Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving and enjoyed their long weekend.

[Enrique]

Same to you! For my part, I spent this Thanksgiving editing my new paper on Outer Space Auctions: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4447205

[SRG2]

Thank you! As both an SF fan and someone involved in auction markets, I very much look forward to reading it.

[Enrique]

thanks for reading my work!

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, yes, the lamb chops really were quite good, and I still had some big turkey wings and stuffing to get my turkey fix in.

[Frank Drackman]

got back Saturday, always get chills when I see the Statue of Liberty (OK, we were flying into JFK from the north, I know she's down there), went through the same Customs Moe-hammad Atta went through in 2000 (does it really make sense to have Moose-lum TSA Officers?), and made it to the In-laws on Long Goy-land just in time to watch my Tigers grab defeat from the jaws of Victory...
Everyone ready for the College Foo-bawl Championship game on Saturday?

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Welcome back....Am Yisrael thanks you for pitching in.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

does it really make sense to have Moose-lum TSA Officers?

Welcome back

One conservative Volokh Conspiracy fan expresses the customary bigotry, and another right-wing fan of this blog responds with 'great to have you back.'

Carry on, clingers . . . but only so long as your stale, ugly thinking could carry anyone in modern America, and only so far as better Americans permit.

[Frank Drackman]

I was about to say that volunteering in Israel was a great experience and recommend it to all of the Conspirators, and I do, except for a certain disgraced former Penn State Defensive Coordinator who I wouldn't have minded had been coaching Auburn's "D" on Saturday (even Jerry wouldn't only rush 2 on a 4th and goal from the 31)

Frank

[hobie]

Not sure what skills he could bring to Israel. He hates foreigners. Bad grammar. Whatever job he has he mustn't do it well because he spends most working hours soiling this blog with juvenile screeds

[Aunt Teefah]

I'm sure his contributions to the IDF's Sperm Retrieval Brigade were appreciated. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-09/ty-article-magazine/.premium/we-operate-24-7-the-race-to-preserve-israeli-soldiers-sperm/0000018b-af34-dea2-a9bf-ffbee1470000

Frank, the people of Israel - and the pure bloodlines they seek to preserve - thank you for your cervix o7 o7

[Frank Drackman]

WTF are you talking about you stupid (redacted)?? Israel's diverse as (redacted)
and what is it with you (redacted) "Klinging" (get it?) to the crotch of Moe-hammad, if you had to pick a particular group that never has and doesn't now like Blacks it's the Moose-lums.
We now return you to Kinder/Gentler Frank

[David Nieporent]

Aunt Teefah still can't get past that antisemitism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you prefer the Volokh Conspiracy's -- and Drackman's -- Islamophobia.

And this white, male blog's incessant racism?

How about Prof. Volokh's trans fixation?

[not guilty]

When abortion rights opponents clamored for Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), to be overruled, one primary argument was that SCOTUS should allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens wish.

Now Republican officials in various states are fighting tooth and nail to prevent referenda regarding abortion rights to be placed on the ballot. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4323663-5-states-where-the-abortion-fight-is-likely-to-play-out-next/ This shows that the argument was never about allowing state by state determination of whether safe and legal abortion should be available -- it is instead about government intrusion upon citizens' sex lives.

The hypocrisy reeks.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or in your case, hypocrisy rocks.

[Kazinski]

Well of course referendums to make laws is the exception not the rule.

But I can tell you what the rule is: politicians that oppose referendums fight tooth and nail to keep them off the ballot, whether its legalizing abortion in this case, or affirmative action bans, or famously in California gay marriage bans where first they fought to keep it off the ballot, then when it won with significant majorities of minority voters voting for it they disenfranchised them by taking it to court saying once the constitution had been changed by the State Supreme Court it couldn't get changed back by the voters.

Hypocrisy is the rule for politicians of both parties when it comes to getting what they want and opposing what they don't want.

[AmosArch]

When the people vote or supposedly vote the way the left wants. ‘The People have spoken’ and no questioning, examination, or measures against even fraud are allowed. Otherwise you are an ‘insurrectionist’. When the people don’t vote the way the left wants all the same questioning and ‘undermining of democracy’ is suddenly great. Stories will come out about how this or that manipulated or 'hacked' the vote. Trump using the same analytical tools obama used is now sinister where it was once hailed as groundbreaking. If they still don’t get their way they just go to the right judges and get it thrown out.

Democracy!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski and AmosArch, there is no hypocrisy in a jointly sovereign People changing their government by whatever means they can manage. When they act jointly, the People are not constrained even by the Constitution. However, to make a change by violent insurrection legitimate, the insurrectionists must make it succeed, else they can rightly expect prosecution.

Hypocrisy—famously the tribute vice pays to virtue—is an illegitimate posture of politicians who having sworn an oath to support the jointly sovereign People, then traduce that oath and speak or act to undermine the clearly expressed will of the People. Election results, including election results in referendums, should be treated as sovereign decrees, on a par with national and state constitutions. Those who swear oaths to support constitutions owe the same allegiance to certified election results after they have become official.

Typically, the vice which leads to that kind of oath-breaking and hypocrisy is avarice, from politicians who suppose they report to a subset constituency who will reward them with office for opposing publicly the broader popular will—which the politicians had nevertheless sworn to uphold.

Those constituents, as members of the unsworn joint sovereignty, commit not even impropriety by pressuring their elected politicians to do as the constituents want. The unsworn constituents, as members of the joint sovereignty, are at liberty to act at pleasure. But the politicians—whose oath instructs them to teach constitutionalism to their constituents by example—are wrong to give in. To do it in the hope of being rewarded with office shows the avarice mentioned above.

[Michael P]

So you finally figured out that James Wilson passage you quoted, huh?

[ReaderY]

I think I agree with Stephen Lathrop here. People who oppose abortion are (for the most part) using the legal means available to them. I’ll give Ohio as an example. There was a ballot proposition in Ohio to raise the threshold for passing constitutional amendments. It failed rather miserably. It was a high-handed tactic that may well have backfired. But it was legal. Everybody knew what they were getting into. A minority that feels strongly about something is entitled to argue that you should really have a supermajority to pass constitutional amendments on highly controversial matters. They may or may not persuade the majority, and they sure didn’t in Ohio. but it was within the democratic process to make the attempt. Everything was on the table. Nobody was being misled about what was being asked. The minority was entitled to ask.

Compare that to a subsequent bill introduced in the Ohio legislature to strip the Ohio Supreme Court of authority to interpret the abortion amendment and to declare interpreting it the sole province of the legislature. The sponsors claimed among other things that the amendment didn’t really legalize abortion, it was ambiguous, the voters were misled, etc. etc. etc.

That was a complete subversion of the democratic process. It was an obvious violation of the Ohio constitution’s separation of powers. And moreover, the claim the amendment didn’t mean what it plainly said would be rediculous if it wasn’t so utterly Orwellian. American politicians who speak in Orwellian terms, who say that two plus two equals five because they fervently wish it to be so, are not funny. The consequences of Orwellian thinking are no joke.

[Both Sides]

Agreed.

[David Nieporent]

.

Hypocrisy—famously the tribute vice pays to virtue—is an illegitimate posture of politicians who having sworn an oath to support the jointly sovereign People, then traduce that oath and speak or act to undermine the clearly expressed will of the People. Election results, including election results in referendums, should be treated as sovereign decrees, on a par with national and state constitutions. Those who swear oaths to support constitutions owe the same allegiance to certified election results after they have become official.

This doesn't get any less stupid the more times you say it. For the sake of argument, let's accept that elections may be "sovereign decrees." But actual election results are decrees of the government.

As awful as Trump is, his formal claim wasn't "The state of Georgia should disregard the wishes of the people of Georgia." His formal claim was "The actual wishes of the people of Georgia are different than what the state is claiming." He was lying, so that isn't a defense for him, but it refutes your arguments.

[JasonT20]

Hypocrisy is the rule for politicians of both parties when it comes to getting what they want and opposing what they don’t want.

Both sides!

Seriously, though, the problem is that most partisan voters only complain about the hypocrisy of the other side. Like everything else, they only want the other side's politicians held accountable for any sort of bad behavior. Once it comes down to a choice between the two parties in a general election, the party of the candidates makes their decision easy. This old problem got so much worse once openly partisan media outlets on cable and the internet got involved, not to mention social media.

That's the thing about representative democracy. The voters are the ones that are supposed to have the power, so blame for poor government should ultimately fall on us. If we don't want people in elected office to be hypocrites, we have to stop voting for hypocrites.

[Frank Drackman]

Let each state decide individually on a fundamental human right?
Oh, like they did with Slavery, OK in Delaware and Maryland, not OK in Pennsylvania, that worked out well.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

You should remember that the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln did not oppose slavery in states that already had slavery, they opposed expansion of slavery. Had Confederate states accepted this arrangement the country would have moved on. State's rights was only a slogan for those making money from the labor of the enslaved. A system that was doomed to fail in time.

Abortion is part of women's health care and opposition to women's healthcare is also doomed to fail.

[Dr. Ed 2]

States rights started with the Hartford Convention and that which led up to it, and that was about trade, not slavery.

[grb]

States rights was definately NOT about slavery. That’s just Lost Cause bullshit created after the war ended. In fact, the South wanted a strong aggressive federal government to protect their property rights in other human beings. They wanted a powerful federal government enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. They wanted a powerful federal government banning anti-slavery messaging thru the mails. They wanted a powerful federal government to protect their human holdings across state lines.

In fact, their angry repudiation of states rights led the South into secession and war. Prior to the 1860 election, there was a coalition between Southern slave interests and Northern voters in the Democratic Party. That coalition collapsed over the proposal from Stephen Douglas that new states decide the status of slavery within their borders by popular vote. This so enraged the South that they bolted from the Democratic convention to create a separate convention and party completely free of any such “states rights” suggestions.

Bottom line? Secession was 99% about slavery and “states rights” enters the picture only because the South was whole-heartedly opposed to it (at least until after the war, when it was time to make excuses).

[M L]

Secession was not primarily about slavery, since the seceding states had ample opportunities to keep slavery (Corwin amendment, etc). They turned down that deal repeatedly because they were more interested in independence from the Yankee and more concerned with the principles of state sovereignty and limited delegated powers, etc, generally than they were interested/concerned with slavery specifically.

[Sarcastr0]

They put that shit in their Constitution, and in their declarations of secession.

Brett explains why they turned down the offer to keep slavery in the short term.

concerned with the principles of state sovereignty and limited delegated powers
Except their proposed Constitution restricted states quite a bit more, on accounta slavery not working well without unified authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States

[grb]

M L : Secession was not primarily about slavery

This Lost Cause tripe looks just as unfactual, ahistorical, and disconnected from reality today as when it created from whole cloth after the war. Four points ;

1. As I note above, the South had zero interest in state sovereignty where their human property was concerned. The root cause of secession and war was the South’s rejection of state sovereignty when slavery was involved. That led to the fracturing of the Democratic vote which led to Lincoln’s election. Which brings us to this:

2. It’s hilarious how Lost Cause losers forget specifics while fabricating their vast excuses. The cause of secession was Lincoln’s election, full-stop. So how does that work leaving out slavery? Here’s how:

3. Lincoln’s election showed the lock on power the slaveowners had enjoyed across all three branches of government was broken. Future states entering the union would probably be Free. The slavery states would gradually see their power decline. Brett gives a perfectly accurate description of their motivation immediately below.

4. Here’s a pretty big problem with Lost Cause weaseling that slavery wasn’t the cause of secession: The intitial rebellion against the United States was from deep south states most dependent on slavery objecting to the election of an anti-slavery president. They sent emissaries to other slaveholding states to convince them to secede as well. These emissaries gave speeches to their target state legislatures and before large public crowds. So what did they talk about?

Slavery. Not “state sovereignty”. Not “limited delegated powers”. Not “free trade” or “tariffs” or any of the other strawman stand-ins Lost Causers try to substitute for slavery. The Confederate cause was about slavery – this straight from the contemporary horse’s mouth.

There’s a nice little book on this : Apostles of Disunion, Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081392104X/reasonmagazinea-20/

[M L]

Secession was partly about slavery, in that it was the occasion or the incident more so than the cause. Otherwise it's a little bit like saying America’s declaring independence was all about a specific tax on tea. But secession was a much more legal and less warlike action in the context of a republican union of sovereignties just recently founded on the same principles as secession. At any rate, the the question of the “causes” of secession is a quite separate topic from the question of the cause of the war.

