn. 2009). Consequently, the drug tax stamp laws and their stamps (which remain on the books in Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah) have essentially become collector’s curiosities"

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_SR231.pdf

[bernard11]

Dry states used to tax bootleggers on their alcohol sales. IIRC Mississippi got significant revenue from that, and the collector, who worked on commission, got quite wealthy.

[Sarcastr0]

What's this about TX piggybacking an investigation on Twitter's frivolous lawsuite of Media Matters?

Also note that free speech champions Tracey and Greenwald have once again chosen not the principled free speech defense they loudly proclaim when defending Nazis and the like, but instead came down anti-left and are good with going after Media Matters for bad speech.

[loki13]

So much on this.

1. What Texas does under their AG is always profoundly political. Embarrassingly so.

2. I am of the belief that Elon Musk's purchase of twitter (X) will be viewed as the beginning of his spiral. He was always a kook, but now his kook/ick factor is overwhelming everything else (which is starting to be a real concern for shareholders, investors, and creditors of his real businesses). He's been trumpeting this lawsuit- but if you actually read it, it's terrible. Terrible not just as an idea, but as a legal document.

3. You would think that Musk would have learned (especially given what happened when he was forced to buy twitter when he tried to back out) that maybe the whole, "I have lots of money and will litigate my way out of things," isn't always a great idea. Oh well.

4. Everyone is a fan of the FA in principle, but also believes that the speech they hate isn't covered by it. Same as it ever was.

[Nige]

We're told over and over again that a buncha students being rowdy is a threat to freedom of speech, meanwhile 'first amendment absolutist' billionaires with connections and influence can lean on or threaten or shut down entire news outlets.

[Estragon]

I for one feel wonderful about our space program being in this guys hands

[Dr. Ed 2]

It isn't really --Boeing and someone else are still in it, it's just that he's had more success than they have.

And as to NASA, reality is that the majority of the people who are good are going to be geeky White guys.

The real question is going to be when something falls out of the sky and hits someone. Under international law (as I remember it) the country from which the thing was launched is responsible -- so the US is liable for all of his stuff. That could be interesting...

[Martinned]

Not to mention the task of moving the world's billionaires to Mars...

[SimonP]

I've read (but do not know enough to say one way or another) that these cases are being brought in Texas specifically because the Fifth Circuit has held that Texas's anti-SLAPP law doesn't apply in federal courts. Combine that with a circuit likely to be biased on this partisan litigation, and...

Personally, I find it all a very distressing trend, and would appreciate Eugene's at some point acknowledging it exists and is problematic, if only to signal that he's still capable of publicly acknowledging free speech infringement by the right. But for Media Matters in particular, I think it will prove a strategically imprudent move. This is an advocacy organization, after all, not a straight journalism outfit. Attracting lawsuits and investigations by conservatives will only make them look more effective in their mission, and attract donations.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You expect Prof. Volokh (or any Volokh Conspirator, other than the house libertarian) to write about Elon Musk's antisemitism?

About Donald Trump's weekly or daily noteworthy statements, litigation (unless it's a development favorable to Trump or one of his co-conspirators), or conduct?

About people being punished for expressing insufficient tolerance of rampant bombing and civilian deaths in Gaza? About anything involving the West Bank settlements? About the new censorship regime at Twitter/X? About conservative book banning or curriculum censorship?

You should expect the familiar stream of transgender rest room-Muslim-white grievance-drag queen-transgender parenting-Black crime-lesbian-transgender sorority drama, with predictable partisan sniping at strong, mainstream schools for being insufficiently hospitable to conservative bigotry, backwardness, and superstition.

[loki13]

Well, it's insanely stupid for a few reasons.

Look, if you're Donald Trump (ignoring the illegal stuff), lawsuits are free publicity to a base that will give you political donations and keep you in the news cycle for votes. But Musk isn't a politician. He runs businesses. Businesses don't want to be in the news ... for a lot of reasons.

Filing this lawsuit means that Media Matters (and other outlets) will be reporting on this story over ... and over ... and over again for as long as the lawsuit lasts. Instead of this being a story that will be replaced in the newscycle, it will keep going. Which isn't good for him. Because you don't want the CEO getting in constant battles due to the CEO's intemperate actions. And it's not like advertisers are going to say, "Hmmm... this looks stable and good!"

Second, to the extent it doesn't get dismissed shortly, it will open him up to all of the discovery. Again, not what he probably wants. Similar to what happened with twitter- this is litigation that won't help him.

Part of being a public figure is learning to pick your battles. You can't fight everyone all the time. Sometimes it's best to take the small L, instead of doubling down and taking a much bigger L. Otherwise, you might end up buying twitter. Or filing a stupid lawsuit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Musk is an interesting prospect for conservatives.

On one hand, he is wealthy, active, and famous, able to promote right-wing thinking and right-wingers and seemingly eager to try to own the libs.

On the other hand, he is an impulsive, bigoted, autistic, antisocial, disaffected, unpredictable, unreliable, conspiracy theory-peddling jerk who may turn out to be more trouble than he is worth.

[apedad]

On the other hand, he is an impulsive, bigoted, autistic, antisocial, disaffected, unpredictable, unreliable, conspiracy theory-peddling jerk who may turn out to be more trouble than he is worth – and the conservatives already have one of those running for president (again)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt conservatives would, should, or could resist Musk's "help" -- the side that is losing may be expected to be willing to place some longshot bets or employ likely counterproductive methods, and there is little evidence Musk can't do as he wishes (at least, until adult supervision is imposed in the form of litigation, regulation, etc.).

That would not prevent conservatives such as the Volokh Conspirators (ostensibly ardent opponents of censorship and antisemitism) from exhibiting some courage, character, and principles by objecting to Musk's obnoxious statements and conduct, though.

[Krayt]

Oscar Wilde: There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycsfu4574w

[loki13]

Well, if Elon Musk aspires to be Oscar Wilde, then more power to him! I, for one, will not gainsay his ambition to be wit and playwright.

On the other hand, if he wants to continue to be a successful businessman and CEO of publicly-traded companies*, then having people "talk about you" as an erratic person who has a hankering for anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories is probably not a productive approach.

*No, twitter/X is not publicly traded. But this also applies to companies that make money through advertising. One of the square pegs in round holes that the Supreme Court will have to deal with this upcoming term is trying to square the speech of internet companies that make money from advertising (and their desire to make the platforms palatable for advertisers) with the new ideological desire that these places be treated as "dumb pipes" for people to spew whatever they want.

After all, the telephone company doesn't make money from selling ads during your conversation.

[Absaroka]

"the telephone company doesn’t make money from selling ads during your conversation."

For God's sake don't give them ideas!

[John F. Carr]

Twenty years ago I could pump gas without video ads.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another reason to purchase gasoline at Costco.

[SRG2]

One of the (many) classics!

[Ed Grinberg]

"Also note that free speech champions Tracey and Greenwald have once again chosen not the principled free speech defense they loudly proclaim when defending Nazis and the like, but instead came down anti-left and are good with going after Media Matters for bad speech."
I have no idea who "Tracey" is, and I don't know what Glenn Greenwald said, but you seem to be drawing a false dichotomy. "Principled free speech defense" is perfectly compatible with suing someone for lying about you. As I understand it, Mr. Musk's complaint is that Media Matters intentionally misrepresented how Twitter operates, in order to drive away its advertisers. If true, they should lose in court -- not because they said something "bad," but because they intentionally lied about Mr. Musk's company to drive away its business.

[loki13]

You didn't read the complaint, did you?

Even construed in the most favorable light, they aren't claiming that Media Matters lied. Instead, once you remove the puffery (which is difficult), they are asserting that Media Matters truthfully reported the information, but that they were able to "create" the juxtaposition by ... wait for it ... "manipulating" the algorithm. You know, looking at other accounts and seeing what happens.

But that's not manipulating it. That's just ... taking an account, and seeing what happens. It also references supposed controls (such as the difference between a "new account" and an account that's more than 30 days old) which isn't well-known, and isn't relevant to either the claim or to advertisers.

Moreover, since the complaint repeatedly and explicitly cites its own internal safeguards and practices ... guess what is going to happen in discovery?

Finally, they are trying to avoid defamation claims, since they won't be able to prove falsity, instead going with claims of interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage; only the business disparagement claim alleges falsity, and that will likely fail on a motion to dismiss since there is no allegation of falsity that can clear the FA burden.

[DaveM]

He's not claiming MM lied, he's claiming they fabricated defamatory information and then publicized it with intent to harm X. Not a lawyer, but I've certainly read of other suits on this very site that were able to navigate 1A where intent to harm is at issue.

[loki13]

"Not a lawyer"

Could've stopped there. But let's play. Since you're not a lawyer, why don't you explain to me, as if I was a slightly dumb golden retriever, the exact difference between claiming someone lied, and claiming someone "fabricated defamatory information" (in other words, fabricated a lie).

While you're at it, feel free to use the exact pleading's allegations, and use the standard applied to public figures/matters of public concern.

[darkknight9]

" Since you’re not a lawyer, why don’t you explain to me, as if I was a slightly dumb golden retriever..."

Easy.

Wanna go for a WALK? Who wants to go for a WALK? Is it you boy? Wanna go for a double u a el kay? You can't spell can you boy? Its okay lets go for a walk!!!

By the time we get back you're too thirsty and tired to care about legal hypotheticals... whatever those are. 🙂

[Life of Brian]

I read the complaint. If you actually did, representing Media Matters' actions as "looking at other accounts and seeing what happens" is... well, just a teeny tiny bit disingenuous. Here's the overview, right up front and everything (emphasis original):

8. Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps, as X’s internal investigations have revealed. First, Media Matters accessed accounts that had been active for at least 30 days,
bypassing X’s ad filter for new users. Media Matters then exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce extreme,
fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers. The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers.

9. But this activity still was not enough to create the pairings of advertisements and content that Media Matters aimed to produce.

10. Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 times more advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts.

* * *

13. The truth bore no resemblance to Media Matters’ narrative. In fact, IBM’s, Comcast’s, and Oracle’s paid posts appeared alongside the fringe content cited by Media Matters for only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters. Not a single authentic user of the X platform saw IBM’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to that content, which Media Matters achieved only through its manipulation of X’s algorithms as described above. And in Apple’s case, only two out of more than 500 million active users saw its ad appear alongside the fringe content cited in the article—at least one of which was Media Matters.

[Nige]

If the chances of seeing it were one in five million, they really lucked out in finding it, I guess.

[Life of Brian]

.

If the chances of seeing it were one in five [sic] million, they really lucked out in finding [sic] it

I’d ask if you heard the “whoosh,” but am fairly confident you created it.

[Nige]

If you heard the whoosh maybe something went over your head.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/x-advertising-lawsuit-media-matters-musk/

[Life of Brian]

So if a user... wait for it... deliberately searches for naughty stuff, they may see advertisements interspersed with the results of the search they requested.

I know you're in troll mode and don't care, but nobody outside that mindset actually thinks that sort of silly sauce "refutes" anything at all.

[Nige]

Searches? Oh, you mean precision designed manipulations of the algorithm. This is so wrong and evil it requires a 'thermonuclear' response with a nice friendly AG to help out?

[David Nieporent]

.

So if a user… wait for it… deliberately searches for naughty stuff, they may see advertisements interspersed with the results of the search they requested.

Yes. And?

(You know how that wouldn't happen? If the person wasn't using the service of a business that fired all the people who were working to eliminate "naughty stuff.")

Hint: "Oh, this only happened because the user wanted to see 'naughty stuff'" is not really what the advertisers want to hear.

[Life of Brian]

.

Yes. And?

Another deliberately obtuse one. One more time, then I'm getting on with my family plans.

Rational advertisers don't give a lick if purple supremacists who come to a social media site explicitly seeking out purple supremacist stuff see their ads. The purple supremacists certainly aren't going to be hoodwinked into believing that Wokesters, Inc. have suddenly had a change of heart, and there are no other optics to manage.

What rational advertisers care about is people who don't come looking for purple supremacist stuff and want nothing to do with it but end up having it algorithmically served up anyway, in close proximity to one of their ads, like they sponsored it or something.

Which is why Media Matters wordsmithed so hard in their drive-by hit piece that kicked off the lawsuit that they "found" ads in the vicinity of naughty stuff, not that they worked tirelessly to curate a feed of only naughty stuff, deliberately followed big-ticket advertisers, and hyperactively refreshed thousands of times until they finally got the soundbite they were after.

Now, post-complaint, MM and their sycophants are scrambling to shove the goalposts somewhere safer and more defensible. All of which I know you know.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[David Nieporent]

.

Rational advertisers don’t give a lick if purple supremacists who come to a social media site explicitly seeking out purple supremacist stuff see their ads.

Thanks for illustrating you don’t understand fundamental aspects of marketing and corporate brand management.

[Nige]

'that they “found” ads in the vicinity of naughty stuff, not that they worked tirelessly to curate a feed of only naughty stuff'

Which, leaving aside the attempt by the complaint to claim they were doing something especially underhanded, rather proved the point about how much 'naughty stuff' there is on twitter jostling around with the advertising, added to the anti-semitism of the owner and the deterioration of general content management makes the whole place surprisingly unattractive.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Life of Brian:

Rational advertisers don’t give a lick if purple supremacists who come to a social media site explicitly seeking out purple supremacist stuff see their ads....

What rational advertisers care about is people who don’t come looking for purple supremacist stuff and want nothing to do with it but end up having it algorithmically served up anyway, in close proximity to one of their ads, like they sponsored it or something.

The dust up when Miller made a small effort to market its product to transgender people should make clear that advertisers should worry about both of these. X complains about Media Matters, “tricking the algorithm into thinking Media Matters wanted to view both hateful content and content from large advertisers.” In other words, the pairings weren't accidental--they were intentional efforts to market the brands to Nazis.

People do crazy things, so I can just barely imagine one major brand askint X to help market their brand to Nazis. But multiple brands independently deciding to do this? No way. X made the decision without telling the brands. I think that the major brands would all believe X if X told them that the pairings were intentional rather than accidental, but that the advertisers would take this as even more reason to pull their advertising.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And in Apple’s case, only two out of more than 500 million active users saw its ad appear alongside the fringe content cited in the article—at least one of which was Media Matters."

IIRC, the other was a guy working for MM.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Look who you're responding to. For him, "lying" and "speech" are completely interchangeable terms.

[Sarcastr0]

Luv to have a fan.

[M L]

What is this lawsuit and why is it frivolous? I assume that's just an empty political assertion.

[DaveM]

It's political for MM, but economic and reputational for X.

[loki13]

Again, let’s assume that twitter (because X is so stupid) is being 100% truthful in the allegations. And let’s assume that even if they believe that the allegations are truthful, that they are, in fact, truthful (given that we know that they have had continuing issues with back-end engineering).

If the real concern was reputational and economic, then the proper response would have been an immediate press release- something stating that they take these allegations very seriously. That they believe in the free speech rights of users, but are working hard to ensure that their partners (advertisers) are not placed next to objectionable content. And that it is their understanding that while they have measures in place to prevent this from happening, it is still possible, under certain circumstances related to a user account that actively seeks out objectionable content, for this to happen. While this appears to incredibly unlikely, they are going to work with their partners to ensure it doesn’t happen in any circumstances.

Then quietly reach out to the affected advertisers and make good.

That’s how a mature company would handle this. But we are long past that point, aren’t we? Because throwing a tantrum won't bring back the advertisers, will keep this in the news, and any judgment is years down the road. ASSUMING they will prevail. Which ... good luck with that.

[Don Nico]

Loki,
You ought to be Musk's lawyer. Clearly the ones he has did not give him such sound advice.

[loki13]

The first partner I worked with, and a great mentor of mine, explained to me that he preferred the term "counselor," because the primary job of a good attorney was to provide good advice (to counsel) the client- not just to litigate.

It's something I've carried with me. Litigation can be unavoidable, but you should always identify the goal of the litigation and understand the costs before it starts ... and see if there isn't a better way of accomplishing your goals without those costs.

[M L]

"Clearly the ones he has did not give him such sound advice."

On the contrary, there can be no doubt Musk has received such sound advice in this case and countless other times over the years. He is well aware. Lawyers are always trying to talk their clients out of litigation, but ultimately the client decides what they want to do.

In this case, I haven't followed the details, but this basic pattern has been repeating itself since the day Musk bought Twitter. It's been a topic over and over. I believe Musk has done exactly as Loki suggested a number of times, and now here we are.

[Life of Brian]

Right. If the allegations in the complaint are even close to correct (and there are enough hard numbers that it would shock me if they were just made up), I don't know that there's any realistic solution short of putting MM's head on a pole to at least make future copycats at least think twice. Seems to me here the allegations are even less founded and the damages far more directly provable than the Lindell/Dominion debacle.

[Nige]

Free speech absolutists unite!

[Michael Ejercito]

Those advertisers should not have hired Woke employees who have hissy fits about ads appearing next to objectionable content.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's not the employees, but customers, with whom the advertisers are concerned. But tell us more about what you fail to grasp about how businesses work.

[Michael Ejercito]

What sort of customer actually cares if an ad for a product appears just below a post promoting Communism?

[bernard11]

Sensible ones.

You might as well ask why beer ads so often have pretty women in them. What does that have to with the taste of the beer, after all?

Advertising plays on psychology and associations, not rational consumer analysis.

[Michael Ejercito]

The extreme content does not appear in the ad.

[Nige]

No, the extreme content is the owner of the site turning out to be an anti-semitic weirdo.

[David Nieporent]

Are you aware that in traditional print newspapers, advertisers have always objected to their ads appearing next to articles about certain topics like crime or war or the like? I think everyone realizes that the ad and the article are two separate elements on a page of newsprint. But advertisers do not want those associations anyway.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Among other things Michael Ejercito doesn't understand: advertising, brand management, and human psychology.

[Nige]

Oh so it's woke not to want to hang out with Nazis now.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, all good advice, and undoubtedly wiser than Musk or his current counsel. But even following that advice would prove insufficient. The juxtaposition issue is real, but also a bit of a red herring.

A more-typical dynamic would involve an advertiser-employed insider concerned that Musk's platform promotes expressions and values which the advertiser does not want to be seen supporting. Ads get published, and everyone who sees them knows the payments help underwrite whatever advocacy the platform supports—whether there is juxtaposition or not. If a would-be publisher begins unaware of that dynamic, some among his best advertising customers will soon introduce him to it.

It does not matter what subject draws the focus. It can be anything. With a typically wide range of opinions held differently among a large number of advertising purchasers, the publisher will inevitably run afoul of something from time-to-time, and discover that major advertisers' managers can prove insistent about content.

There is no formula to tell a publisher the one best, most-likely-to-work response for all such little crises. But it matters a great deal in the long run that the publisher manage most of them more successfully than otherwise. Repeated blunders dealing with such challenges put the continuation of the publishing business in question. Worse, government policies, or court decisions, to compel the publisher uniformly to make any one kind of decision can force blunders which a skilled publisher would have avoided.

Sometimes the right course is to humor the advertiser. Sometimes the better policy is to defend the content. It is always necessary to decide with an eye to audience response, and not just short term, but also over the long haul. Often what works best is tactful engagement which avoids any specific conclusion.

All of that relates directly to preservation of press freedom, and thus to the availability of expressive opportunities for every would-be contributor to the platform. The publisher's 1A protected right to make his own expressive choices remains comparably salient.

[Sarcastr0]

Could work. Gawker went down; just need the right judge.

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports on a study finding that in the first six months of the year, between one-fifth and one-fourth of women living in states with abortion bans — who may have otherwise sought an abortion — did not get one. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/22/upshot/abortion-births-bans-states.html The article also states that data suggests that the number of legal abortions nationwide has stayed steady or slightly increased since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, despite abortion bans in 14 states.

The analysis showed that the increased births were disproportionately among women in their 20s and Black and Hispanic women, which researchers said could be because these groups tend to be poorer, making it harder to travel. They are also the demographic groups that have tended to be more likely to seek abortions.

This may portend an increase in future Democratic voters (if today's infants vote at all when they reach adulthood).

[Commenter_XY]

Unfortunately, the article is paywalled.