[Frank Drackman]

Bottom line is the Yankees(southern for Northerners) were A-holes then, just like today. Southerners didn't give a shit what they did in Maine or Rhode Island, eat your effing clam chowd-ah, continues today with all these Blue State A-holes moving here for the weather and low(er) taxes, then voting in effing Black Supremercists (Georgia's Senator Warlock for one, only reason Stacy Abraham didn't win is she's like a Black Hilary Rodman, so annoying even her own people hate her)

Frank "Go North Young Man!"

[Sarcastr0]

The Declaration of Independence didn't talk about tea taxes much. It mentions imposing Taxes without consent but goes onto a lot of other stuff.

South Carolina's Secession statement:
"[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . .

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

You are so full of shit.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, really original.

[grb]

M L : "Secession was partly about slavery, in that it was the occasion or the incident more so than the cause"

So the Confederate States thought they were seceding over slavery at the time but are lucky to have you as their PR flak today?

ML : “At any rate, the the question of the “causes” of secession is a quite separate topic from the question of the cause of the war”

Huh? What on earth does that even mean?!? The South seceded over slavery. They committed multiple aggressive acts of rebellion and war against the United States immediately after secession, including seizing federal property by armed force and firing on a U.S. ship. This was months before Lincoln’s inaugeration. After he was sworn-in, they attacked Fort Sumter as an overt act of war. Secession caused the war. The cause of secession was the cause of war.

[M L]

No, that's not what slavery being the occasion means, again, a 3 percent tax on tea is like an occasion or instance relating to the underlying cause and principle. The cause of secession and the cause of the war are two different things, this is easily understood, the two things were never conflated in the minds of people at the time, nor was war seen as an inevitable result of secession.

[grb]

M L : "an occasion or instance relating to the underlying cause and principle"

The "underlying cause and principle" was a society and economy based on holding humans as property. You can vigoriously scrub & whitewash for years and decades to come, but that stain ain't coming out.

But why even try? I was a typical Southern boy as a child, reading heroic accounts of Jackson and Lee. But then I grew up. Aren't you long overdue?

[M L]

I was a typical Northern boy, reading heroic accounts of Lincoln. Then I learned more. I dunno what to tell ya, except maybe the truth isn't at either extreme?

[NOVA Lawyer]

ML,

“I was a typical Northern boy, reading heroic accounts of Lincoln. Then I learned more. I dunno what to tell ya, except maybe the truth isn’t at either extreme?”

That’s always a nice way to think one is being even-handed. But the fact is that secession and the Civil War were caused by the South wanting to maintain slavery. In the face of the detailed and indisputable evidence set forth above by others that preserving slavery was the immediate cause of secession and secession the cause of the war (and consequently the South’s violent commitment to owning other human beings was the cause of the war), you pivot to, well, slavery was just sort of the last straw and there were prior, underlying causes. However, as grb has pointed out, the reason the South had those underlying interests was, again, the fact that they built their economy on the principle that they may own other humans and extract free labor from them. You just want to stop at an intermediate step where the connection to slavery isn’t, to the willfully blind, obvious.

But the immediate cause of the war was slavery, and slavery was also the original sin, as Lincoln deftly put it.

The southern whites’ other political concerns that you would like to pinpoint as the cause (whether states’ rights or what have you), were all, at bottom, to protect white Southerners’ power to own other people (and, obviously, as part of that, disenfranchise them). Neither their economic system nor their political system was viable and without depriving other humans of their political and economic freedoms and their personal and bodily autonomy.

This is a case where there is one right answer, however “extreme” you want to pretend it is. The South went to war in an effort to keep owning other humans. Anything else is excuse making and window dressing.

[not guilty]

The casus belli of the American Civil War was treason in service of chattel slavery. The bombardment of Fort Sumter lit the spark.

[M L]

“were all, at bottom, to protect white Southerners’ power to own other people”

This may be more true of the aristocracy and some leadership, as opposed to Southerners in general or the common soldier, who of course didn’t own any slaves and had no interest in slavery, but instead were fighting (in their mind) to defend their people and homeland from attack and invasion, and for their state which everyone thought of as their primary allegiance back then.

Beyond that, you risk engaging in mind reading when you attribute motives that are different from what many of them stated. A slew of seceding states only seceded in response to Lincoln calling up an army to wage war on the other seceding states, an action they considered terrible and illegal. A number of states made no mention whatsoever of slavery in their seceding documents, instead referencing things such as this. Aside from the issue of abolition, there was a lot of fear about the process by which slavery would be ended, with some abolitionist groups promoting terrorism and violence, and the potential for widespread violence high. Abolition was often viewed as inevitable and slavery as wrong, even by people who didn’t favor immediate abolition or who feared the process. As Lee wrote years before the war, “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”

Nonetheless, it is clear that slavery was a major part of the reason for secession. A tax on tea was a major part of the reason for seceding from Great Britain as well, but it was more of an incident of the broader underlying conflict. So Confederates like Edward Pollard wrote things like this: “The slavery question is not to be taken as an independent controversy in American politics. It was not a moral dispute. It was the mere incident of a sectional animosity, the causes of which lay far beyond the domain of morals. Slavery furnished a convenient line of battle between the disputants; it was the most prominent ground of distinction between the two sections; it was, therefore, naturally seized upon as a subject of controversy, became the dominant theatre of hostilities, and was at last so conspicuous and violent, that occasion was mistaken for cause, and what was merely an incident came to be regarded as the main subject of controversy.”

Now, folks like grb like to just dismiss everything that was ever said by any Southerner or Southern sympathizer that does not support their preferred narrative, and in particular claim that if it was written after the fact then it was just lies and a disingenuous effort to sanitize things. I admit there may be some truth to that. But this response admits that a more nuanced account exists. And it’s this response that I don’t fully buy. Basically, I think there is some truth to the concept that the Southern cause was fundamentally about self-government/decentralization and independence, and just sectional animosity, like the American founding was. Unfortunately, that cause was arguably overshadowed by the horrible practice of legal slavery that become the occasion. I also think it’s important to recognize that the average Southerner and common soldier is in a different category – as today and generally throughout human history, when the rich wage war it’s the poor who die.

Since only the privileged, wealthier citizens could afford such a remittance, military service, fighting and dying, became the exclusive burden of the poor and the working classes. As a consequence, those who were “condemned to serve,” and perhaps to die, viewed their conscription as forced servitude in a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight,” the rallying cry that mobilized thousands to take to the streets in protest. During one such uprising, the 1863 New York Draft Riots, some 2,000 protesters were killed and 8,000 injured, according to one estimate.

https://truthout.org/articles/rich-mans-war-and-a-poor-mans-fight/

As far as the war, it's a different thing from secession. The casus belli of the war was to "collect the duties and imposts" as Lincoln put it, to dominate and rule over territory like most wars. "Treason" is another discussion, in which the Lincolnites are on much less firm ground.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Southerners in general or the common soldier..had no interest in slavery”

That’s dumb. White non-slave owning southerners did. They may not have owned slaves. They may not have directly benefited from slavery. But they very much had an interest in a caste system in which up to 50% of the population was legally declared subservient to them. And they knew it. And their subsequent violent resistance to equality for the next 100 years demonstrates that they did want slavery and would fight to subjugate Black people.

To a man? No. There were southern abolitionists. There may have been a few people so dumb and unengaged that they had no real opinion one way or the other, but the vast majority were invested in the system that sustained the economy built for and dominated by and benefitting white men. Anything else, such as the slop you spew, is patronizing apologetics.

“As Lee wrote years before the war…”

LOL. Now I know you’ve been sold the myth of the Lost Cause. Lee had the opportunity and the moral obligation to free the slaves of his wife’s father who had freed them in his will. Lee kept them enslaved anyway. Yes, this fine southern, Christian gentleman is precisely who we should look to for the truth of their motives. He said nice things (though if you follow that quote, he wasn’t worried so much about the harm to the enslaved people, no, he and his fellows were the true victims!), but his actions, in every respect, reveal his thoroughly evil nature. He was a bad man by the standards of his time. Better men in the same situation (i.e., from Virginia and West Point educated) chose to fight for the Union. Better men freed slaves that their ancestors directed be freed. Better men didn’t encourage those punishing the enslaved people to “lay it on well.” Yes, a principled and not at all masochistic man that one.

“Edward Pollard wrote things like this:…..”

After the Civil War. To try to salvage the reputation of the enslavers and their enablers. FFS.

“I also think it’s important to recognize that the average Southerner and common soldier is in a different category – as today and generally throughout human history, when the rich wage war it’s the poor who die.”

This is true, but only in who is most to blame. Certainly, the bulk of the blame lies with the ruling class. But the same is true of Nazi soldiers or name your army fighting to subjugate others. The Confederate soldiers did know what the war was about, though. Hence, brother against brother. Some brothers chose right. Others chose wrong. They don’t get a pass. I reject the idea that the Nazi prison camp guard or the Confederate cannoneer has no moral agency. Did many of them face difficult choices? Yes. But they nonetheless had choices which some of their contemporaries proved by being morally courageous.

And, again, look at the behavior of the common southern white male from 1870 to 1968, at least. Typically, they did not behave as if they had no interest in the caste system they or their forebears fought to preserve. They weren’t mere victims. It’s disrespectful of them and their standing as independent moral beings to pretend otherwise.

Again, of course there are exceptions, but the majority, rich or poor, bore moral culpability for participating in the Civil War on the immoral side. And, like WW2, there was definitely an immoral side. And the participants at the time knew or had sufficient information to know. They are accountable for their choices.

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

As Lee wrote years before the war, “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”

You're certainly correct that by the middle of the 19th century, the evils of American chattel slavery were so obvious that even its practioners had to pretend to find it objectionable.

Why you think that is a point in favor of the people who nevertheless betrayed their country to try to preserve it is less clear to me.

[grb]

ML : “Southerners in general or the common soldier, who of course didn’t own any slaves and had no interest in slavery….”

Southerners in general would spend the next four-score years lynching dozens of blacks annually – sometimes in brutal sadistic ways and often for reasons no better than a ugly whim. Clearly your attempt to reduce everything to crude economics leaves out a bunch.

ML : “Abolition was often viewed as inevitable and slavery as wrong, even by people who didn’t favor immediate abolition or who feared the process”

I guess we should cut you some slack since you’re only a confederate wannabe, but those of us raised on this stuff learns any respectable Southern gentleman of the slavery era could give a pious talk on how distasteful the Pecular Institution was at the shake of a pinkie. Everyone had that speech down pat. Jefferson, Madison, Lee. It was an essential social skill for your gentile-type. But when push came to shove, talk was all it was. Slaves meant money and money came first.

ML : “Nonetheless, it is clear that slavery was a major part of the reason for secession”

Manfully conceded!

ML : “Now, folks like grb like to just dismiss everything that was ever said by any Southerner or Southern sympathizer that does not support their preferred narrative, and in particular claim that if it was written after the fact then it was just lies and a disingenuous effort to sanitize things”

Oh, for God’s sake! There are dozens upon dozens of books laying out the precise chronology by which Southerners created and nutured the Lost Cause mythos you peddle word-by-word here. How is it possible you’re complete oblivious to it all?

ML : “…Unfortunately, that cause was arguably overshadowed by the horrible practice of legal slavery that become the occasion…”

I’ve never completely grasped the religious doctrine of transubstantiation, so benefit from seeing your similar tactic here. You have a historical cause, rock-solid and proven by a world of facts. But you find it icky, and would like to substitute another. So just say the historical cause only “became the occasion”, wave your hands a bit, mutter some incantations, and you can replace the cause with whatever one you want. Neat trick!

[grb]

One more thing: ML quotes Edward Pollard above to make the case slavery was only a incidental cause of secession. However, he fails to mention his quote was a post-hoc excuse made after the war ended. ML also doesn’t say where this quote can be found :

Yep. It’s in the 1866 book, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. It’s from the very book that created the whitewash term. ML might have given more of Pollard’s wisdom found in this book, such as :

“We shall not enter upon the discussion of the moral question of slavery. But we may suggest a doubt here whether that odious term “slavery” which has been so long imposed, by the exaggeration of Northern writers, upon the judgement and sympathies of the world, is properly applied to that system of servitude in the South, which was really the mildest in the world; which did not rest on acts of debasement and disenfranchisement, but elevated the African, and was in the interest of human improvement; and which, by the law of the land, protected the negro in life and limb, and in many personal rights, and, by the practice of the system, bestowed upon him a sum of individual indulgences, which made him altogether the most striking type in the world of cheerfulness and contentment.”

(No one ever said the first Lost Cause myth-makers were subtle)

[M L]

NOVA- Actually, slave labor was adverse to the interests of white labor. That’s why some abolitionist elements were expressly motivated by the interests of “free white labor.” Lee apparently freed the slaves he personally owned, before the war. But the point here isn’t that he was a good guy or something, it’s that his words are noteworthy and reflect the times they were written in. No, Confederate soldiers defending their homes and families against a ruthless foreign invader are not = Nazi prison camp guard. That would be excellent material for a Hollywood fantasy movie script, though.