[not guilty]

The study is here. https://docs.iza.org/dp16608.pdf

[not guilty]

This link may bypass the paywall. https://news.yahoo.com/many-abortions-did-post-roe-130638190.html

[Commenter_XY]

The report was helpful, not guilty. The chief conclusion(s) that I reached. The world did not end, post-Dobbs. Births are up 2.3 percent (yes two percent) in states with more stringent abortion restrictions, for age groups over 15-19 (notably, the teens did not show a rise). There are no abortion bans (absolute prohibition) anywhere in the US, currently (nor should there be).

I won't get into the empirical side (SDID, DID) of the measuring stick being used. It is one of many empirical methods.

Last point...the data are based on 2019-2023 (partial). I think I would like to see a somewhat larger time period, post-Dobbs, before declaring America a vast Handmaid's Tale wasteland. (ok, that last was hyperbole, I admit it)

There are hopeful things in the report as well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is Dobbs going to last long enough to support any long-term studies or opinions?

I doubt it.

[loki13]

I think that the thing that has opened the most eyes, post-Dobbs, is the increasing number of truly horrific stories coming out of a handful of states that show how these restrictions impact basic healthcare decisions.

I think that, for many people in the middle, abortion is something that is (to use the old formulation) something that should be safe, legal, and rare. But these laws are creating a superstructure that demands that the state intervene in medical decisions- requiring women to sacrifice their health, and to even keep non-viable fetuses within them (to the detriment of their health) until they are about to die.

As more people are confronted with the reality of what this means in practice, and see the declining care options presented to women in states with "post-Dobbs" laws, I think you see the natural backlash. Yeah, putting the state in a position where it not only prioritizes the fetus over the mother, but controls the mother, the physician, and those intimate (and often painful choices) is more than a little reminiscent of the Handmaid's Tale.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't really disagree loki13. My view is that it will take a decade or so for the electorate to eventually decide what abortion restrictions (if any) they want to live with. The people will decide for themselves; I'm good with that. For most states and most of the US population, I don't think very much will change (CA, NY, IL, WA, CT, NJ, etc). The report is not all doom and gloom, to me.

Consider my state: NJ. We have abortion on demand, all the way to the day of birth. They haven't passed laws on retroactive abortions up to the 63 trimester quite yet (just kidding). The people of NJ see no need to change the law on abortion. That's fine.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

+1. I think that's exactly right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I sense you are not a member of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management or Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement of Ladyparts Clinics.

[Michael Ejercito]

Statist womb management predates Buck v. Bell.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Improving in that respect is part of American progress.

[Michael Ejercito]

Buck is still controlling precedent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Actually, Ejercito, those are different issues with markedly different historical timelines.

[SimonP]

Maybe, though in the meantime we'll have another couple of decades to re-discover the effects of forced births on things like intergenerational poverty, crime rates, welfare dependency, maternal mortality, healthcare and brain development of young children, and on and on. While Republicans try to blame Democrats for all of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It could also be the women listened to the rationale of the law and agreed that it was murder.

[not guilty]

Do you think so? Which states punish a woman's procuring the abortion of her own fetus as murder, including the penalties applicable to murder?

[Mr. Bumble]

Which states treat the death of a fetus as murder (as in the case where the mother is attacked resulting in the death of the fetus)?

[John F. Carr]

Treating the death of a viable fetus as murder is very common. We do it even in blue-as-can-be Massachusetts. A few red states extend the rule to a non-viable fetus.

[DaveM]

This study shows that abortion disproportionately suppresses the sizes of Black and Hispanic families. The people who support abortion know this happens, but they apparently don't care. It's very racist.

I am unabashedly against using abortion as birth control. Abortion is the termination of an innocent life. It helps no one, rather it just makes a difficult situation even worse.

What would actually help is to offer support across the board: financial, material, emotional, spiritual, and logistical. Face life and embrace its challenges. That is the positive way forward.

[Sarcastr0]

I do love when the right comes around to try and use disparate impact as an argument.

Though I do want to give props to DaveM's last paragraph - that kind of support is actually how you reduce abortion. (I'd add education as well).

[Dan Schiavetta]

Planned Parenthood, through its providing birth control, prevented a great many abortions. With Dobbs, it had to close a lot of its clinics. And though many women will travel to abortion-legal states to get abortions, abortion is an emergency situation. They wouldn’t travel long distances to get birth control.

[Sarcastr0]

There's a chart somewhere comparing conservative policies in whether they look they want to reduce abortion versus punish women for having sex.

[Nige]

Wait, why is it racist for black women to have control over their own bodies again?

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Colorado has granted the cross-applications for review of the trial court's order finding that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection but nevertheless ordering that his name appear on the Republican primary ballot. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/01st_Judicial_District/2023SA300%20ORDER%20OF%20COURT.pdf Oral argument is scheduled for December 6.

The Secretary of State is required to certify the candidates who will be listed on the 2024 presidential primary ballot on January 5, 2024. Assuming the state Supreme Court renders its decision quickly, this will leave a narrow window for SCOTUS to review the decision by writ of certiorari if it chooses to do so.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

During the holidays, maybe the Supreme Court will delegate this one to a judge such Aileen Cannon, William Pryor, or James Ho. Who could stop the current majority from appointing one of those clingers to handle the case? It's almost certain a few of those justices have big holiday plans (superyachting, private jet-setting, luxury resorts, acceptance of opulent gifts, maybe a Federalist Society fundraiser or two, etc.).

[not guilty]

"Who could stop the current majority from appointing one of those clingers to handle the case?"

Per 28 U.S.C. § 1, the Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.

And FWIW, William Pryor is not necessarily in the tank for Donald Trump. See, Trump v. United States, 54 F.4th 689 (11th Cir. 2022).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They could commission a recommendation (similar to procedure involving magistrate judges), then adopt it, I suppose. Or they could just do as they please.

Perhaps my view of Judge Pryor has been colored by the Crystal Clanton affair, his ardent gay-bashing, his Federalist Society record, his spot on Trump's approved list, etc..

[not guilty]

I am not aware of any provision for SCOTUS to exercise appellate jurisdiction without a quorum. Four votes would be necessary to grant cert.

I do expect this matter to wind up before SCOTUS if the Colorado Supreme Court rules against Trump. The Court has shown that it can move quickly when a Republican presidency hangs in the balance. See, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The current majority seems capable to assembling four votes. Grab the case, delegate it, approve the desired result, all without missing a single afternoon on the yacht, a single evening at an exclusive resort, a tee time, a departure from the private hangars at the airport, or a chance to accept a six-figure gift from a "dear friend."

[Don Nico]

ng,
Thank you for your continuing commentary on this case.
Happy Thanksgiving!

[not guilty]

Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

[Martinned]

The Secretary of State is required to certify the candidates who will be listed on the 2024 presidential primary ballot on January 5, 2024.

Just keep the (Secretary of) State out of the substance of primaries. Lend out the ballot boxes, that's it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This partisan political blog
with an increasingly scant
academic veneer has
operated for no more than

FIVE (5)

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,
bitter, disrespected 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.

Enjoy the holidays, everyone!

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur...I hope you have a nice Thanksgiving holiday.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Thank you. I wish you a wonderful Thanksgiving.

[apedad]

Man Arrested For Pleasuring Himself At Kum & Go Gas Station

(Lee Kelly, 54 of Iowa City, IA) was arrested on an indecent exposure charge, that happened back in March. The report indicates that witnesses called 911 about an “unknown individual” at a Kum & Go gas station who they say said “sexual things” and then proceeded to expose his privates and pleasure himself. The suspect then left.

Once charged with a misdemeanor of indecent exposure, Mr. Kelly clarified that he was just “scratching his genitals” and not actually exposing himself. He faces up to a year in jail if convicted. He has previous convictions for convictions for felony theft, narcotics possession, driving without a license, and marijuana possession.

https://jalopnik.com/man-arrested-for-pleasuring-himself-at-kum-go-gas-sta-1851041674

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

A complete self-service facility.

[bernard11]

Not unless they sold porn.

[apedad]

Virginia Democrats reveal 2024 agenda after Youngkin, GOP fall short in midterm election

Abortion and gun control are the top priorities for Virginia Democrats heading into the new year after their election wins earlier this month.

Bills and resolutions to ensure abortion access and ban so-called assault weapons were filed Monday as Democratic leaders set the agenda for the 2024 legislative session. Democrats propose increasing the state's minimum wage and automatically restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences.

Del. Don Scott, the new speaker of the House and first Black man to hold the office, said the upcoming legislative session will move Virginia forward.

"I am especially glad to see the resolution to start the process of codifying the automatic restoration of rights," Scott said in a news release. "With this, we are sending a message that there is no room for the spirit of Jim Crow that has plagued our Commonwealth for far too long."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-democrats-reveal-2024-agenda-youngkin-gop-fall-short-midterm-election

Good to see the folks that the Great State of Northern Virginia (and those lesser areas), elected are acting on the issues that matter to us.

[Ed Grinberg]

from the article:

Democrats propose...automatically restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences.
Del. Don Scott, the new speaker of the House and first Black man to hold the office, said the upcoming legislative session will move Virginia forward.
“I am especially glad to see the resolution to start the process of codifying the automatic restoration of rights,” Scott said in a news release. “With this, we are sending a message that there is no room for the spirit of Jim Crow that has plagued our Commonwealth for far too long.”

"Move Virginia forward" is pretty abstract, so we'll leave that alone. But what's that about "the spirit of Jim Crow"? Is he claiming that Virginia's convicted felons became convicted felons because of their skin color? That's a pretty wild claim...

[Michael Ejercito]

If it is the "spirit of Jim Crow" to deny felons the right to vote, does it mean it is the "spirit of Jim Crow" to deny felons the right to keep and bear arms?

[Martinned]

How will they advocate for their right to keep and bear arms if they don't have the right to vote?

[NOVA Lawyer]

"When Black men were granted the right to vote in 1870, Southern states started to adopt felony disenfranchisement laws, not long before they adopted poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses, all tools designed to prevent Black voters from accessing the ballot. These disenfranchising laws went hand in hand with extralegal efforts — terrorism and direct intimidation — to maintain white supremacy. In fact, a 2003 study found that the larger a state’s nonwhite prison population, the more likely they were to adopt the strictest of felony disenfranchisement laws."

Yes, disenfranchisement of felons was part of the Jim Crow basket. And, yes, many black men became convicted felons because of their skin color. That's not even controversial or remotely debatable in the Jim Crow South (at minimum).

Learn some history, ffs.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Another summary:

[O]nly eighteen states actually disenfranchised felons [prior to 1861]. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and by 1870 the number had increased to 28 (out of 38 states).

The surge of felony disenfranchisement laws after the Civil War led many to conclude that the laws were implemented as part of a strategy to disenfranchise blacks, especially as the policy was expanded in conjunction with the Black Codes, which established severe penalties for petty crimes and especially targeted black Americans.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Damn you elitist pointy-heads, and your fancy facts and reality-based history and modern reasoning.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It is unfair. My apologies.

[loki13]

Look, I'm not here to argue "facts."

I'm here to say that even if your facts are true, that just means the laws were racist THEN. They aren't racist NOW.

Then, they were used to keep black people from voting.

Now, we just want to keep the laws in place to keep Democrats from winning. Because certain groups tend to vote with the Democrats. Certain groups that I won't name. But it's not racist against them- it's just about keeping Americans from voting for Democrats, regardless of their skin color. Especially the dark skinned ones.

Which is a totally not-racist coincidence!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Totally!

[Michael Ejercito]

The 1968 Gun Control Act keeps these same felons from legally possessing firearms.

It must be part of Jim Crow.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'm not sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha. It is not at all controversial that white Southerners, in particular, were historically very hostile to Black gun ownership and right of self-defense, particularly against white people. You'll need to do a little work to show that the 1968 Gun Control Act was specifically intended to disproportionately affect Black citizens, particularly given the 60s was a time when the federal government was passing laws and enforcing the Constitution to bring more equality to the US.

The reason it came to the floor and, likely, was approved was the assassination of JFK, Jr., according to a quick search. But, sure, I have no doubt that at least some of the support was helped along by racism and a Jim Crow-like desire to hamper Black citizens especially.

I'm guessing you think this means all gun control everywhere is racist or something, but that's not how logic works.

[Martinned]

A whole country organised around the principle that poor people are typically black, and that black people are typically poor, and that society should avoid helping either group as much as possible.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK.

You presume that the percentage of the population who were convicted felons (and not executed) remained constant from 1619 onward, at least using the same standard of "felony" that was used in 1619.

Can you prove it?

It is *not* true in the north where crime increased in the 19th Century for a variety of reasons, where a higher percentage of the population were convicted felons in 1900 than in 1800.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"You presume that the percentage of the population who were convicted felons (and not executed) remained constant from 1619 onward, at least using the same standard of “felony” that was used in 1619."

You must be smoking something. Pass the dutchie to the left hand side.

I didn't presume any such thing. Such statistics are irrelevant to the fact that white Southerners immediately began various legal and extralegal efforts to disenfranchise Black voters in 1870, coincidentally the same point they were recognized as having the right to vote under the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not sure why you think that argument requires that rate of felony convictions remained constant. In fact, it presumes, if anything, that there would be an uptick in felony convictions after 1870 and that those convictions would be disproportionately among the Black population. And guess what......

"After the American Civil War, the number of U.S. penitentiaries in the South and West spiked—their inmate populations surpassing 30,000. By 1880 African Americans became the majority of inmates, replacing immigrants.

The standard theory, I believe, is that especially state imprisonment (often on false charges or discriminatorily enforced laws) was a means used to essentially re-enslave large numbers of Black Americans. The data is consistent with this theory.

The year 1865 should be as notable to criminologists as is the year 1970. While it marked the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, it also triggered the nation’s first prison boom when the number of black Americans arrested and incarcerated surged.6 This was the result of state governments reacting to two powerful social forces: first, public anxiety and fear about crime stemming from newly freed black Americans; and second, economic depression resulting from the war and the loss of a free supply of labor. State and local leaders in the South used the criminal justice system to both pacify the public’s fear and bolster the depressed economy. All across the South, Black Codes were passed that outlawed behaviors common to black people, such as “walking without a purpose” or “walking at night,” hunting on Sundays, or settling on public or private land.

[Michael Ejercito]

Son then the 1968 Gun Control Act was also the legacy of Jim Crow?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t know whom you’re quoting, but the Jim Crowiest of the Jim Crow states – Alabama and Mississippi – didn’t disenfranchise all felons, they made some felonies – and misdemeanors – the basis of disenfranchisement and allowed some other convicted felons to vote. They discriminated among convicts based on whether those who were convicted of a given crime tended to be white or black (according to the opinions of the lawmakers).

So you could just as well oppose the racist *enfranchisement* of people who commit “white” felonies.

And Section 2 of the 14th Amendment contemplated the disenfranchisement of criminals. While in general, disenfranchising adult males would reduce the basis of a state’s representation in the House and electoral college, disenfranchisement based on crime would not trigger such results, so states could take the vote away from criminals without penalty.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In 1846, at the same time as it was disenfranchising all but the most well-off black people, New York included this in its constitution:

“Laws may be passed, excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, larceny, or of any infamous crime; and for depriving every person who shall make, or become directly or indirectly interested in, any bet or wager depending upon the result of any election, from the right to vote at such election.”

https://images.procon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/1846_ny_constitution.pdf

[Michael Ejercito]

How is disenfranchising felons different from disarming felons?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Why not have them go together, so that during the period a convicted felon is disenfranchised he can't have a gun, and during the period he can't have a gun he's disenfranchised?

There might be some awkwardness on "both sides," but it could be the basis of an actual compromise.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

To be more precise, Mississippi allowed some convicted felons to vote, while Alabama had broader felon-disenfranchisement while disenfranchising certain misdemeanants. So neither state can be guilt-by-associationed with "felony disenfranchisement."

[Aunt Teefah]

"Carlyle" Glenn Youngkin suffers controlled demolition of his political career.

[Bob from Ohio]

"acting"

Performance theater.

"The house may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of the members present, which two-thirds shall include a majority of the members elected to that house." Article V. Section 6. Va. Constitution

Dems have 1 vote majorities in each house.

[darkknight9]

If they want to get away from Jim Crow/slavery/discrimination shenanigans how about they stop trying to get their flag back from Minnesota?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Michael Ejercito]

Of course.

[ReaderY]

The wrb site doesn’t have an “are you sure?” response to flagging a comment for review. It immediately flags if the icon is touched. And there’s no search functikn or scroll bar, one has to go through text and touch it to get through them. So scrolling through comments, I inevitably occasionally flag comments for review, sometimes without even realizing I’ve done it. Since I do it, I suspect a lot of people probably also do it, and it must end up wasting a lot of moderator time.

[David Nieporent]

.

Since I do it, I suspect a lot of people probably also do it, and it must end up wasting a lot of moderator time.

You're assuming anyone reviews things that are flagged for review.

[Krayt]

It makes it disappear, for you anyway.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, and I'm quite convinced that this is all it does.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think of it as one of those push to cross buttons at traffic lights.

[apedad]

Boy, 10, killed by violent gang of monkeys that continues to terrorize small village

A gang of violent monkeys that has terrorized a small town in India struck again, killing a 10-year-old boy by ripping out his intestines last Tuesday.

Thakor was rushed to the hospital after the attack, but doctors were unable to save his life.

"There is a large troop of monkeys in the village, including four adults who have been involved in attacks in the past one week. Two of them have been rescued. Efforts are on to cage another."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/boy-10-killed-violent-gang-monkeys-continues-terrorize-small-village?dicbo=v2-aH5m00v

India has to be the most bizarre country in the world; largest population in the world (1.425 billion), 5th largest economy, nukes, etc., yet they have monkeys killing (and kidnapping) kids.

[M L]

"Dipak Thakor was playing with friends in the village of Salki when he was attacked by what has become a notorious gang of monkeys, with one of the animals digging his claws into the boy and tearing out his intestines, according to a report from The Sun."

Time for the Salki boys to get into a new pastime, the sport of hunting.

[SRG2]

This is one of my favourite stories about India - leopards living in Bombay: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/mumbais-leopards-caught-on-camera.html

[M L]

Watch BBC's Planet Earth II - Cities episode.

[SRG2]

I did!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I love how they "rescue" killer monkeys.

I'd just kill the damn things...

[M L]

The First Thanksgiving Took Place in Virginia, not Massachusetts

Years of elementary school history lessons taught us that Plymouth, Massachusetts, was the site of the first Thanksgiving. Those lessons were false. A year and 17 days before those Pilgrims ever stepped foot upon New England soil, a group of English settlers led by Captain John Woodlief landed at today’s Berkeley Plantation, 24 miles southwest of Richmond. After they arrived on the shores of the James River, the settlers got on their knees and gave thanks for their safe passage. There was no traditional meal, no lovefest with Native Americans, no turkey. America’s first Thanksgiving was about prayer, not food.

On September 16th, 1619, the Margaret departed Bristol, England, bound for the New World. Aboard the 35-foot-long ship were 35 settlers, a crew, five “captain’s assistant”, a pilot, and Woodlief, a much-experienced survivor of the 1609/1610 Jamestown’s “Starving Time.” The mission of those aboard Margaret was to settle 8,000 acres of land along the James River that had been granted to them by the London-based Berkeley Company. They were allowed to build farms, storehouses, homes, and a community on company land. In exchange, they were contracted as employees, working the land and handing over crops and profits to the company.

After a rough two-and-a-half months on the Atlantic, the ship entered the Chesapeake Bay on November 28, 1619. It took another week to navigate the stormy bay, but they arrived at their destination, Berkeley Hundred, later called Berkeley Plantation, on December 4. They disembarked and prayed. Historians think there was nothing but old ship rations to eat, so the settlers may have concocted a meal of oysters and ham out of necessity rather than celebration. At the behest of written orders given by the Berkeley Company to Captain Woodlief, it was declared that their arrival must “be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.” And that’s exactly what they did–for two years. On March 22, 1622, the Powhatan, who’d realized the settlers intended to expand their territory and continue their attempts to convert and “civilize” them, attacked Berkeley and other settlements, killing 347. Woodlief survived, but soon after, Berkeley Hundred was abandoned. For three centuries, Virginia’s first Thanksgiving was lost to history.