Noscitur- I’m not trying to make a point in favor or otherwise, only to be accurate. The myth of the Righteous Cause, and of Lincoln, and the exaggerations and demonizations, serve modern political propaganda purposes. All propaganda collectively tends to serve the state and the centralization of power. I acknowledge that experience differs though, I never experienced anything like grb claims to, growing up with Lost Cause mythology, all my high school teachers and such were leftists.

grb- The alternative explanation goes that secession was the result of 70 years of Northern economic exploitation, Northern disregard for Constitutional restraints, and then a trend toward centralizing sovereignty in the federal government. And that slavery issues were merely the latest occasions of this, and were therefore derivative of a more fundamental concern over disregard for the Constitution and the Northern quest for political and economic control. In this telling, Southern arguments about slavery were not stating the impetus for secession (after all, there were absolutely no calls for emancipation from any major political party before the war and therefore no reason to secede over such a nonexistent thing) but instead were responding to certain provocations, terrorism and such by radical abolitionists, fugitives and territories issues, and issues surrounding the process of emancipation (the North had ended slavery because its climate made it unprofitable, and allowed itself 25 years to unwind a smaller population without any sacrifice, mostly selling them South). These things were used by Northern politicians to play on racist fears of Northerners for political advantage against the South. Meanwhile the North didn’t plan to allow any emancipated people to integrate northward, but would have them die out or be colonized out of the country.

I know that you reject this explanation and that’s fine, I’m only trying clarify exactly what it is, since the basic idea of a particular issue being just one instance of a broader pattern did not seem to get across. Personally, I sense that those who tell this side of the story tend to downplay slavery too much or sometimes even try justify it a little bit. I just think the mainstream narrative is wrong too. I’m open to other information and perspectives and I don’t claim to be an expert. Overall, it makes sense to me that a) wars and usually politics are about money and power, and to the extent necessary, manipulating public perception into thinking it’s about a grave threat and a moral cause, b) some particular issue becomes the spark or occasion for broader forces, and c) the divisions of the civil war weren’t about morality or racism (the North had just as much racism or even more) but were always nascent in the differing cultures, philosophies, environments and economies, as well as the tensions in the experiment in liberty, presaged by the federalists v. antifederalists and such.

[NOVA Lawyer]

ML,

"Lee apparently freed the slaves he personally owned, before the war."

You're either too ignorant to be discussing this subject or you are a liar.

The truth is that the traitor Robert E. Lee inherited roughly 200 slaves from his father-in-law (technically, his wife inherited them, but Lee had control) who were to be free within 5 years. Lee petitioned the courts to let him keep them longer. When his petition was denied in 1862 (well after the start of the war), and after the Emancipation Proclamation, but three days before it went into effect, he then signed the papers freeing those slaves. It was after the war started, after the war had turned against the south (and the property Lee owned where the slaves were was under Union control), and just days before they would have been legally freed anyway. So, no, he did not free his slaves before the war.

Perhaps you are trying to use some wiggle room, that he did not personally own those 200 slaves, but others he freed. I see nothing to support that assertion. Citation please.

Regardless, he clearly had the authority to free the 200, but chose not to. You hiding behind wiggle words like "personally owned" when the 200 were part of his immediate family's property and he was the one with authority to free them and punish them is disingenuous.

And Lee was a masochistic, evil bastard. When they ran away because they believed themselves free people, notwithstanding Lee's refusal to give them the freedom they were promised this is what happened when they tried to run away in the words of Mr. Norris, one of the slaves who Lee believed he owned, told it in 1866 after he was captured:

[W]e were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And just to be clear, ML is definitely either ignorant or a liar.

He said: ”Lee apparently freed the slaves he personally owned, before the war.”

Facts: He didn’t – “[Lee] included among the manumissions [of some, but not all, of the 200 slaves he and his wife inherited, which manumissions were filed in January 1863] the one enslaved family he still owned in his name, that of Nancy Ruffin.”

You were wrong even on the technicality you tried to fool everyone with. Just be honest. Lee was an enslaver and he was particularly malicious among enslavers.

(He also captured free Black people when he invaded the North and sold them into slavery. What an abolitionist, this guy!)

[grb]

Now we’re just going in circles: ML’s Lost Cause evasions vs refuting facts. Some points:

(1) You keep pretending slavery was some minor issue that was a temporary stand-in for other issues you prefer. That’s so absurd as to be willful ignorance or lying. “Northern disregard for Constitutional restraints” didn’t had Senators clubbing each other on the the Senate floor – slavery did. “Northern economic exploitation” wasn’t the argument emissaries from the secessionist states used to convince other (always slaveholding) states to join the Confederacy – slavery was. The “centralizing sovereignty in the federal government” didn’t cause the (always slaveholding) states to rebel, the election of an anti-slavery president did.

(2) Indeed, you recycle the same bungling mistake you made acres of comments above : Ignoring the fact Lincoln’s election caused immediate secession from slaveholding states. All the gobs of makeup you use on slavery (your pet pig) can’t prettify or obscure the fact that immediate reaction had zero to do with your pretend issues.

(3) But here’s a question for you : Wasn’t there one non-slave holding state concerned about the “real” issues you (following the Edward Pollard whitewash playbook) have “discovered” were the real causes? Why didn’t the early secessionist slaveholding states approach one non-slave state to ask them to join over these “real issues” you see so clearly? Surely there was one state that didn’t hold humans as property where your “tensions in the experiment in liberty” held sway? Nope. Not a one.

(4) Several people have patiently walked you thru the reasons why the South saw Lincoln’s election as dangerous to their human capital. The risk wasn’t immediate but long-term, as new states entered the Union as free and the numbers of Free vs Slave states grew increasingly imbalanced. Let me add here that the South was obsessed with expanding slavery and in the decades before the Civil War got into repeated fiascos of international adventurism with little private armies trying to trigger revolts or seize land in the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America. These were call “filibusters”, were a repeated embarrassment to U.S. foreign policy, and were always hardcore slavery supporters looking to add new slavery territory to the Union.

[M L]

NOVA- Again this is irrelevant to the discussion, but since you asked for a citation please see here. https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/robert-e-lee-and-slavery.htm

grb-
(1) You continue to misapprehend the contention that one thing is a subset of another. Not a stand-in. You repeatedly say, "That's not a fruit, that's an apple."

(2) Lincoln's election precipitated some states seceding (Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in those states). Others seceded in response to Lincoln's calling for 75,000 troops to levy war against the states. Again, no major party was calling for emancipation. There were other issues I noted above, including issues relating to slavery. But all of these issues were ostensibly rooted in concerns over Constitutional fidelity, which brewed over many years, and gave rise to an impression of cultural/societal incompatibility and a desire for independence.

(3) There were plenty in the North who held similar viewpoints and sentiments as the South, who opposed what you might call the Hamiltonian agenda. Including objection to Lincoln and Lincoln's war. Above I cited that supposedly some 2,000 protestors opposing the draft were killed in NYC, and 8,000 injured in a single event. Lincoln jailed thousands of dissident newspaper publishers and others. Every member of Lincoln's own cabinet opposed his plan to kick off the war by sending ships to Sumter, except for his postmaster (who was the brother-in-law of the Naval officer who devised the reinforcement plan that the cabinet was weighing in on).

(4) It is true that the seceding states claimed that the Northern states used their power in the federal government to deprive them of an equal enjoyment of the commonly owned territories in violation of the Constitution, it seems the claim was that this violated Article IV. The slave status of new states was also a big issue. Northern political opposition to the expansion of slavery was based on labor protectionism for "free white labor" as noted above, competing industrial economic interests, and most significantly the battle for control of Congress, and the simple Northern opposition to the very presence of black people (e.g. when Oregon prohibited slavery it also prohibited free blacks from living there at all, as did Kansas, Indiana, and Illinois and others did similar things to quarantine blacks in the South).

[NOVA Lawyer]

ML,

“Again this is irrelevant to the discussion…”

You brought up Lee. I countered. You countered with the false assertion that Lee appeared to have freed all his slaves before the war. I have pointed out that he had control and the power to free 200 slaves inherited from his father-in-law. He definitely did not free those slaves until the Emancipation Proclamation (he filed the papers the same day Lincoln issued the Proclamation) and he didn’t sign papers of manumission of all of the 200 even then. Moreover, according to the Encyclopedia of Virginia he signed papers of manumission for at least one slave he still personally owned in 1863. (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/lee-robert-e-and-slavery/)

You attempted to whitewash Lee’s personal involvement as an enslaver. He, in fact, was quite active and cruel as an enslaver, in addition to his activities as the preeminent general in the war started by the Confederacy to preserve slavery. Don’t pretend Lee was what he wasn’t.

[grb]

ML : You repeatedly say, “That’s not a fruit, that’s an apple.”

And here’s what you do : At the scene where a lion just devoured a man, you first say a mammal did it, then insist the quality of lion-ness is wholly incidental, then offer us a long lecture on how you really like possums and chipmonks so it’s unfortunate the lion’s appetite “became the occasion”

Needless to say, this incoherent gibberish has us confounded & bemused.

ML : “Lincoln’s election precipitated some states seceding”

Manfully conceded! And they seceded over slavery, not some airy generalization five steps removed from any specific issue. That accounts for all but four of the Confederate states. As for the others, let’s take Virginia as an example. It dithered between secession and the union for months, listened to the Secession Emissaries from their brother slave states and cheered, did not vote for the Union when the Confederate rebels declared war on the United States by firing on Sumter, but did vote to join the slaveholder’s rebellion at the absolute last moment. God alone knows what message you take from all that.

ML : “There were plenty in the North who held similar viewpoints and sentiments as the South, who opposed what you might call the Hamiltonian agenda”

Obvious rejoiner : No one ever tried to secede over the “Hamiltonian agenda”. Only slaveholding states seceded after Lincoln’s election. Only slaveholding states were approached by the rebels to join the Confederacy. Only slaveholding states considered secession. Do you see a pattern here?

ML : “The slave status of new states was also a big issue.”

Ya think? After all, the only reason Lincoln got elected was the slave states bolted from the Democratic Party because Douglas proposed a vote in every new state to determine its status as slave or free. That so enraged the “states rights” South they shot themselves in the foot.

Of course you do your usual pro-slavery laundry service and change that to this wordy obscuration : “It is true that the seceding states claimed that the Northern states used their power in the federal government to deprive them of an equal enjoyment of the commonly owned territories in violation of the Constitution”

In violation of the Constitution, how?
What “equal enjoyment” did the North prevent using what power?

[Brett Bellmore]

Secession was almost entirely about slavery. It was the war to drag them back in that had little to do with it at first, until the Union found they needed a cause people found more noble than proving the union was a roach motel in order to retain public support.

[Sarcastr0]

This distinction makes no sense. If an act has to do with slavery, the war over that act will also have to do with slavery, regardless of the rhetoric.

The Union did not 'find they needed a cause.' You're making shit up again.

[M L]

If a husband beats his wife, it's probably because the wife did something wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Not seeing the parallel, unless you think slavery is nothing wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, they DID have trouble getting public support for the war until they made it about slavery. Nobody was really inspired by Lincoln's "nobody gets to leave on MY watch!"

[Kenneth Almquist]

Lincoln never made the war about slavery. In his July 4, 1861 message to Congress, Lincoln wrote that it was necessary to suppress the rebellion in order to establish that, “when ballots have fairly and Constitutionally decided there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves at succeeding elections.”

He made the same point in the Gettysburg address:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.... [G]overnment of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

And in his second inaugural address, he said that,

Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.

To the extent that the war was about slavery, it was about slavery because the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery. There was no public opinion polling at the time, but I doubt that the majority of people in the free states would have supported a war to abolish slavery. Lincoln didn't ask people to fight to destroy slavery; he asked them to fight to preserve the Union.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Confederates were concerned to expand slavery because they could see the country growing, and if slavery didn't expand into the new territory, eventually you'd have enough free states to have gotten the 13th amendment without having any states forced to ratify at gunpoint, as actually happened.

[bernard11]

Better to keep 4 million people in slavery for another few decades than to force the southern states to pay a price for losing the war, eh, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

I was explaining the Confederates' motives, Bernard, not endorsing them.

If the US had let the Confederate states secede, the remaining US would easily have passed the reconstruction amendments without any dubious procedural shortcuts. Could even have declared war upon the Confederacy and conquered it, while following all Constitutional niceties.