Read the whole thing: https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/11/18/the-first-thanksgiving-took-place-in-virginia-not-massachusetts/

[Martinned]

So I assume that any day now Virginia will dub itself the Thanksgiving State?

[Krayt]

My favorite factoid is that when the Pilgrims landed, there was already a hotel in Nevada where you could buy gold.

[santamonica811]

I don't know why that's funny. But it's funny.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The British ate meals and built shelter on Roanoke Island North Carolina more than 30 years before those "Johnny-Come-Latelys" in Virginia.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It doesn't sound like they had a whole lot to be thankful for.

[Z Crazy]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Asians are the master race?

I mean, they make all the money and get all the girls. Even the girls among them get all the girls.

[Martinned]

Here's a legal issue that amuses me, from the ECtHR's judgment in Wieder and Guarnieri v. The UK.

The law (art. 1 ECHR):

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

Question: If the UK government intercepts communications between people who are not at any relevant time within the UK, or in any other place where the UK exercises any kind of public authority, is it violating their convention rights?

Sure, the state's relevant actions are taking place in its territory. But that's not what art. 1 ECHR identifies as the relevant question. And yet, unlike the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, for example, the ECtHR has no difficulty concluding that the Convention protects individuals abroad from wire tapping in the same way that it protects individuals located within the territory.

Perhaps it should have had a little bit more difficulty, because it's not an obvious conclusion. As even the (fairly lefty) Strasbourg Observers blog admits: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2023/11/21/bulk-transborder-surveillance-foreign-nationals-and-the-application-of-echr-rights-wieder-and-guarnieri-v-the-uk-a-seminal-but-underwhelming-judgment/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was expecting something like this: https://reason.com/2023/11/21/lawsuit-covid-vaccine-injury-claims-diverted-to-unconstitutional-kangaroo-court/

The interesting question will be what about all the folks who mandated the vaccine, particularly the colleges?

I'm thinking of 20-30 years of suits over both infertiilty and birth defects, and even if the colleges aren't *legally* liable (and I suspect an intrepid attorney could find they might be) they damn will be POLITICALLY liable.

You don't think these women are going to be silenced, do you?
And if they scream as loudly as they now do about abortion, just imagine how loud they will scream about infertility or, worse, a disabled child...

[Martinned]

Given that this suit looks like complete nonsense, it seems quite likely that this will go away as soon as they run out of money to pay their lawyers.

[Michael Ejercito]

What is your argument that the suit is complete nonsense?

[David Nieporent]

The vaccines are safe and didn't cause injuries; the people claiming otherwise are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lawyer and doctor. Impressive.

[Don Nico]

David,
Your statement is not categorically true. COVID-19 did cause some injuries, admittedly a small percentage of those receiving them. But the number certainly was not zero.
Moreover publications of some studies (by well established medical research groups) of inflammation due to vaccine-induced complex amyloid structures appear to have been suppressed.
The record is not as clean as you suggest with you cocoa Puffs comment.

[Magister]

The process objected to has existed since 2005; it's not COVID specific.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Colleges mandate lots of vaccines. Literally every vaccine has potential side effects. I'm pretty sure there isn't liability on the part of colleges or employers for mandating a vaccination, notwithstanding there is some risk. College students upset about vaccine injuries are gonna have to go to the manufacturers for that (actually, more likely the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)). And, as for the Covid-19 vaccine, manufacturers were given immunity an the VICP process is not available. There's a separate program, which presumably you know given the linked article acknowledges all this.

Why, then, do you think colleges will get sued for 20-30 years? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[Magister]

COVID vaccine injuries fall under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). "The [Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA)] specifically affords to drug makers immunity from actions related to the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration and use of medical countermeasures against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear agents of terrorism, epidemics, and pandemics." CICP covers those countermeasures, while VICP covers vaccines developed at a less rapid pace.

People who want to blame Democrats ignore that PREPA was passed in 2005 by Republicans and applied to COVID-19 by HHS declaration of a public health emergency in 2020. Vaccine manufacturers want less liability or they won't make vaccines; vaccine consumers want compensation for injury or they won't take vaccines. It is of course a very principled conservative and libertarian position to demand that big government fix that problem. But considering the amounts spent against economic injury during the COVID pandemic, it may also be true that CICP is too stingy compensating those who deserve it.

A compounding factor is that political polarization has made COVID-19 vaccines the embodiment of all evil, and under a more generous compensation program they will be blamed for injuries from ingesting bleach, nebulizing hydrogen peroxide, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, other quack remedies or causes unrelated to COVID vaccination, or for non-existent injuries. (People who believe that COVID-19 was a Chinese bioweapon, but nevertheless think it's safer than countermeasures created by their own government, are hard to understand.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Great comment. And, yes, your last parenthetical is a head scratcher.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you trust the governments of Western Europe?.

There is evidence that -- long term -- one is safer not having been vaccinated. It looks to me like statistically valid research from countries with national health systems and hence solid databases.

[Magister]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency agree that the approved COVID-19 vaccines are safe.

There is also widespread agreement that Dr. Ed 2 is almost always wrong, as when he trusts COVID-19 infection, with its risk of long COVID, over the countermeasures created by Western governments., which have saved millions of lives.

[David Nieporent]

Not only is Dr. Ed simply making shit up (shocker!), but talking about covid vaccines internationally doesn't necessarily make sense because different vaccines were used elsewhere as opposed to the U.S.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn't New York change its statute of limitations on sexual assaults in response to populist pressure? Couldn't other laws also be changed in a similar manner in the future?

[Magister]

Yes. The statute of limitations change in New York was for civil claims. More likely, the government will fund increased compensation rather than risk having no vaccine manufacturers due to increased liability.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A conversation with a cab driver today -- the entire concept of rule of law is breaking down in this country.

It used to be that if you committed a crime (and got caught) you got punished. No one cared WHY you committed the crime.

Now you are exempt from prosecution if you commit a crime for the right political reasons, while some people are allowed to toss their political opponents into jail. Or try to.

Objectively, Biden is way dirtier than Trump.

I'm not sure it is good for the country to prosecute either, but to only prosecute one while ignoring the other?!?

That's the sort of thing that destroys respect for the system...

[Martinned]

.

Objectively, Biden is way dirtier than Trump.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Magister]

I expect WuzYoungOnceToo will be along soon to complain about your sense of humor.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You seem to be sure of a great many things that are false...because you're just not very bright.

[Magister]

Things I expect are not necessarily things I am sure of. And yet here you are, a Grumpus unable to get the jokes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

a Grumpus unable to get the jokes.

Like I said, you're just not very bright.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hope you didn't wet your pants.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

If you stare at that block of HA long enough with unfocused eyes, a hidden image of the miniature village of Madurodam emerges.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're a funny mfer.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Nice Joker impression, but technically, each "HA" should be followed by a space.

[Z Crazy]

There's a difference.

Brandon's not competent to stand trial.

[Mr. Bumble]

Could have quit after "competent".

[NOVA Lawyer]

Dr. Ed,

“I’m not sure it is good for the country to prosecute either, but to only prosecute one while ignoring the other?!?”

There’s this thing called evidence. You should look into it and that may clarify the situation for you. I know it’s an article of faith on the right that Biden did some very bad things, but the House committee tasked (literally) with finding an impeachable (or prosecutable or at least damaging) offense found zilch.

Just one example, will suffice to show why your framing is wrong:

1. Trump took classified documents (you’re going to say Biden did too).

2. Trump showed classified documents to people he wasn’t supposed to show them to (Biden didn’t).

3. Trump refused to return them (Biden didn’t).

4. Trump lied that he had returned all of the documents (Biden didn’t).

5. Trump tried to hide the classified documents he unlawfully retained from discovery and otherwise obstruct the FBI in finding them after lying that he didn’t still have them (Biden didn’t).

The whole false equivalence falls apart on any rational comparison of the two.

You’re worried about business dealings. You think, but nobody has shown, that Biden got paid by foreign entities (while he was a private citizen, but details, details). But you think Trump never cashed any foreign checks while renting hotel rooms, selling golf memberships, etc.? Of course, he did. Not big money? We don’t know that. But even if so, Jared Kushner, after having done MBS a solid as a US government official appointed by Trump, made many more millions than is alleged of Joe Biden from a business deal that was directly approved by MBS (and opposed by MBS’s financial people because Kushner had no experience managing money). One of these looks worse than the others, but neither was prosecuted. It cuts against your narrative. Kushner should be in the hot seat. It clearly looks like a quid pro quo, but we don’t have evidence to prove that and prosecute. That’s the problem with the alleged Biden thing (only it’s not even clear what the quid pro quo is supposed to have been), there is not evidence of the alleged thing that makes business with foreigners (or anyone else) illegal.

The threat to democracy is if someone, such as Trump, can simply thumb his nose at the law if he reaches a high enough position. That’s how you ensure that corruption increases at an exponential rate. The rule of law means holding people accountable, no matter their position, when you know they have broken the law, especially when they were as brazen about it as Trump was in the classified documents case.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump was President at the time he took the documents, Biden was a Senator. BIG difference.

And are you now suddenly believing that Trump always tells the truth? If he told you that the Amtrak schedule was classified, would you inherently believe him?

[David Nieporent]

Trump was not president when he took the documents, and was certainly not president when he kept the documents, hid the documents, and lied about keeping the documents.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“And are you now suddenly believing that Trump always tells the truth?”

That’s a stupid interpretation. No, I believe he sometimes tells the truth, but only when it serves him. We know he had classified documents and that he had the ones he claimed to be showing. It’s not the worst defense that he lies more than he tells the truth, so the odds are he’s lying. There’s at least logic based on facts there. But it’s gonna be a hard sell. Even if he tries that and wins on that aspect, the showing of the documents is a minor part of the case.

And then what do you do next? Claim the FBI should have known the lying liar was lying so it’s not so bad he lied about turning everything over? I don’t think you’ve thought through that entire strategy.

[SRG2]

I am reminded of that song, "how could you believe me when I said I love you because you know I've been a liar all my life?"

[NOVA Lawyer]

+1

[Don Nico]

"increases at an exponential rate. "
Please do not use a word that clearly you do not understand.
Increases rapidly, maybe.
Increases exponentially, definitely not.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Increases exponentially, definitely not.”

Unlikely? Perhaps. But definitely? It’s you who are using words you don’t understand which would include at least one of definitely and exponentially, and perhaps both.

Go look at a chart of linear growth, cubic growth, and exponential growth (as you are clearly unfamiliar with the patterns) and tell me that a factor that increases corruption (e.g., failing to hold powerful leaders to account because politics) cannot do so exponentially.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd argue that, since corruption tops out at 100%, at worst it can grow sigmoidally. Which does look exponential at first...

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is a cogent and intelligent response. You are correct. I stand corrected. Sigmoidal growth would be a better descriptor of an actually likely form of growth.

Although, as you imply, the early stages of sigmoidal growth are, essentially, exponential growth.

[Don Nico]

NOVA, You are really arrogant in your know-nothingness. How about you write the differential equation for your “exponential” growth. I have worked with differential equations, growth patterns, etc. my entire career. I also know about constraints and boundary conditions that limit patterns of growth.

So lets see your equation, your definitions of the variables (and their ranges of definition), and the applicable boundary conditions. If you can do that, I’ll consider whether you are able to think quantitatively or are just a hapless litigator who is just full of himself.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Too bad you don't know as much about statistics and differential equations, growth patterns, etc., as Brett. You could have made a reasonable critique and improvement on my terminology (assuming, somewhat ridiculously, that I was referring to a technical description of the growth rate of corruption as opposed to the colloquial meaning of the phrase.*).

But, you remain wrong. In the early stages of the break down of the rule of law by exempting first the top leaders, then the next level, and on down the preferred political chain, the growth rate of corruption is likely to be exponential (though, in the long term, it would, as Brett points out, have to be sigmoidal).

The initial equation is, of course, quite simple:

f(x) = a(1+r)^x Where a is the initial amount of corruption, r is the rate of growth (say anything between 0.00001 and 0.05) and x is years since the initial breakdown and is less than 15.

Corruption can grow exponentially over that period.

* Dictionary.com: In everyday speech, exponential growth means runaway expansion, such as in population growth.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. Trump took classified documents (you’re going to say Biden did too)."

Well, he did, so I'm not sure of your complaint on this point.

"2. Trump showed classified documents to people he wasn’t supposed to show them to (Biden didn’t)."

We don't actually know that Biden didn't. In fact, since he had people without security clearances conducting the search for them, he actually did.

"3. Trump refused to return them (Biden didn’t)."

This kind of runs into #4, doesn't it?

"4. Trump lied that he had returned all of the documents (Biden didn’t)."

Biden repeatedly claimed to have returned all the documents, then "found" more. Was he lying? Is he lying now? Quite possibly, it's not like he's been subject to the sort of searches that would uncover a lie on this point.

"5. Trump tried to hide the classified documents he unlawfully retained from discovery and otherwise obstruct the FBI in finding them after lying that he didn’t still have them (Biden didn’t)."

Again, Biden said that he'd returned them all, then 'found' more, which is really hard to distinguish from lying about having more.

[Nige]

It'll never not be hilarious that Trump was incapable of dealing with the whole thing without blowing it up all over his own face while his supporters whine and complain pointing out how by co-operating and coming clean and not threatening civil war others manage to avoid doing the same.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

1. "I’m not sure of your complaint on this point"

Who's complaining? I'm predicting, accurately, whataboutism.

2. "We don’t actually know that Biden didn’t. In fact, since he had people without security clearances conducting the search for them, he actually did."

First, these two sentences are directly contradictory.

Second, if we don't know Biden did, that is a very important distinguish factor as to why one might be prosecuted and the other not. Showing off classified documents you aren't supposed to have makes the having them and keeping them and hiding them worse.

Third, if Biden had people without clearances searching for classified documents and they weren't able to search and locate them by simply noting the classified folders they were in, but actually had to look at the documents, all facts which aren't established, it still is less bad as the access he provided was to people he trusted for the purpose of returning the documents. Trump's purpose was for his own benefit, not in order to attempt (though with inadvertent additional technical violations) to do the right thing. This too would weigh in favor of leniency (including because it cuts against a malicious state of mind) in the one case and prosecution in the other.

3. "This kind of runs into #4, doesn’t it?"

Runs into, perhaps. Depending on what you mean by that. But it was an initial escalation not present in the Biden case. When this escalation of wrongdoing didn't get Trump what he wanted, he then proceeded to #4.

4. "Was he lying? Is he lying now? Quite possibly..."

Again, assuming the worst possible interpretation of facts for which we have any proof, Trump knew he had documents which the government wanted back and he kept them and he told the government he didn't have them. These are all provable facts. Trump's was a lie. The facts you've laid out indicate Biden said he didn't have any more documents and thought he didn't have any more documents and then it turned out he did and he turned them over of his own accord. There is no lie there. At best, you have negligence in saying something was true that turned out not to be true without sufficiently investigating the truth. But, however you slice it, not a lie. It's only a lie if he knew he had the documents, but kept them while telling the government he didn't. Something you undoubtedly will speculate about, but for which you have no evidence.

As court cases are built on evidence, this too is a strong factor in why Trump is being prosecuted and Biden is not.

5. "Biden said that he’d returned them all, then ‘found’ more, which is really hard to distinguish from lying about having more."

It's actually really easy to distinguish. Being mistakenly wrong is widely, perhaps universally, seen as being less bad than intentionally saying untrue things. As state of mind is an important element of criminal law, the fact that we have evidence of Trump's bad intent because he lied makes his case more prosecutable than Biden's because we have no evidence he lied rather than was mistaken, even if negligently mistaken.

You are smart enough to know all this. So I know, whether you'll admit it or not, there is a much stronger case for prosecuting Trump over the classified documents he wrongfully kept, wrongfully hid, lied to the FBI about keeping and hiding them, and wrongfully tried to obstruct the FBI from learning he had kept, hid, and lied about keeping them. Ergo, Trump isn't being unfairly persecuted. He is being fairly prosecuted.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe instead of “pardoning” turkeys, presidents could use Thanksgiving to inform the public about the human beings he’s pardoned and (in the case of released prisoners) why he decided to let them spend Thanksgiving with their families.

IIRC the turkey pardoning goes back less than 100 years and was originally intended to cater to Big Turkey. I could be wrong, it’s been known to happen.

But if the focus is going to be pardons in this season, it’s a good opportunity to educate the public on how from time to time it’s necessary to soften the rigor of the law, or even free an innocent person (assuming for the sake of argument that there’s innocent people in federal prison. /sarc)

[Bored Lawyer]

The turkey pardoning thing I always thought was asinine. So one or two turkeys are spared, while thousands of others are slaughtered so that America can dine on the birds. The presidents, I am sure, ate turkey on Thanksgiving, so who are they kidding?

Furthermore, this is an extra-constitutional act. The Constitution states that "The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States . . ." Turkeys are not slaughtered for that reason, so a pardon is ultra vires.

[Magister]

It is stupid, and the turkeys did not commit an offense and should demand habeas poultrus.

If an animal killed someone (under federal jurisdiction) and was ordered destroyed, could the President commute that sentence?

[Bored Lawyer]

"habeas poultrus" -- lots of people will be saying that one today. 😉

[Magister]

Ha! I guess I should not try to be a turkey lawyer.

[Magister]

But on the other hand, I did get my client a light sentence of only 15 minutes per pound.

At 350 degrees.

[Dr. Ed 2]

US/Canadian border now closed due to suspected terrorist incident.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12781031/Explosion-Rainbow-Bridge-Niagara-Falls-Governor-closes-FOUR-international-border-crossings-Canada.html

I hope this is all of it, and fear it isn't...

[Sarcastr0]

Looks like it was much less dramatic than you thought, as always.

[Magister]

But do note that Dr. Ed 2 did not immediately call for Canada to be nuked.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What, exactly, was incorrect? All four bridges crossing the border WERE closed (three later reopened) and you gotta admit that a vehicle flying through the air and exploding *is* dramatic.

I said "suspected" which is what the authorities (not I) were saying at the time.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators…Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. I recently had a conversation with an illegal alien recently arrived from South America. Do you know why they come here to America? It is because we have something truly magical here. This is a place where anyone can become nearly anything, and is free to do so. Unbelievable, right? I am profoundly grateful to be an American. This thought – my total gratitude for living in America, a magical place of endless possibility – will be uppermost in my mind as I sit down to Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow (I will no doubt be tired…Commenter_XY is the chef…I am not so great on cleanup, my beloved DW tells me…oh well).

For the culinary VC Conspirators, I offer you some ridiculously simple and tasty side dishes, courtesy of Tori Avey (my absolute FAVORITE Tribal recipe website). The recipe links below are for tahini glazed carrots, spicy roasted sweet potato, and apple pie pudding. All are easy prep, with pictures to follow along.

https://toriavey.com/holiday-recipes/

For the sweet potato recipe, you can use curry or garam masala if you do not like the heat. I have done both and it is amazing. Make sure baking sheets are oiled, you don’t want the carrots or sweet potatoes to stick – it is a mess (ask me how I know! lol).

We cross swords frequently in this place. Sometimes deftly, other times maybe not so much. I am glad VC is here, it is something I appreciate – the discussion of law, and the application in our daily life. I am grateful for this too.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit has upheld a District Court order dismissing a lawsuit seeking to remove Trump from the ballot on insurrection grounds.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/23-1902P-01A.pdf

In my words, John Castro was not a real candidate. He hadn't even filed for ballot access. He only wanted to get Trump off the ballot, not beat Trump in an election. He lacked standing and any opinion on the insurrection angle would be purely advisory. The court, despite its stated reluctance to render an advisory opinion, went on to say that paying the filing fee after suing would not be enough to give him standing.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in 2A news:
Judge Obliterates Oregon's Newest Gun Grab

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2023/11/22/oregon-judge-rules-that-bullets-are-essential-to-guns-n4924131

[not guilty]

CNN reports that House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed support for Clarence Toady's call for revisiting Supreme Court decisions that struck down restrictions on the use of contraception, barred bans on gay sex and legalized same sex marriages. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/21/politics/mike-johnson-kfile-invs/index.html

Johnson made his bones as an attorney for religiously motivated activist groups on Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war. I wish that Johnson would find a deity whom he doesn't perceive as being such a weenie that He needs help from Caesar.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Checking Wikipedia, I see that Eric Rudolph is on a side of the culture war which supports eugenics and "prefer[s] Nietzsche to the Bible," while professing the Catholic faith.