The determination to wage war upon them without legally admitting they HAD left the US embedded a constitutional contradiction in the situation, because the Constitution didn't contemplate the federal government waging war against states, let alone multiple states. And enough of the states had seceded that the Constitution could not legally be amended so long as they treated the seceding states as still part of the federation.

From a purely legal standpoint, letting them secede was absolutely the way to go.

[Sarcastr0]

I like how you came in admitting the Civil War was about slavery, but not how you endorse secession as legitimate, nor the firing on Fort Sumpter as legit, nor the post-war amendments as illegitimate.

Aren't you one of those who says governmental legitimacy in the end comes at the point of a gun? Well, here ya go.

[Brett Bellmore]

Secession WAS legally legitimate, IMO, and that the motive for seceding was horrific has nothing to do with it.

That investing Fort Sumter was a classic casus belli, once you accept that secession was legal.

And forcing legislators to ratify an amendment literally at gun point... Do you really want to say that's constitutionally legitimate under Article V? Might not be your side holding the guns the next time, either.

In short, I try not to let my feelings about slavery blur the legal issues here. Freeing the slaves was a glorious cause, even if they only adopted it late in the war. Doesn't change the fact that they were routinely acting in an illegal/unconstitutional manner.

[Sarcastr0]

1. The text is ambiguous, so we go to doctrine. Originalism won't get you there, since the Founders were quite equivocal on the issue, when they addressed it at all.

A. A quite forceful doctrine is 'the Constitution isn't a suicide pact' ie that the Founders didn't intend to smuggle existential threats into the Constitution.

But if as you say all government is threat of force, I don't see why you suddenly get balky at the threat of force being used here (that's not how I roll but you need to stay consistent)

But most importantly, retroactively yelling about stuff from 160 years ago doesn't really matter. Secession nowadays is *not* legitimate, by practice, institution, and law. You're busy being wrong about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while the rest of us operate in the actual world of what the law is.

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Why, I'm almost reasoning as if we had an amendment intended to resolve any ambiguity in favor of state powers, that was ratified not long after the Constitution itself.

A. People say "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" when they actually mean that it IS a suicide pact if followed, and as such should be broken. It's an excuse for not actually complying with the Constitution when you claim the result would be bad.

The reason I get balky here is that there are a lot of people currently trying to apply Civil war era precedents, without any appreciation for just how abnormal the circumstances were, and how incredibly destructive some of those precedents could be if applied in normal times.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “Secession WAS legally legitimate, IMO…”

Well, if it was, the South sure had a strange way of showing it. Of course there were no existing constitutional, legislative or procedural mechanisms for secession – which raises an interesting point about its “legal legitimacy”. But the South never proposed any either. They also never offered to negotiate before committing acts of armed rebellion across multiple states.

This didn’t appear to be states pursuing a legal constitution step. Their actions were those of rebels, seizing federal facilities and properties by force. They might have acted very differently if they actually believed the Lost Cause marlarky created as holy writ after the war’s conclusion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- While I am not familiar with 19th Century rules of war, but there would be a big difference between the US suppressing a rebellion and the US declaring and fighting a war against another sovereign country. I'm thinking particularly of Great Britain here -- which wanted an independent South so that they could get Southern Cotton and export woven cloth on a cheaper basis that through the US which I believe taxed imported British cloth to help Northern mills.

As it was, the British had to pay damages for the Confederate raiders that had been built in and came out of British ports -- they wouldn't have had to were the Confederacy an independent country. Heck, they could have landed troops if they wanted to....

[bernard11]

I was explaining the Confederates’ motives, Bernard, not endorsing them.

You were also complaining about force being used - maybe - to pass the 13th.

As for the legality of secession, if it's legal you essentially abandon the Constitution, since then any state can secede if it has a grievance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I was complaining about force being used, and no maybe about it, to pass the 13th and 14th amendments.

I LIKE these amendments. I think the Constitution is much better with them.

That doesn't require me to approve of how they went about getting them ratified. THAT stank on ice, and the notion that these sorts of Civil war precedents are valid, and could be followed even today, is a ticking time bomb at the heart of our democracy.

The self executing Section 3 is that spray of sparks as the fuse burns down into the bomb...

[NOVA Lawyer]

“Yes, I was complaining about force being used, and no maybe about it, to pass the 13th and 14th amendments.”

This is a lot of handwringing over legal legitimacy, whereas the 13th and 14th amendments fixed what otherwise was a pretty illegitimate Constitution in that it allowed owning other humans and was adopted by ratification of states in which, in some cases, a majority or near majority of the people were owned and, thereby, deprived a say in the creation of the system that bound them. If they could legitimately be subjected to a Constitution by being prevented at the point of a gun from participating, surely it is no less legitimate to make them full citizens at the point of a gun.

In other words, if you really have a problem with these legal niceties, you can’t think much of the process that created the original Constitution. The whole enterprise, applying your standards, was illegitimate from the start. (Who knew you were a devotee of the 1619 Project!)

Of course, the alternative is to recognize that the original Constitution was far from perfect, etc., etc., but a positive step forward in freedom and government accountability to the people despite the moral deficiencies and the fact that its adoption violated the very principles it purported to rely upon. Similarly, the 13th and 14th amendments were great steps forward that overwhelm and justify any purported deficiencies in legal process.

The adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments set no precedent you need to be worried about. Their ratification, by whatever means necessary, is to be celebrated. To the extent any legal documents, i.e. the U.S. Constitution as you interpret it prior to 1865, did not allow those amendments, so much worse for the legitimacy of that document.

If anyone forces adoption of a future amendment at the point of a gun, they wouldn’t have been prevented in doing so if the North had followed the “proper” legal procedures as you believe they should have. Obviously, if someone is going to impose government by force, they aren’t the type of person/movement to really care about precedent and legal niceties. They may, as those supporting the 13th and 14th amendments correctly did, see their cause as defending and promoting freedom, or they may just be authoritarians. In neither case, are they going to worry too much about whether the American Revolution, the Civil War, or any other event in American history provides legal justification for adopting an amendment by force. The only question that will concern them is do they have sufficient force to prevail.

Happily, the side of freedom did have sufficient force to prevail in the Civil War. Stop being unhappy about that.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're confusing legal and moral legitimacy here. The manner of ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments was legally, not morally, illegitimate. Coerced consent is no consent. And yet, this is currently used as a basis for arguing that states cannot, (As the Confederate states did the moment the soldiers left.) rescind ratification of amendments. Toxic precedents, unless explicitly rejected, tend to leak into our reasoning.

I wish I could be as sanguine as you about the modern reliance on Civil war era precedents. We've already got a toe in the water with the 'self-executing' Section 3, the legitimacy of which is being grounded in the way the Union behaved during and immediately after the war. Which behavior was only viable because they were the prevailing side in a vicious war, dealing with the beaten down losers.

Attempting such behavior outside of that context is asking for a new civil war. But you've got serious constitutional scholars blowing off that reality, because the precedent is on their side, ignoring the context for that precedent.

I could also point to the attempts to revive the Logan act for use against Trump. All sorts of old bad laws and precedents are bubbling back up.

[Sarcastr0]

I, like many scholars, think of the Civil War as basically a refounding of our country.

The thing about legal legitimacy is that it is not some independent thing - it flows from the perceptions of people and the actions of institutions. You being unhappy because it isn't a perfect edifice of logic and history does not much matter.

Chaotic instantiation does not invalidate the subsequent legal regime.

Maybe you want to reabsorb West Virginia to make the law comport with your ideals for it. No one else thinks that's more than a trivia question.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"You’re confusing legal and moral legitimacy here."

I see why you think that. But, I'm not. No one seriously questions the legal legitimacy of the 13th and 14th Amendments. Nor did that at the time because sufficient states ratified the amendments. The rescissions wouldn't have changed the outcome. Etc.

Your worry about the "precedent" it sets is definitely misguided. The precedent that, accepting your premise, an amendment ratified by a legislature occupied by U.S. soldiers will lead to the acceptance of other amendments ratified by states whose legislatures are being "coerced" by armed U.S. soldiers only matters if state legislatures are being occupied by U.S. soldiers. I'd say if state legislatures are being occupied by U.S. soldiers and "coerced" into doing things, precedent isn't really going to matter. At all. A war has been fought and whoever controlled the U.S. military won. And what they dictate will be the new law. That's how war works. It's not a precedent that has any application in peacetime.

You're just looking for reasons to be concerned and to question the legitimacy of the 13th and 14th amendment while expressing love for them. But rest easy, there is no plausible scenario in which whatever precedent you think was set by acceptance of the ratifications of the 13th and 14th amendments would apply to any present day problem, absent actual, bullet-trading civil war.

[Nelson]

"if slavery didn’t expand into the new territory, eventually you’d have enough free states to have gotten the 13th amendment"

What tragedy that would have been. Instead of the Confederacy causing half a million Americans deaths in a war to protect slavery, we could have gotten to the right result without violence. But when cultural conservatives in the South got desperate, because they saw the world abandoning "good" traditional things like slavery, they decided to kill people to stop it.

And today, over 150 years later, other cultural conservatives continue to apologize for and defend the Confederacy. The lack of morality in cultural reactionaries is a consistent throughline In American history.

The founders talked about a "more perfect union". Even they realized that things weren't perfect and they could (and should) change for the better in the future.

Change is not only inevitable, it's good. The founders created a society that would constantly change for the better, but was designed to do so slowly so things didn't tip over into chaos. Maintaining stability while enabling constant progress was a tough balance to achieve, but they did it.

It's the thing I admire most about the Constitution, the Enlinghtenment ideas that it embodies, and the people who created it. The first premise was that society should always move forward. The second was that stability was desirable. The third (and most impressive) was that their idea of "perfect" would differ from their descendents and that they should embrace and enable that, not try to prevent it.

It is the combination of humility and brilliance embodied by the latter that has made our country become the most successful nation in history. And with the notable and indefensible exception of the Civil War, it has allowed us to change with the times, almost always for the better.

"without having any states forced to ratify at gunpoint"

The Confederacy tried to protect slavery at gunpoint and America fought back. When they lost they weren't allowed to benefit from their attempt to destroy the country. They weren't forced to do anything at gunpoint. They just reaped what they sowed. Pretending that they were innocent victims is denying reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They weren’t forced to do anything at gunpoint."

Historically false. They literally had Union soldiers in the legislative chambers as they voted on ratification.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Historically false....."

Really? You raised the issue specifically about the 13th amendment. That passed with votes from several Reconstruction state assemblies dominated by Republicans. They may have not been the most accurate representation of local popular opinion, but they didn't require force to follow Republican policy.

Also, these assemblies represented people involved in a useless bloody rebellion against the federal government, so there's that.

[Nelson]

"They literally had Union soldiers in the legislative chambers as they voted on ratification."

Besides the fact that you ignored literally every other point I made, what I was clearly saying was that you can't pull out your gun, then complain when the other guy pulls out a bigger gun in response. By starting the Civil War, the slave states lost any right to complain about their lack of options when they got their asses kicked.

If they didn't want to be forced to do something they didn't want to do, they shouldn't have started a war. But, like most cultural conservative political movements, they refused to accept that the country was moving forward and they were stuck in the past.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Regardless of the supposed hypocrisy (which depends on the same persons taking the contradictory positions--not sure the evidence supports that assertion), overturning RvW was justified on its face: it was an indefensible decision.

For some of us, the argument really was about the Constitutionally appropriate application of the rule of law.

[Martinned]

Sure, Jen

[Michael P]

Lots of legal scholars -- including some Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices -- recognized that, even if they agreed with the policy outcome of Roe v. Wade, the constitutional argument in the original decision was extremely weak, inconsistent with previous and later applications of the same doctrines in non-abortion contexts, and probably counterproductive in terms of changing public opinions.

[Nelson]

Counterproductive? How so? Legal abortion has consistently been the majority position of the American people since Roe was decided.

[Sarcastr0]

You're putting a lot of words into Ginsberg's mouth there.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who's "Jen"?

[Michael P]

He meant Sure, Jan.

[Martinned]

Busted. The Brady Bunch is a bit before my time.

[Frank Drackman]

Martin Martin Martin!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sadly, I had not "memeorized" every episode of the Brady Bunch (despite having grown up in the Valley during the 1970s).

Thanks for the tip!

[Michael P]

It's not from the original series, but from the 1995 movie. The only -- arguable -- reason to know it at all is because it's one of many things that has turned into an Internet meme.

I wonder if some search engine has something like Google's n-gram viewer, but for memes, to answer the important questions like "what is the 28th most popular meme over the last month?" and "is 'Sure, Jan' a more popular meme than 'Xzibit Yo Dawg'?"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not gonna lie: I would have to look up most "internet memes" if I haven't already been subjected to them by my children. I just didn't realise it was a meme reference.