Leopold and Loeb loved Nietzsche, too, though I don't think they claimed to believe in any traditional religion.

[Magister]

Margrave once again searches a Wikipedia article for dregs of evidence that a terrorist is not on the side Margrave favors.

The only mention of eugenics in the Wikipedia article is

Rudolph has said, “The truth is I am a Christian”. Rudolph remained unrepentant for his actions and, in a statement before the court, called his acts against abortion providers a “moral duty.” “As I go to a prison cell for a lifetime, I know that ‘I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith,’” Rudolph said, quoting scripture. In his work “White Lies: Abortion, Eugenics, And Racism” Rudolph expresses his admirations towards Catholicism.

So Margrave should also conclude that Rudolph is in favor of abortion.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Good thing there aren't any unambiguously left-wing terrorists.

[Magister]

Nobody said that. Margrave claimed Eric Rudolph supports eugenics and now tries to deflect from that foolishness.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

No, I misread the Wikipedia entry, but the Nietzsche part is quite true.

And guilt by association would cut both ways even if this Nietzsche fan was a religious conservative.

I suspect that the new Speaker, far from endorsing Rudolph, would have preferred to have him sentenced to death and executed. Would you support this?

[Magister]

No more needed to be said.

I misread the Wikipedia entry

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I haven't misread *you.* You're going to ignore left-wing terrorism and pin Rudolph's crimes on people who (unlike you) would have liked to see him sentenced to death and executed for those crimes.

[Magister]

You can't deflect from your incorrect statement about Eric Rudolph's motivation with bad logic. I'm not trying to pin Eric Rudolph's crimes on anyone except Eric Rudolph, so you have indeed misread me.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I beg your pardon.

The original comment said that the Speaker of the House was like Eric Rudolph - I pushed back against that idea and you pushed back against me. But now I see that wasn't because you agreed with the original comment. Your only concern was with my misinterpretation of a Wikipedia article.

[Magister]

I posted not only to quibble about one statement from Wikipedia. As stated, this is not the first time that Margrave sifted through a Wikipedia article about a right-wing bomber to find anything he can spin as being left-wing or at least not right-wing.

The original statement does correctly put Mike Johnson and Eric Rudolph on the same side with respect to abortion and LGBTQ rights, but they disagree on whether to personally commit domestic terrorism bombings, and there's not much other reason to bring Eric Rudolph up. So I do not endorse the original statement which veers into "you know who else wanted to ban guns? Hitler!" territory. It is bad that Mike Johnson and Clarence Thomas want to revisit rulings on contraception, gay sex and same sex marriage (but not interracial marriage?), and they are on the wrong side of the culture war, and this is wrong without regard to which extremists are on which side.

Why did Eric Rudolph say in one letter he preferred Nietzsche to the Bible? Apparently, to sneer at stupid Christians who supported him (but also wanted save his soul). Perhaps annoyed that they thought he needed saving. Perhaps a deranged interpretation of "So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.", rejecting them for not going as far as Rudolph did. Perhaps because the Bible said "Thou shalt not kill" and Nietzsche was less judgmental (although Rudolph would seem not to have taken "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster" as applying to himself). Perhaps because "Nietzsche" was the name on his sled as a child. Perhaps because Nietzsche's work has a beat and you can dance to it. Whatever it may be, it's an awful thin distinction to make between Johnson and Rudolph, especially compared to, you know, that whole domestic terrorism bombing thing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"this is not the first time that Margrave sifted through a Wikipedia article about a right-wing bomber to find anything he can spin as being left-wing or at least not right-wing."

Without rummaging through the archives, I suppose you're referring to the opponent of the male-only draft who killed a judge over some other issue.

I was pushing back against the narrative that this assassin was some typical right-winger. Wikipedia mentioned his opposition to the male-only draft because he considered it sexist.

A typical right-wing position. /sarc

[Magister]

No, the Unabomber.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You’ll have to remind me.

But I see this about the recently-suicided Unabomber's manifesto. He *does* renounce leftism, but there's this:

"The Labadie Collection of the University of Michigan houses a copy of Industrial Society and its Future, which has been translated into French, remains on college reading lists, and was updated in Kaczynski's 2019 Technological Slavery, Volume One. Revised and Expanded Edition, which defends his political philosophy in greater depth."

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

I haven't read the manifesto or the book elaborating on it, but what keeps it on "college reading lists"?

Here's Rolling Stone's article on the manifesto:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/flashback-unabomber-publishes-his-manifesto-125449/

Sample:

"Kaczynski, who has stated admiration for the eco-anarchist movement (“but I think they could do it better,” he also said in an interview in 1999), takes aim at both leftists, including “socialists, collectivists, ‘politically correct’ types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like”). He also writes, “conservatives are fools,” and that they’re, “just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.” Kaczynski even engages in some gaslighting: “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.”...

"Yet there is something to be taken away from his words if you read closely; it’s that we give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society’s standards. That, and we’re too plugged in. We’re letting technology take over our lives, willingly. It’s the sort of thing that doesn’t take a madman dressed up like a prophet to tell us; it’s all too evident. Kaczynski, to steal a phrase from the tech world, was just an early adopter of these thoughts. Yet his warning will probably forever go unnoticed because of the horrific deeds he carried out to get his message across."

He seemed to deem himself a critic of...well, a lot of stuff.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I should explain the use/mention distinction: I quoted the Unabomber and Rolling Stone not to elicit sympathy for him or Rolling Stone (which God forbid!) but to illustrate him not being a right-winger.

But if you claim, on your word of honor as a gentleman, that I used to make broader claims for the Unabomber, then I’ll take you at your word without you having to rummage through the digital archives.

[Magister]

"One of yours," you told Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland (in response to a list of failures, including Kaczynski, that he believed appealed to the "clingers"), cherry picking from Wikipedia in similar fashion. I pointed out his rejection of the left. Kaczynski's complaints about the right seem more that they wouldn't go as far as he did.

Take a look at the Wikipedia article about Ecofascism, a right wing movement; in particular, the sections on Kaczynski as an inspiration and the movement's association with violence.

According to a Vanity Fair article, the Buffalo, New York white supremacist terrorist

borrows from Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber, who over 17 years murdered three and injured 23 on behalf of a kind of eco-fascism sometimes mistaken for a form of leftism. Kaczynski was no leftist. Leftists, he wrote in the passage Gendron takes without attribution, “hate anything that has an image of being strong, good, and successful,” including “white males” and “rationality.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/the-terrifying-familiarity-of-the-buffalo-shooting-suspects-extremist-screed

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What a memory!

“(in response to a list of failures, including Kaczynski, that he believed appealed to the “clingers”)”

So I was replying to Kirkland, was I? Well, that ought to have elicited a meticulously developed, non-hyperbolic reply, given that Kirkland's remarks are always meticulously-researched, and in good faith. /sarc

Do you want to tie each terrorist group to a political faction in U. S. politics? What "faction" do the Hamas sympathizers of recent days belong to?

[Magister]

It was the first lengthy back-and-forth exchange I had in VC comments, and I pondered it for some time after. Curiously, the reply was specific to a single item, Kaczynski, in Kirkland's examples of right wing decline.

Do you want to tie each terrorist group to a political faction in U. S. politics? What “faction” do the Hamas sympathizers of recent days belong to?

You can find comparisons of the levels of politically motivated violence, in which right wing extremists are generally more likely to engage in violent behavior. Islamist terrorism is often separated out, although it seems to share a lot of attributes with right wing extremists, like fundamentalism and authoritarianism. Certainly some motivations are ambiguous (like anarchists and environmentalists) or personal (such as apolitical serial killers) but still, in the US, most tend to gravitate to what they view as the more sympathetic side of "the evil duopoly".

You'd have to be more specific in what you mean by "Hamas sympathizers". Those who are associated with Islamist terrorism are probably right wing. Those who criticize Israel's actions as violations of international law and human rights are often labeled "Hamas sympathizers" even as they steadily denounce Hamas, but also seem unlikely to engage in terrorism. I'd like to continue to stay out of arguments over Israel and Palestinians (besides criticizing Dr. Ed 2's "Nuke Gaza!" advocacy).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

We’ve had plenty of pro-Hamas examples mentioned in VC – that is, people who went far beyond denouncing alleged humanitarian-law violations by Israel. If you can recall and ponder old discussions, you’d presumably be familiar with those more recent ones.

Of course, if you consider authoritarianism to be right wing, why not put Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. in the right-wing column? Of course, you’d be redefining terms so as to make them meaningless, so you’re in fact that flexible with terminology, why not abandon the left/right dichotomy altogether and open yourself to the possibility that there’s a duopoly which combines the worst features of “both sides”?

[Magister]

I don't ponder arguments I'm not in very much; please reread the last sentence of my previous post.

Dictators are often opportunistic and less likely to engage in terrorism outside their own nations; Islamist terrorism is the main example. They gain support from authoritarian followers without necessarily manifesting the psychological traits associated with authoritarianism (which differs between left and right anyway). Within the US, the right wing is more likely to be authoritarian and violently extremist. It doesn't require flexibility in terminology there.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Islamist terrorism…seems to share a lot of attributes with right wing extremists, like fundamentalism *and authoritarianism*.” [emphasis added]

Is a much stronger statement than

“*Within the US*, the right wing is more likely to be authoritarian and violently extremist” [emphasis added]

The first remark would make the perpetrators of the Stalinist terror into right-wingers. That requires a degree of flexibility in terminology.

[Magister]

Stalin doesn't seem a fundamentalist, even if you want to cast Soviet Communism as a religion. He engaged in purges to solidify his power, not to advance a vision. Joining the United States and the United Kingdom in World War II seems pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

In any case, it's a different matter to classify violent dictators, who control a country and more often act to maintain or expand their power, versus violent terrorists who act on their extreme beliefs.