I long for the good 'ol days, when people just called you a liar, if that's what they meant.

[Martinned]

There's enough of that on the internet already.

[Nelson]

"I would have to look up most “internet memes” if I haven’t already been subjected to them by my children."

That speaks well of you as a person.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thank you.

[Drewski]

"I long for the good ‘ol days, when people just called you a liar, if that’s what they meant."

When was this? Certainly some time before Ancient Greece.

[Frank Drackman]

Mom always said don't play ball in the house!

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought that was don't play with your balls in the house?

[Frank Drackman]

Mrs Brady could play with my balls anytime

[Mr. Bumble]

Well given that Mr. Brady was of a certain persuasion who could blame her.

[not guilty]

The proponents of overruling Roe v. Wade once contended that allowing citizens of the various states to determine whether abortion should or should not be legal was a good thing. Since Roe was overruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022), the pro-choice position has prevailed in every state ballot referendum, including in red states such as Kentucky, Ohio and Kansas.

Now abortion opponents are suddenly arguing that allowing citizens of the various states to determine by referendum whether abortion should or should not be legal is not a good thing. What could be more hypocritical, ObviouslyNotSpam?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Assuming you're talking about the same people, I'm not arguing that point. Those people, to the extent you have described them accurately, are indeed hypocrites--but many religious nutjobs are hypocrites in quite a few things, so pointing this out isn't exactly a Revelation.

Not all proponents of overturning RvW did so because they oppose abortion. I had feared that I was only stating the obvious, but it increasingly appears that you and others actually don't believe there are any logical grounds to oppose RvW apart from some sort of religious opposition to abortion. My opposition to RvW formed when I first read the opinion in law school--a time when I was probably more pro-abortion than I am now.

Both sides are full of hypocrites. Calling abortion "choice" is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the question of when human rights begin. Same with referring to "babies" at early stages of fetal development.

[Martinned]

I agree that there was more than one person who supported overturning Roe v. Wade while favouring a right to abortion. But beyond that, you're on your own.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're right; any "right to abortion" would have to be invented, so RvW was probably good enough for anyone holding that combination of views.

[Martinned]

A statutory right to abortion is also a right to abortion. It doesn't have to be a constitutional right.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Fair point. However, I was referring to the constitutional right to an abortion, not one created by statute.

[Martinned]

And I was referring to a person who supported a right to abortion as a policy matter. Unless otherwise qualified, that includes all forms of legal recognition of such a right.

[Nelson]

"However, I was referring to the constitutional right to an abortion"

The Cinstitutional right to an abortion isn't, specifically, about abortion. Whether it is bodily autonomy, privacy, or protected medical decision-making, there are several recognized unenumerated rights that clearly include abortion. Claiming there isn't a Constitutional right to abortion requires intentionally ignoring or "yeah, but"-ing away some pretty fundemental rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course it was just about abortion, or more generally, sex. If it wasn't, the reasoning would have had absolutely vast implications for regulation of medicine outside that context.

Generally libertarian implications, mind you, but the reasoning never got extended in that way. It was always cabined to just the context of sex.

[Nelson]

I didn't say Roe wasn't about abortion. I said the Constitutional right to an abortion can be easily derived from several other recognized Constitutional rights.

The idea that the Roe decision is the only way to derive a Constitutional right to abortion has always been a reductionist and simplistic analysis, in my mind. As long as you believe that people have a Constitutional right to privacy, or to make their own medical decisions, or to have sole control of their own body, you believe that there is a Constitutional right to abortion.

Individuals may believe that a fetus is a person but, unlike the support for abortion as a Constitutional right, that belief hasn't even been established as a philosophical truth, let alone a legal fact. That means, to me, that the government (whether state or federal) has no justification for interfering with an abortion decision until the point of fetal personhood has been legally established.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A statutory right to abortion is also a right to abortion. It doesn’t have to be a constitutional right.

Given that RvW was decided based on an imaginary constitutional right your comment is...as always...completely pointless.

[Martinned]

Go back and read what I wrote.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I did read what you wrote...all of it. My point stands.

[Nelson]

"an imaginary constitutional right"

The Consituational right to abortion is decidedly less imaginary and more factually established than fetal personhood has ever been.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The Consituational right to abortion is decidedly less imaginary and more factually established than...

...nothing at all. It was spun from whole cloth. And "fetal personhood" is a word game. The question is, is the entity in question a human being (it is, in every biological sense) and does it possess fundamental human rights like the right to live.

[Nelson]

“It was spun from whole cloth.”

Not true. If you are speaking only about Roe, that argument has some merit. But if you are talking about abortion as a Constitutional right, as an element of other established, unenumerated rights, you are completely wrong.

Unless you oppose bodily autonomy (the right of a person to determine what happens to their own body), medical decision-making (the right to decide which medical procedures one is subjected to), or privacy (the right of a person to have their lives free from unjustified government surveillance), abortion has three distinct rights under which it is established as well.

“The question is, is the entity in question a human being”

Yes, that is the question and a complex and nuanced question, at that. And no anti-abortionist has ever managed to gain a consensus of opinion that it is, never mind a legal ruling establishing it as a valid basis. Once you’ve managed that, then and only then can you attempt to put those rights into conflict with the already-established right to an abortion.

Anti-abortionists just claiming that what they say is true isn’t sufficient to coerce anyone else to do anything.

“it is, in every biological sense”

Not really. It is, but only in the most minimal sense. It certainly isn’t an individual human being and it definitely is incapable of an independent existence.

Logically, morally and legally, until a fetus is capable of maintaining it’s own biological existence, it isn’t a person. Claiming that something that might (or might not) happen on the future should be treated as if it is real today is fallacious and false.

“does it possess fundamental human rights like the right to live”

No, not until it is capable of sustaining its own existence.

If you want to have your beliefs about when a fetus has rights taken seriously and considered valid as a foundational premise, prove it first. Otherwise you’re just begging the question.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If you are speaking only about Roe

The decision in Roe is explicitly what this subthread is about. Maybe you should try reading it again.

Not really. It is, but only in the most minimal sense. It certainly isn’t an individual human being

It absolutely is an individual human being by any biological definition. Your ignorance of even the fundamentals of the subject is quite tiresome.

[Nelson]

"The Consituational right to abortion is decidedly less imaginary and more factually established than…

…nothing at all. It was spun from whole cloth."

That was your response to me. Was Roe a questionable decision? Yes. Is the Constitutional right to an abortion invalid without Roe? Absolutely not, as I pointed out.

"It absolutely is an individual human being by any biological definition."

I contend that to be something, you must achieve some sort of basic, general, functional standard. To whit, a bundle of human DNA isn't a human being with rights until it has achieved the minimal requirements for operating like all other living human beings. Until it can sustain its own life, it's only a potential human. And potential and actuality are two very different things.

I get that you don't want to admit that being physically separate is required for any claim to being a separate individual, but it's fundamental and inescapable.

"Your ignorance of even the fundamentals of the subject is quite tiresome."

But your definition goes well beyond biology, doesn't it? Unless you can point to the DNA marker that expresses "individual rights"? You claim that DNA makes a human being, but not why a nonfunctional, purely-potential, not-close-to-viable strand of DNA should be considered to have rights. You skip tight past that step. You refuse to consider any level of functionality or even survivability as requirements for individual rights. Such an absurdly broad definition is necessary for all anti-abortion positions, though, since you refuse to acknowledge what most moral, thinking people believe: that life, defined as a being with rights, doesn't start at conception.

That is a belief held by north of 80% of Americans, and not because they don't understand morals or have moral beliefs. It's because most people view rights and DNA as separate issues. You don't, which is why your beliefs are rejected by the vast majority of Americans.

The fundamental weakness of the anti-abortionist position is that there are so many weak links in their chain they have to contort themselves into redefining (in very narrow ways) certain simple words and ignore basic, common meanings of others (like "independent of", which anti-abortionists always pretend doesn't mean "separate from") just to get to the start line.

In order to believe that, in a free, small-d democratic society, a fringe belief held by less than one in five people should be forced upon everyone else, you must believe that it is so clearly, obviously, and unequivocally true that it is justifiable. But the fact that over 80% of people disagree with you shows it isn't.

The argument for government action should never be "why shouldn't it do this". It should always be "why should it do this". And you don't have any convincing arguments for why it should do anything to ban abortion before viability.

[defaultdotxbe]

They meant they wanted the *state* to decide, not the people. People can't be trusted to make their own decisions you know.

[not guilty]

It's about government exerting control over individuals' sexual behavior. For example, the first ten years of my married life, my then-wife and I committed a felony punishable by five to fifteen years imprisonment each time we had oral sex. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-707 (repealed effective November 1, 1989). How is that any of the state's business?

[defaultdotxbe]

Of course it's about government control of individuals. Republicans pay lip service to limited government, but that's premised on the assumption that people will do what Republicans want them to do of their own free will. Once you choose to do something different (as individuals are wont to do) all that "limited government" evaporates.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You pose the question as rhetorical, but I suppose those advocating for such laws would argue that it is indeed the state's business to protect the morality of society.

Unfortunately for them, the 1st Amendment makes such religious legislation unlawful.

The glaring difference with abortion is that there is a (potential) third party involved, whose fate is not only of religious interest.

[Martinned]

The glaring difference with abortion is that there is a (potential) third party involved

Not to be too crude about it, but the same is true about oral sex, if you consider the alternatives. Where does your logic stop?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Not to be too crude about it, but the same is true about oral sex, if you consider the alternatives.

Other than the two consenting adults participating, oral sex does not involve a genetically complete and distinct developing human.

Where does your logic stop?

Where the hell does yours start?

[Martinned]

https://helloclue.com/articles/sex/a-beginners-guide-to-sex

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I can certainly understand why your reading is limited to a beginner's guide to the subject...but perhaps you can tell the class exactly what that has to do with there being a "third party" involved in oral sex as there is in abortion?

[Nelson]

I believe it is the argument that some biologists claim sperm and eggs are as alive as a fertilized egg. If you accept that premise, oral sex should be morally objectionable to anti-abortionists.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I believe it is the argument that some biologists claim sperm and eggs are as alive as a fertilized egg.

That would be a simple-minded child's understanding (which is why it coming from you doesn't surprise me). The sperm and egg are "alive", but that isn't the issue. The issue is, are they genetically complete human organisms in their own right, with genomes that are distinct from those of their parent organisms? They in fact are not. A fertilized egg, on the other hand, is. And it doesn't necessarily stop there. One might argue (I'm not making this argument, but it's a reasonably supportable one) that the fertilized ova must be implanted in its mother's womb (or the functional equivalent thereof) to be considered a developing human.

Again, this sort of "alive/not alive", "potential life", "clump of cells", etc rhetoric is how the argument is framed by the simple-minded and those fundamentally ignorant of even basic human biology.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I look forward to the day when you realize that your gratuitous and lame personal insults do nothing to advance your arguments.

[Nelson]

"which is why it coming from you doesn’t surprise me"

I didn't say I believed that. I find it unconvincing. But there are biologists (who know a whole lot more than me) who claim it is true. Personally, I don't know enough to take a strong position either way.

"The issue is, are they genetically complete human organisms in their own right, with genomes that are distinct from those of their parent organisms?"

No, that's the issue in your mind. If we're talking about something that is "alive or not", your personal opinion about whether that thing is worthy of being considered equal to another thing that is "alive or not" isn't really relevant, is it?

You seem to have an overinflated sense of the value of your own opinion and completely dismiss anyone else's if they disagree with you. Pretty arrogant of you, don'tcha think?

"One might argue (I’m not making this argument, but it’s a reasonably supportable one) that the fertilized ova must be implanted in its mother’s womb (or the functional equivalent thereof) to be considered a developing human."

That would be a logical argument.

"Again, this sort of “alive/not alive”, “potential life”, “clump of cells”, etc rhetoric is how the argument is framed by the simple-minded and those fundamentally ignorant of even basic human biology."

The alive/not alive argument is the core of the anti-abortion position. Without it, there is no justification for banning abortion at any point in development, which is as extreme and indefensible a position (in my mind, at least) as banning it from conception (or some other arbitrary point before viability).

Potential life is completely relevant due to the "potential" part. The argument that the potential for something is the same as the actuality of that thing is completely illogical. Anti-abortionists like to play semantic games and adjust definitions to thread the needle of their preferred beliefs. It's one of the top three most dishonest things about the anti-abortion position.

"clump of cells"

This is one of those things that anti-abortionists seem to think is a winner in convincing people of their beliefs, but at worst it's an overly-casual way to refer to a zygote and at best it's an accurate description of a zygote. I'm not sure why anti-abortionists wave it around like a victory flag.

"is how the argument is framed by the simple-minded and those fundamentally ignorant of even basic human biology."

No, "baby", "unborn human", "fetal person", etc. is how things are framed by the simple-minded and biologically ignorant. Never mind the whole "viability is an arbitrary standard" nonsense.

The anti-abortion position is absolutely dependent upon there being a single, un-nuanced definition of when a person is a person. The problem is there isn't one.

Where each person believes a pregnancy becomes a separate person is completely dependent on what that person believes is the most important element in determining what a 'separate person" is.

If you believe it is a unique set of DNA or a non-zero chance of a live birth, you are an anti-abortionist. If you believe it is an arbitrary point between fertilization and viability, you are somewhere in the middle. If you believe it is some version of viability, you are pro-choice.

Unless and until something significant changes, the anti-abortion position is an unjustified impositiin on someone else's rights. There just isn't sufficient evidence to justify it. And the vast majority of people reject it.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I look forward to the day when you realize that your gratuitous and lame personal insults do nothing to advance your arguments.

I look forward to the day (thought that day will almost certainly never arrive) when you realize that noting someone's non-stop insistence on arguing based on nothing but one's own ignorance and just general stupidity is neither "lame" nor "gratuitous", and that all one need do to avoid having it pointed out is to drop that habit.

BTW...where are your substantive and thought-provoking contributions on the subject? Or did you just drop by for a lame and gratuitous snipe at me?

[Nelson]

"a genetically complete and distinct developing human."

What difference does that make? A fertilized egg has barely more than a one-in-four chance of ending up as a living human being. Why do you think a potential for something should be treated as if it's a certainty of that thing?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What difference does that make? A fertilized egg has barely more than a one-in-four chance of ending up as a living human being. Why do you think a potential for something should be treated as if it’s a certainty of that thing?

See my previous response to you. Your inquiry is so ridiculously simple-minded that it reminds my why I previously had you muted (and makes my wonder how I accidentally reversed that).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Simple-minded?

What is your position on superstition, Wuz? If you are superstitious — believing childish fairy tales and nonsense are true — you are in no position to talk about simple-mindedness

Unless you are younger than 12 and a victim of childhood indoctrination, of course. But if your affliction is adult-onset superstition, you do not belong in reasoned debate among adults. That also would explain your conservatism.

[Nelson]

"See my previous response to you."

That response didn't make a coherent argument for the "potential = actual" fallacy. In fact, I've never seen a coherent argument for such "the future counts as the present" illogic, ever. No one has.

"ridiculously simple-minded"

And yet you are the one who thinks believing something makes it true.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That response didn’t make a coherent argument for the “potential = actual” fallacy.

I didn't need to, because I committed no such fallacy. And yet here you are committing the Strawman Fallacy. Funny.

[Nelson]

"I didn’t need to, because I committed no such fallacy."

Of course you did. It's the central premise of anti-abortion arguments. A fertilized egg has barely more than a 1 in 4 chance of being born alive. Your justfication for forcing everyone else to live by your beliefs rests on the idea that something with a 27% chance (potential) of being born alive should be treated as if it has actually been born alive in considering their rights vs. the pregnant woman's.

So yes, you are assuming that something that might happen (live birth) should be treated as if it is a certainty. Sorry, in a conflict of rights between a 100% definitely-born-alive human and a maybe-some-day-in-the-future-it-will-be-born-alive human, the actual human should always prevail over the potential human.

[not guilty]

How does criminalizing a husband and wife having oral sex with one another "protect the morality of society"?

Please show your work.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I am making a bit of an assumption, but are you suggesting these laws were passed for no reason? (I don't agree with their reasoning, in case that needs mentioning.)

[not guilty]

I am not sure that the legislature knew what acts it intended to prohibit when it codified the statute in question.

"Crime against nature" was an offense at common law, which the Tennessee legislature codified using that phrase. (The entire criminal code was repealed in 1989 and a new code, based largely on the ALI Model Penal Code was enacted.) The offense of "crimes against nature" at common law was narrowly limited to copulation per anum. Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 53 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

In the case of Rex v. Jacobs, Russell and Ryan's Crown Cases, p. 331, the prisoner there was convicted on evidence showing conclusively that he had accomplished the act by force in the mouth of a boy about seven years old, and the question was whether this was sodomy. It was held not to be.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee rejected this reading, and applied the crime against nature statute to fellatio (penetration per os) in Fisher v. State, 197 Tenn. 594, 277 S.W.2d 340 (1955). The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee opined in a case involving a 19 year old boy upon whom several acts of sodomy were committed per os and per anus, Stephens v. State, 489 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1972):

In its narrower sense sodomy is the carnal copulation between two human beings per anus, or by a human being in any manner with a beast. In its broader sense it is the carnal copulation by human beings with each other against nature or with a beast in which sense it includes all acts of unnatural copulation. Our Courts probably accept the broader meaning since they have held that the proscribed acts may be per os as well as per anus.

The Court of Criminal Appeals first applied the statute to cunnilingus in Locke v. State, 501 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1973). The statute included no marital exception.

[Don Nico]

It's just human nature.
Remember that old expression: be careful what you wish for.

[Krayt]

We love democracy. Until we don’t. Abortion is the poster child for this.

I have no problem thwarting democracy to increase personal rights (as with abortion rights) as I don’t treat democracy as a god to genuflect to, unlike freedom itself, but rather as the abstraction of might makes right that it is.

But then I don't screetch democracy uber alles, where alles includes control over things so you can waggle your fingers.

[Kazinski]

Milei is running into some headwinds in his initial attempts to reshape Argentina's enonomy. He's already backed off some what from scrapping the peso and using dollars as the currency. Part of the problem is that on the black market the rate for value of the peso is one third of the official exchange value.

But I ran across one expert says its the best solution and is feasible to move ahead on it, and by expert I mean he's actually helped to do it twice in Montenegro (in 1999, which is now using the Euro) and Ecuador (2001).

https://blog.independent.org/2023/11/15/dollarize-argentina/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqZXjnunjggMVGh6tBh18eAFyEAAYAyAAEgIQlfD_BwE

I've spent considerable time in Cambodia which uses the dollar mostly, generally any transaction over 10$ uses the dollar but change under 10$ is given in the Riel. Its not always easy doing the math when you buy something for 8.50$ using a 10 dollar bill and you get 6000 Riel in change. Or if you want to pay exactly, since they don't use US coins you pay 8$, and 2000 Riel.

I'm not sure what Argentina would use for change, perhaps still use Pesos for amounts under 5 or 10$.

[Martinned]

"headwinds"

More commonly known as "reality". I can see how that would confuse him.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it IS reality that, if you get into trouble, the cause of the trouble doesn't evaporate the moment you decide to start getting out of it. Food doesn't stop tasting good just because you decide you want to go on a diet, the latest gadget doesn't stop being fascinating just because you decide you need to pay down your credit card.

So, anybody who attempts to reform an economy that's in the tank IS going to face reality, in the form of the things that put it there to begin with.

[Martinned]

Yes, but in Milei's case the problem is more that he proposed reforms that weren't even a good idea in theory. Or, to be more precise, his dogs only understand 1st years undergraduate economics, and advise him accordingly. So yes, reality is going to be a problem.

[Armchair]

Dollarization is a fine and tested idea to stop government inflation.

[Martinned]

What's the biggest country to ever to implement dollarization de jure? The bigger and less export-oriented a country is, the less likely it is that dollarisation is the right solution. But of course on the other side of that pro/con list is the credibility of the government and the central bank. If those institutions are consistently failing badly enough and long enough, any country can wind up having to abolish its own currency.

[Armchair]

Exports have little to do with it. The question isn't about exports. It's about the credibility of the government to keep inflation down.

Argentina's government has lost that credibility. The currency is already pegged to the dollar (supposedly). We can see how well that worked. A more drastic measure is needed.

Ecuador did it fine. Is it a smaller economy than Argentina? Sure. Is it much much smaller, like a microstate? No. It's still a reasonable size.

[Kazinski]

I think the major problem in Argentina is that its leaders have been trying to defy reality for decades, leading to its current 150% inflation.

That is a grim reality. You make it sound like there is a clear path out of that mess. Dollarization is hardly a panacea, yet isn't that basically what Europe did when they adopted the Euro? Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. all said lets give up managing our own currencies and let Germany do it.

But I will tell you one thing, Milei has hit upon one answer that will clearly make things better: fire all the bureaucrats that caused the mess.

[Martinned]

O yes, Milei vs. an incompetent Peronist was definitely a terrible choice for the 2nd round of the presidential election. It was right-wing populism vs. left-wing populism. Not a serious policy proposal within a 1000 miles.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Isn't the problem that Argentina cannot afford to convert its existing debt into USD without obtaining additional loans?

[bernard11]

They also lack sufficient dollar reserves.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about when I say that the realities that drove you to a mistake don't magically disappear when you resolve to go straight. You dig a hole, and decide to stop digging, guess where you still are?

In a hole, that's where.

When you've been living beyond your means by borrowing, just stopping going deeper into debt takes unpleasant sacrifices, because you've got your expenses PLUS the cost of carrying all that debt, which you're no longer going to borrow. (Like we do, not incidentally...) Going beyond not getting deeper, and paying your way back so solvency?

That's a world of pain, all the pain you'd deferred experiencing before.

[Nelson]

"More commonly known as “reality”. I can see how that would confuse him."

Not really. While the anarch-capitalists who think that returning to the gold standard in countries with stable currencies are taking things too far, the idea of replacing an unstable currency whose mechanisms are causing the problems (as in Argentina) with a stable currency that can't be manipulated domestically is an excellent move with instant stabilizing effects.

If they want to reintroduce their own currency in a decade or so after the effects of their disastrous monetary policies have gone away, that is always an option. But stability, the faster the better, is necessary and this is a quick and (relatively) easy way to do it. Reforming and reversing years of irresponsible, inflationary monetary policy would be a lot more difficult and subject to constant political sabotage.

[Martinned]

Sure, but that's only one of his ideas for "reshaping" Argentina's economy.

[Nelson]

Very true, but it is likely to be the fastest and most important. Without a stable monetary system, investment (from both inside and outside the country) will be considerably constrained. The most pro-busoness policy a country can have is market stability, which necessarily includes monetary stability.

[Martinned]

But seriously, Argentina isn't Cambodia, Montenegro, or Ecuador. Much bigger, much less export-dependent.

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

[Armchair]

But it has a similar history of very high inflation, and lack of trust in the government's financial/economic policies.

Dollarization brings back trust to the financial sector.

https://www.saintpeters.edu/wp-content/uploads/blogs.dir/270/files/2022/12/Sonia-Carpio-The-Impact-of-Dollarization-on-Ecuadors-Economic-Performance.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

This is a weakness of coalition governments. Milei could well pick up his ball and go home, he has alluded to this more than once, post-election.

[Martinned]

So could any other elected official with a fixed term in office. What's your point?

[hobie]

From what I read, to peg the economy to the dollar, Argentina would need to have a shit-ton of dollars in their reserves...which they don't and will have no foreseeable way of ever doing so

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am to young to remember the Vietnam War.

All my life, My Lai was used as an example of a war crime Killing women,children, and old men does strike me as that.

On the other hand, that was a war where they were combatants — where young children would run to take the live grenade to the American troops with tragic results, and where anyone might start shooting or detonate bombs made from our own ammo. One trick I heard of was using dead flashlight batteries to power a rocket — the sun would come up, warm the batteries enough to get enough electricity out of the dead batteries to fire the rocket, and we’d be shooting back at people who hadn’t been there since the prior night.

My Lai was a “free fire zone” and when told they had prisoners, the order was to “take care of them.”

Shooting the prisoners was supposedly wrong — even though any number of them could have been homicide bombers, i.e. with grenades they would be willing to detonate to kill Americans along with themselves.

Shooting unarmed enemy soldiers is supposedly right — even if you know they are disarmed. Am I the only one who doesn’t see a clear line of distinction between the two?

[Martinned]

Shooting unarmed enemy soldiers is supposedly right

Is it?

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: (...)
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: (...)
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

[Michael P]

Forces are supposed to accept surrender. That's different than shooting an unarmed enemy who has not surrendered. The proper action gets really fuzzy when the people who supposedly surrender violate the item that precedes the one you quoted: "Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army".

[Martinned]

100%

[John F. Carr]

A group of Russian soldiers surrendered to Ukrainians. One of the Russians then started shooting. At the end of the incident the Russians were all dead. Russian bloggers used this as evidence of Ukrainian war crimes. But it is also evidence of a Russian war crime, perfidy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I thinking you're talking about this. No evidence the Ukrainians did anything wrong. Not sure about the Russians.