(The word "seems" makes the first statement weaker, with "more likely" a close runner-up.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"The word “seems” makes the first statement weaker"

the "seems" was about the comparison between Islamist terrorism and right-wing extremists. The right-wing character of authoritarianism was taken for granted in your remark - not a matter of "seems."

[Magister]

Authoritarianism is indeed a characteristic of right-wing extremists, but I listed fundamentalism first for a reason. Dictators are generally not examples of extremist violence, because their violence is not primarily motivated by their ideology. It is incorrect to conclude from my statement that any dictator must be a right-wing extremist because of authoritarianism; but my statement was probably unclear -- the authoritarianism I mean is the authoritarian personality, a propensity to support fascism, rather than the political system that rejects democracy (although extremists typically reject democracy, as they are trying to change things without popular support).

[not guilty]

Eric Rudolph's obsessions included legal abortion, homosexual behavior and white supremacy. He is serving consecutive life sentences for bombing abortion clinics and a lesbian bar.

IOW, he is the poster boy for "Christian" right wing zealots.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He’s the poster boy for supporters of the death penalty.

I wouldn't have minded seeing him sentenced to death and executed, what about you?

[not guilty]

I am opposed to the death penalty. I am very glad to see Rudolph serving four consecutive life sentences, having pleaded guilty in order to avoid the possible imposition of a death sentence.

Rudolph is among "the worst of the worst," as that phrase is often used in death penalty litigation.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I had a suspicion that you opposed the death penalty. I would at least like to see it for terrorism, even if the terrorist wants to save his life with a plea.

But be thankful, this Thanksgiving, for small mercies: at least he isn't holding a professorship in an American university as happened to some terrorists.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If he's already "the poster boy of right .wing zealots" then executing him would make him their maytar....

You need to think about this sort of thing -- do *NOT* give fanatics maytars. History has shown that there are lots of really bad things that result from doing this...

[Brett Bellmore]

"Clarence Toady’s call for revisiting Supreme Court decisions"

Said call.

"After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

Thomas' position on substantive due process is essentially the same as mine: It's an oxymoron. There's no question at all that rights were supposed to have been incorporated against the states via the P&I clause.

The Slaugherhouse Court gutted the P&I clause in order to gut the 14th amendment, and the Court for its own reasons didn't want to overturn that gutting. So instead 'substantive' due process was invoked to do the work of the dead clause.

We both agree that substantive due process has to go, and incorporation has to take place under the P&I clause. This has significant implications, such as the fact that only citizens are entitled to P&I.

[Bored Lawyer]

So an Ohio man of Arab descent claimed that he was the victim of an anti-Palestinian hate crime, when someone hit him with a car shouting "Death to Palestinians." CAIR released a press statement condemning the Islamophobia.

Then the cops investigated, determined he was lying and was really hurt in a fight with his brother, and charged him with making false statements. CAIR released a wishy-washy retraction, and again condemned Islamophobia.

https://nypost.com/2023/11/18/news/hesham-a-ayyad-lied-about-anti-palestinian-hate-crime-cops/

Seems like the demand for hate crimes exceeds the supply.

[Mr. Bumble]

Arab Juicy Smollett?

[Kazinski]

Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom won the most seats in the Dutch elections. But that’s still only 35 seats and he needs 76 seats for a majority. Still it looks like the right of center parties should be able to form a coalition.

Wilders has talked about a referendum on leaving the EU, which probably won't happen, but it also gives you an idea where he's coming from. That and ending immigration from Muslim countries and stop taking asylum seekers.

[Martinned]

And banning mosques, and banning the Quran, and headscarves within government buildings, and stopping all asylum, regardless of origin, and banning dual nationality, and abolishing the senate, and stopping the government from publishing information materials in Arabic or Turkish, and sharply reducing the number of foreign students at Dutch universities, and stopping military aid for Ukraine, and kicking Turkey out of NATO, and ending all development aid.

https://twitter.com/bencoates1/status/1727608887916818612

[Mr. Bumble]

...so, sounds pretty good.

[Martinned]

So not a fan of the first amendment then?

(It's not a surprise that you're not a fan of the 14th, but I would have expected you to at least pretend to care about things like freedom of religion.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...not when the "religion" calls for the death of non-believers.

[Martinned]

Old Testament:
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

New Testament:
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

[Dan Schiavetta]

The New Testament quote is not Jesus talking but a character in one of his parables.

“It’s not quite clear the words that you just spoke

Was that a parable or a very subtle joke?”

[Both Sides]

Just wanted you to know that at least one reader here got that song reference. Very underrated album!

[Dan Schiavetta]

There was nobody like him. Not being a philosophy major I didn’t get some of the references.

Check out Weird Al’s video version of “Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm” and get transported back to 1994 (his version was called “Headline News”)

[Voize]

"Was"?
They have faded from prominence but they haven't disappeared, in fact they are on tour now.

[Bored Lawyer]

"kicking Turkey out of NATO" -- something which should be given serious consideration.

[Magister]

Sure, we don't like the whey they treat curds, but it won't matter. Turkey pardoning is now an American tradition.

[Don Nico]

OUCH !

[Commenter_XY]

BL, I don’t think there is a way to do it. What’s the exit clause (or a we want to boot your useless and untrustworthy ass out clause) for a NATO member? I don’t think there is one. Any country leave NATO yet?

Although the Turk leaders are treacherous SOBs, that country's geography is unique. Perhaps LBJ's admonition applies wrt the Turks: Better to have them inside the tent pissing out, instead of the outside pissing in.

[Martinned]

As a practical matter, you kick Turkey out of NATO by having everybody else exit NATO and then creating a new NATO without Turkey. But I agree that it's unlikely to be a good idea.

[John F. Carr]

According to Politico ("The EU's Worst Nightmare") he dropped the mosque ban to make himself a more attractive coalition partner.

Having Turkey in NATO made sense when the country was adjacent to the Soviet Union. Now Turkey under Erdogan is more of a troublemaker. Without treaty obligations we could recognize Kurdistan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was Turkey's mountains that we wanted electronic listening posts on -- and I presume we still do. But that was 40-50 years ago and I wonder what we can do with satellites now.

Both Turkey and Iran could have become far more (small "l") liberal and Obama quashed that. And if Turkey declares war on Israel, as it has threatened to, we will have a real mess....

[Martinned]

Well, "dropped" is a relative term. He said that it was "less of a priority, for now".

But of course the whole point of proportionate representation is that he will now have to compromise with other parties to form a government.

[not guilty]

Team Trump has filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss the D.C. prosecution for selective and vindictive prosecution. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.161.0.pdf

The defense still does not grasp that the sine qua non of a selective prosecution claim is that persons situated similarly to the accused, who were known to the prosecutor, have committed essentially the same offenses but nevertheless were not prosecuted. Absent evidence of such similarly situated offenders, the motion should be denied.

A person is “similarly situated” for selective prosecution purposes only if he “committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant—so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government’s enforcement priorities and enforcement plan—and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant.” United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 810 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Stone, 394 F.Supp.3d 1, 31 (D.D.C. 2019).

[Magister]

What's the standard for "vindictive prosecution"?

[not guilty]

I'll reply later, after dinner with my daughter.

[Magister]

Thank you!

[not guilty]

In our system, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978). However, a criminal prosecution which would not have been initiated but for vindictiveness is constitutionally prohibited by due process guaranties. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-28 (1974). A prosecutor vindictively prosecutes a person when he or she acts to deter the exercise of a protected right by the person prosecuted. The issue is most frequently litigated when a criminal defendant obtains relief from his conviction on appeal or collateral attack, and thereafter the prosecutor "ups the ante" by bringing additional or more severe charges.

A defendant may establish prosecutorial vindictiveness through one of two approaches. First, a defendant may demonstrate "actual vindictiveness," i.e., he may establish through objective evidence that a prosecutor acted in order to punish the defendant for standing on his legal rights. This showing, however, is "exceedingly difficult to make." United States v. Meyer, 810 F.2d 1242, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Second, a defendant may establish that, in the particular factual situation presented, there existed a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" for the prosecutor's action. A court may only presume an improper vindictive motive when a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 373 (1982). When the facts indicate "a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness," a presumption will arise obliging the government to come forward with objective evidence justifying the prosecutorial action. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. at 27-29, 29 n.7; <United States v. Meyer, 810 F.2d at 1245. If the government produces such evidence, the defendant's only hope is to prove that the justification is pretextual and that actual vindictiveness has occurred. But if the government fails to present such evidence, the presumption stands and the court must find that the prosecutor acted vindictively. Meyer, at 1245.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Respectfully, you are citing current precedent.

The wild card is what SCOTUS might rule.

[not guilty]

I seriously doubt that SCOTUS will revisit the selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution doctrines at Donald Trump's behest. In any event, neither issue is appealable prior to trial. United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263 (1982); United States v. Howard, 867 F.2d 548, 552 (9th Cir. 1989).

[David Nieporent]

A common tactic of a graduate of Twitter Law School like Dr. Ed is, when schooled by actual lawyers about actual law, to start gesticulating wildly and say, "Well, the law could change."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Former Pres. Trump has been and is being prosecuted repeatedly, in differing jurisdictions, some federal and some state. Do Trump's lawyers contend that (1) all of the relevant prosecutors are acting in concert, vindictively and selectively or (2) all of the relevant prosecutors are acting vindictively, selectively, and independently?

It seems reasonable to conclude that the most likely reason for these prosecutions is a series of improper actions and a vivid pattern of wrongdoing.

How many judges (well, other than Aileen Cannon) would be likely to perceive either a web of conspiring federal and state prosecutors or the remarkable likelihood that a half-dozen or so prosecutors independently engaged in vindictive and selective prosecution?

This seems a delaying tactic bordering on frivolous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

All it will take is 5 SCOTUS Justices.

Kagan is the wild card because while I suspect she despises Trump, she still retains some of the Dean of Harvard Law mentality and might be morally offended by some of this stuff. Of all nine, I think she is most likely to understand what a Trump II AG could do to the left -- and doesn't want to see that happen...