[Moderation4ever]

What the My Lai incident did was to show the American people the tragedy of what happens in war and the people's reaction was to be shocked. What were we fighting for? To give the people of South Vietnam as better life, when we just ended up killing them. What happened in My Lai showed the bankruptcy of the American military goals in that war.

[SRG2]

the people’s reaction was to be shocked

IIRC something like 90% of Americans wanted Calley to be pardoned or released, so they got over their shock pretty quickly.

[Moderation4ever]

I think that many people saw Calley as a victim of the war and so favored leniency. Vietnam left a lot of those Americans that served there damaged. I have seen this talking to them when they let their guide down, something they don't often do.

[Moderation4ever]

I would also add that whatever people thought about Calley, the My Lai incident continued to sour the American publics view of the Vietnam war.

[Frank Drackman]

William Calley worked at his Father in Law’s Jewelry store in downtown Columbus GA in the 1980’s, people would go there to get autographs or shake his hand. Having a drink with friends at a Columbus TGI Friday’s in the 90’s, the bartender said, “See that guy over there? that’s William Calley” just another face in the crowd.

Frank

[Nelson]

So your argument is that killing unarmed women, children, and elderly residents of a village is justified because they might, possibly, be combatants instead of people who just live in a village where the enemy has operated?

By that logic, every single person in the country we invaded under false pretenses can be indiscriminately killed with no moral or legal objection. Is that your contention?

FWIW, we used a lot of the same logic in Iraq. We don't always have the best record of acting morally during the insurgency period after an unjustified invasion. It wears soldiers down to be constantly on edge, worried about a sudden attack by the populace.

[Don Nico]

"killing unarmed women, children, and elderly residents"
why this continuing sexist banter.
Unarmed adult males are just as improper a target.
Why do people insist that women are innocent?

[Nelson]

I made no claims about innocence (or lack thereof). I pointed out that if you operate on the assumption that anyone living in an area where the enemy is active is automatically a justifiable military target and that killing them, even if unarmed, is acceptable, you can literally kill anyone at any time. That is completely unacceptable to anyone with the tiniest sliver of moral awareness.

As to why I, personally, view killing women, children, and the elderly as more heinous than killing men, I was raised in the Midwest in the 70s. There's a stubborn streak of chivalry and protective paternalistic instincts that I've never been able to overcome. I'm OK with it.

[John F. Carr]

It is said there were rapes as well as killings at My Lai. That is further evidence the soldiers went beyond any plausible military necessity.

[Nelson]

Agreed. The details of Mi Lai are horrifying. It is one of the things that all American military officers should study to try to prevent any repeat of such a war crime.

[David Nieporent]

This will come as a shock to many, but Dr. Ed is not telling the truth. There were no "prisoners" at My Lai. There were no soldiers. There was no combat. It was a straight massacre of unarmed civilians.

[MoreCurious]

Ed: "Shooting unarmed enemy soldiers is supposedly right — even if you know they are disarmed. Am I the only one who doesn’t see a clear line of distinction between the two?"

A good first step, Ed, would be for you to get your facts straight before trying to start a phony debate. Want to try again, this time acknowledging that it was approximately 500 unarmed civilians?

[Armchair]

So, Israel agreed to a pause with Hamas. And hostage exchange. 3 Palestinian fighters for 1 Israeli hostage.

I can't help but feel this is a mistake. There's a reason you don't negotiate with terrorists. Because (among other reasons), it encourages and rewards the same behavior. If Hamas wants to get is fighters out of prison, all it need do is grab a 70-year old Israeli woman or a Thai farm worker, and then "exchange" them for 3 of its fighters, who can go on to kill more Israelis.

Do I want the hostages freed? Of course. But do I want them freed at the cost of ten times their number in dead Israeli civilians in the future?

Instead, Israel should continue hunting down Hamas and freeing the hostages by force. Not by lopsided prisoner exchanges

[Moderation4ever]

When you are dealing with entities like Hamas there is little in options but lopsided exchange. The fact is that countries like Israel feel a greater urgency to free hostages and that give groups like Hamas the advantage. There is nothing you can do to change that fact. The Israelis know they cannot get the hostages back by force, but rather that force can, as it did here, encourage the exchange.

[Armchair]

But this type of exchange just encourages Hamas to take more prisoners in the future.

Is it worth saving one hostage now, if you lose 2 more to hostage attempts in the future?

Is it worth saving one hostage now, if you release 3 people who will go on to kill another 6 Israelis?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, you tell them.

It makes no sense to me, either, but they’re not my family, friends and neighbors being held hostage.

So long as it doesn’t involve a violation of the rules of war (the prisoner exchange, not to abductions), it’s up to them.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's maybe defensible as a one time thing before they proceed to kill Hamas to the last man, and make a special point of hunting down and very publicly killing every Hamas member they released as part of the exchange.

But probably not even then, I think.

[Krayt]

BBC asked a Hezbolla leader in Lebanon if he was concerned, if they joined in with a huge bombardment, of a severe Israeli response killing civilians, “no problemo!” And that those killings would be Israel’s fault, tee hee*.

* A translation, not reading between the lines.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I agree with one "unless" -- Israel has some sort of "foam bomb" that they are not saying much about beyond it expands and hardens and contact with it causes blindness.

Expanding foams have been around for 50 years, they are used in packaging, for home insulation, and to provide emergency flotation in sailboats. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Israelis have developed something that will fill a tunnel with quick-hardening foam, entombing everyone inside.

While tactically it might make sense to accept that you may kill some of your hostages in the process, politically it isn't --- hence this "we did the best we could' effort -- and without tunnels, there is no Hamas.

[Frank Drackman]

They could just use aerosolized Fentanyl like the Roosh-uns used in the Dubrovka Theater back in 2002, oh wait, that didn't end well.
I've heard the Israelis implant Microchips in their prisoners, more as a mind (redacted) than anything else.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank -- Israel, of all countries, using gas?

Think about the optics on that one...

[Frank Drackman]

What do you think they do anesthesia with in Israel? Whiskey and a bullet?

[Noscitur a sociis]

L, as they say, OL.

[David Nieporent]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Commenter_XY]

So long as Hamas complies with the terms of the ceasefire (it is not a truce), Israel should get hostages out. It is a war goal. I would note Hamas is already violating the terms of the agreement by separating children from their mothers. To me, that broke the agreement, demonstrating once again why you cannot trust Hamas when they give their word; it is merely taquiya.

This 10 per day release can go on through Saturday. After that, it is up to Israel how soon to resume the war. Hamas is Amalek; there is nothing to negotiate with Judeocidal terrorists aside from their surrender (or death).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would note Hamas is already violating the terms of the agreement by separating children from their mothers.

Any comment concerning the claim that Israel violated the agreement by permitting less than the agreed volume of aid from reaching the needy in Gaza? If that assertion is accurate, should the world conclude Israel is untrustworthy?

Cartoonish partisanship and rage-driven thinking seem unhelpful in this context.

[Commenter_XY]

Big 'if' Arthur = If that assertion is accurate, should the world conclude Israel is untrustworthy?

[SimonP]

Hamas is Amalek;

Yeah, let's not with this BS. Could we perhaps refrain from our own genocidal rhetoric?

[Commenter_XY]

Do you prefer Hamas is ISIS, SimonP?

[defaultdotxbe]

I believe the thinking is that the IDF has Hamas largely contained within Gaza now, as well as having evacuated the border areas of Israel. So it will be easier for them to capture 3 more Hamas fighters than for Hamas to launch additional excursions into Israel to capture more hostages. So even for a lopsided exchange the attrition works in Israel's favor.

[John F. Carr]

If you deduct the Palestinians killed in the West Bank while other Palestinians were being freed the exchange ratio is a little closer to even.

[Nige]

‘Instead, Israel should continue hunting down Hamas and freeing the hostages by force.’

The government would love to, and not much care how many died in the process, I’m sure, but it seems they have some shame.

But you say ‘fighters.’ Israel rounds up Palestinians and holds them without trial in appalling conditions all the time, and by now they have thousands. Isn’t that who they’ve been releasing? While rounding up more?

[zztop8970]

They've been releasing violent terrorists who were tried and convicted like Israa Jaabees, an attempted suicide bomber who detonated a car bomb at a checkpoint near Israeli police, permanently disabling one officer.

[Nige]

I wonder why, given they have so many detainees who haven't been charged with or tried for anything, many of them children.

[zztop8970]

Because it was a Hamas demand, clueless.

[Nige]

No shit, Sherlock.

[zztop8970]

So you figured it out all by yourself, after writing "I wonder why"?

[Nige]

I was wondering why they agreed to the demand, bright-eyes.

[zztop8970]

Because they value the lives of the hostages , clueless. Not a difficult concept to understand for most people.

[Nige]

No they don't. They've been bombing the shit out of the place where they're being held and treating their families horribly.

[zztop8970]

Repeating pro-Hamas talking points doesn't make them true, clueless. there's been 5 days of no bombing while hostages are being released, PIJ claims about a hostage being killed in the bombing were revealed to be lies when they were among the released (terrorist organization lies and engages in psychological warfare! who'd have thunk it?), and the families are treated well and kept abreast of the ongoing efforts to release them, to the extent possible.

But keep cheerleading for the Hamas war crimes, that's what you do best.

[John F. Carr]

Israel is in the best position to decide on the relative value of bombing and starving Gaza and having hostages freed. If both sides think a truce with exchange of hostages is best, the world should let them do it.

The situation in the Middle East is not like the situation in Ukraine. Appeasing Russia will make other countries vulnerable. We should care who wins. Israel and Hamas are fighting for the same territory with no apparent intent on either side to go beyond the "river to the sea" area.

[Don Nico]

"3 Palestinian fighters for 1 Israeli hostage."
No, 3 Palestinian civilians for 1 hostage. This time Israel was smart and arrested non-combatants.

[Nige]

Israel arrests non-combatants all the time. Sometimes Israel even charges them with something.

[Armchair]

Sorry Don...

Here are some of the Palestinians released

Ragah Abu Kias of the West Bank, and connected with Fatah, was arrested when he was 16 on July 2, 2021 for opening fire on Jews.

Saadi Abu Adi of the West Bank and connected with Hamas, was arrested when he was 17 on April 2, 2023 and will turn 18 in March of 2024. His arrest was for opening fire on Jews

Marah Bechir of east Jerusalem and connected with Hamas, was arrested in October 2015, at age 16, after she stabbed a border policeman, who survived.

Another prisoner to be released is Ahmed Marzouk, 18, arrested four months ago for assaulting police, arson, possession of weapons, and other charged

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/gaza-news/article-775250

These are not "non-combantants." These are people who have a history of attacking innocent Israelis.

[Don Nico]

Maybe, but Israel also rounded up a few hundred non-combatants

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Two of the released prisoners cited by Armchair were accused of those crimes, but not convicted, according to his own source.

[Gasman]

gilad shalit was worth 1027:1, including 280 prisoners serving life sentences for planning and perpetrating terror attacks. Ultimately how many dead jews are there because of the freed convicted palestinians? An awful bargain in the end.

So the jews are driving a better deal now at 3:1. Maybe of those 3, only one comes back to attack. So better odds.

[Armchair]

Recent polling shows massive levels of misinformation about Hamas with young voters.

51% of 18-24-year-old voters think Israel allows gay people to live together openly; 45% think Hamas allows the same.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/november-harvard-caps--harris-poll-80-of-voters-continue-to-support-israel-over-hamas-301993680.html

I'm pretty shocked. We may need mandatory classes in the Holocaust and the horrors of terrorism

[Martinned]

We may need mandatory classes in the Holocaust and the horrors of terrorism

Really? That's where you went based on that finding? I would have thought that the US needs mandatory classes in what the world outside the US is like.

[Armchair]

When 45% of 18-24 year olds think Hamas is a gay friendly organization...there's a problem.

[Martinned]

Yes. And I don't think that's a problem that would be solved by spending more time teaching people about the Holocaust.

[Armchair]

Sure it would.

The reasons and reasonings that went up to the Holocaust, the type of language used and rationalizations. These are all important to learn and recognize when they are being used to manipulate individuals.

Because we're seeing the same type of manipulations today.

[Nige]

Comparing people to vermin, promising to round people up and put them in camps, to install personal loyalists in positions of power to go after enemies - that's some recognisable language right there. To say nothing of claiming a minority is grooming and seducing and mutilating children. That really rings a bell.

[SimonP]

You've really out-Godwinned yourself here.

I mean, I'm trying to understand what the historical correlate to the rise of the Nazi party might be, when it comes to young people not understanding that Hamas is not very LGBT-friendly. Do you think that Nazi supporters were... mistaken about what the Nazis wanted to do when they were in power? Did they misperceive the Nazis as a pro-social, small-l liberal party? What?

Because it seems to me that the Nazis gained political power by appealing to a minority of nationalists fed up with economic uncertainty and a loss of structural power; once they had a toehold of political power, they then manipulated and exploited political dysfunction to secure even more power; and then once they had amassed enough power, they dispensed with any vestiges of democratic accountability. Do you think that more accurately describes "the Squad," or MAGA?

[Armchair]

"Do you think that Nazi supporters were… mistaken about what the Nazis wanted to do when they were in power?" Yes.

"They [Nazis] cast Germany as a victim or potential victim of foreign aggressors, as a peace-loving nation forced to take up arms to protect its populace "

Sound familiar?

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-public

[SimonP]

Yes, it sounds a lot like Israeli rhetoric.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Yes, it sounds a lot like Israeli rhetoric.

Yeah, Israel has been almost God-like in its ability to force other countries and organizations to repeatedly attack it in publicly stated efforts to wipe it off the map, all just for PR.

[Nige]

Not really. It doesn't directly affect anything. Perhaps some young people can't quite fathom why anyone would single out gay people for persecution, despite living in the US. It's a particular item of wrongness that's easily enough cured. Disinformation about covid being a cold, about the vaccines being poison - now THAT was and is a problem.

[Commenter_XY]

Arm the way I see it: most 18-24 year olds don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. This is just another example of why that is the case.

[Armchair]

Problem is, if they continue with those beliefs and future generations have them as well...

[Randy Sax]

Every year we had the same holocaust lesson. Over and over again. We barely learned about the pacific theater or or what happened in with the Afrika korps. Every single year WWII came around in history class and it was Tuskegee airmen and the holocaust. I Can't speak for the rest of the nation, but for Fairfax County Public Skools, that was the curriculum.

[SimonP]

Another example: 89% of Trump primary supporters say they would vote for him even if he were convicted of a crime.

Misinformation abounds!

[not guilty]

The first Trump jury trial out of the gate is likely to be the conspiracy/attempted obstruction trial in D.C. If that jury convicts, Trump should be detained and imprisoned immediately upon imposition of sentence, per 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), unless the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released pending appeal and also finds that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. Confinement pending appeal is the exception and not the rule in federal court.

Trump can run for president from a prison cell, but it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to govern from there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump should be detained and imprisoned immediately "

Your sexual fantasy is not being fulfilled, sorry.

[Kazinski]

Where's the misinformation there?

Its a simple calculus that Trumps policies would benefit them more than democratic policies.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not how people decide how to vote.

It's especially not whey people voting for Trump say they are voting - they like Trump because he'll hurt the right people, not help them.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, MAGA hater is he best place for MAGA psychology insights.

Truth is Trump delivered on the economy until the pandemic came, and no one blames Trump too much for the pandemic economic dislocation.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, they say so. On this very web forum! Partisan revenge, going after immigrants, and bringing those grooming gays to heel seems the main reasons.

You yourself may not be voting for Trump, but you advocate for him based not on policies but on your personal take that Joe Biden is an International Crime Lord.

That's not really about utility.

Truth is Trump delivered on the economy until the pandemic came
Truth is the right is super bad at understanding how the economy is doing.

https://www.briefingbook.info/p/asymmetric-amplification-and-the?publication_id=1002034&post_id=13874934

while respondents of both parties exhibit partisan bias, the magnitude of their bias is not the same. When a Republican is in the White House, Republican survey respondents feel about 15 index points better than predicted about the economy, whereas Democrats feel around 6 index points worse. When a Democrat is President, Republicans feel about 15 index points worse than the economy, but Democrats only feel around 6 index points better.
That's a factor of 2.5 partisan difference.

Needless to say the opinion of actual economists cannot be listened to, those eggheads are all liberals and biased!

So even if a few are voting for Trump due to the economy, they're as deluded as you are about Biden's crimes. And their delusions are not driven by policy preferences either.

[SimonP]

Its a simple calculus that Trumps policies would benefit them more than democratic policies.

Well, I meant more that 89% of Republican voters don't care so much about criminal convictions because they've been led to believe that they're no big deal, or politically-motivated prosecutions, or whatever. False things, right?

But if you're going with the "policy" angle, the point would still apply, because very few Trump voters seriously believe or care whether Trump's "policies" would benefit them. (Ask a typical Trump voter what his policies are and how they would benefit from them.) There isn't really rational argument there; any "belief" they purport to have about how they could personally benefit from a Trump presidency is, again, based on misinformation.

The only Trump supporters who have a rational and factual basis for believing they can benefit from his presidency are those kleptocrats who will be close enough to the White House for his use of executive power to benefit them. Everyone else is high on farts.

[John F. Carr]

We have mandatory education in genocide in Massachusetts. I wonder if our young people have different views, after adjusting for other factors like red state/blue state splits.

[Nige]

I was given a right telling off here by a bomb-Gaza type for pointing out that lgtbq people were victims of the Holocaust a few weeks ago, so be careful. To balance the demonisation and passing of laws against trans people he promised to go back in time and execute some Nazis. It was quite stirring.

I'm SO glad y'all are suddenly concerned about disinformation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Derek Chauvin was stabbed and seriously injured in prison -- he apparently is still alive but not even his family is being told anything. See: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/derek-chauvins-family-has-received-no-updates-after-prison-stabbing-attorney-says/4895744/

Other than the fact that Chauvin started in better health than Floyd, i.e. didn't have a lethal dose of fentanyl in him and didn't have all the underlying health conditions and hence isn't dead (yet), what is the real difference between what was permitted to happen to these two men.

In other words, both the MPD and BOP are deeply troubled (may I say "incompetently led") organizations. Both permitted serious harm to happen to someone in their custody. And with Keith Ellison describing the Chauvin stabbing as "revenge", it's easy to speculate a Black perp(s) being the stabber.

So where are the White Lives Matter riots?

And as to the BOP, this is the same Federal Prison where last year a prisoned pulled out a gun and tried to shoot a female visitor in the head -- the weapon misfired. Prisoners have guns?!?

[Michael P]

I'm pretty sure that the person who stabbed Chauvin wasn't a government employee acting within the scope of their job duties are the time. That seems like one relevant difference.

But the fact that Chauvin (through his attorneys) asked to be isolated to prevent this kind of attack, and the government dismissed his concerns, is yet another example in my book of how the government has been chronically wrong about him.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm not sure what the comment you're replying to said, but I've always found it interesting that the Floyd case never established that his murder had anything to do with racism, yet many people consider it evidence of police racism.

[David Bremer]

His murder case didn't "establish[] that his murder had anything to do with racism" because that's not what the trial needed to do. Whether the murder was caused by racism or just a guy just deciding he didn't like that one specific person is irrelevant.

You should also know that, following the Floyd murder, there were state and federal investigations into the Minneapolis Police Department. Both found multiple multiple civil-rights violations. On July 13, 2023, the Minnesota state court entered a consent decree requiring various changes or steps by the department to address these issues.

https://mn.gov/mdhr/assets/Signed%20Consent%20Decree%207.13.23_tcm1061-584580.pdf

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, the point being that Floyd's murder is curiously held up as evidence of racism, despite the fact that the police officer who murdered him was never(?) accused of being racist.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Both found multiple multiple civil-rights violations.

Which is, of course, not a finding of racial discrimination in general, let alone a finding of such in the Floyd case.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure "chronically wrong" quite covers what was really a case of malign neglect. It's pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that, in some cases, the prison system essentially sets out to murder select inmates via proxy.

[Martinned]

Well yes. Isn't the conservative mantra that prisoners have no rights and deserve all the rape and other violence they get?

[Frank Drackman]

No

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not THIS conservative's mantra, at least. I think the food should suck, and the beds be uncomfortable, and if you demand a sex change people should laugh in your face, but that's about as far as I'd go in making prison unpleasant.

I'd radically redesign prisons if I had my way about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the food should be great -- let's have everyone leaving prison weighing 400 lbs. It would make it a lot easier for the cops to chase them, and a lot harder for they to be violent.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think prison has to be unpleasant enough people won't volunteer for it. But it shouldn't be dangerous. Once you deprive somebody of the ability to defend themselves, you take on that duty in their stead.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Club Gitmo has great food -- have you seen the difference in cost between the prisoner's food and the Marine's food?

The Hampshire County Jail (Ludlow, MA) hosted the health fair for public employees (which plan do you want to buy, with reps present) and -- at least that day -- it had great food, cooked by inmates.

Think about it -- you're teaching them a trade (cooking) where having a prison record won't be a burden to employment, not if the prison gets a reputation for turning out good cooks -- who *are* always in demand.

But back to my original point: you're a cop who has to chase a felon down a dark alley. Would you rather chase a physically-fit one, or a 400 lb one that you can hear gasping for breath?

[Frank Drackman]

you're actually making sense for once, and who was the genius who thought letting violent criminal pump iron every day was a good idea?

[Drewski]

Sir William Cubitt.

[SimonP]

I really respect this take, even though I think you're usually a chowderhead. Principled and humane.

[David Nieporent]

+1, Brett.

Problem is, most people don't care (or even cheer) about prison violence. Look how much of our culture — pop culture and otherwise — treats prison rape as a joke, or even a meaningful part of a prison sentence.

[SimonP]

To be fair, plenty of "liberals" feel the same way about prison inmates - at least for certain types of crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

Conservatives selectively joining the prison reform movement, as they have with all sorts of criminal justice reform issues.

But only for one of their people, of course.

Special pleading forever.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
Prison reform needs all the help it can get. Disregard motives.

[Sarcastr0]

Special pleading does not actually assist the underlying cause. Not how no one who is up in arms about this is even name checking actual reforms.

It's all rage-bait.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

how the government has been chronically wrong about him

Evidence indicates the government agency that hired Chauvin to be a police officer was wrong about Chauvin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, he wasn't allowed to introduce it, but his department actually trained him to do exactly what he did.

WHY aren't you after the (Black) Chief to go to jail?

[David Nieporent]

False.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The three other officers were convicted of standing around and not preventing it from happening, which essentially is what the prison guards did as well.

Hence it's quite similar.

[Sarcastr0]

"Essentially."

[Commenter_XY]

Prison is a dangerous place. Maybe not do things that get you there in the first place?

Derek Chauvin will receive medical care from the prison. That is a better deal than Floyd got, which was death at the hands of an indifferent, uncaring LEO. Chauvin's complete indifference to human life is what got him there.

Now Chauvin lives in a daily environment that is indifferent to his life. Justice is rough.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.thefallofminneapolis.com/
No "justice" was involved.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems you drank the Koolade. Suggest you watch the movie linked below or the article from PowerLine also linked.
https://www.thefallofminneapolis.com/

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/naked-stoned-and-stabbed.php

[Commenter_XY]

I will answer both you and Ed. We have a difference of opinion on this matter.

I saw Derek Chauvin kneel on the neck (area) of a prostrate man, who presented no immediate threat to the four (yes 4) LEOs on-site. Chauvin then proceeded to display a complete indifference to human life for several minutes as George Floyd died.

He is being punished appropriately, IMO.

[John F. Carr]

He deserved prison. He did not do anything to deserve being stabbed in prison. To me it's just a routine homicide that happened to drive the country crazy. Lock him up, set him free, no law enforcement work unless and until he shows an attitude change. The last part is hypothetical. Under current law reforming is not enough. He wouldn't be able to touch a gun until he got federal and state pardons.

[Mr. Bumble]

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

I'm not sure what you saw or think you saw but you weren't there so can't say what occurred. Also, the type of restraint Chauvin used was part of the Minneapolis police training manual and taught to all of the police as an approved and recommended method of restraint.

I would suggest you at least read the linked article.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, I followed the coverage of the Chauvin trial at Legal Insurrection quite closely. Have also followed coverage intermittently post trial (Revolver News had an interesting article, recently). Most of all, I saw what I saw -- for 11 minutes. Evidently, so did the jury; I am good with the verdict.

Chauvin is being appropriately punished for his complete indifference to human life, made even more egregious because he is an LEO.

I'm not sure the flavor of your Kool-Aid agrees with me, Mr. Bumble, on this topic. 😉

[David Nieporent]

.

Also, the type of restraint Chauvin used was part of the Minneapolis police training manual

No, it wasn't. This is a fabrication. They were trained they could briefly use a neck restraint on an actively resisting subject. Not kneel on the person's neck at all, let alone until long after he stopped resisting.

[Nelson]

"a lethal dose of fentanyl in him"

He didn't have a lethal dose of anything in his system. Except Derek Chauvin's knee.

"what is the real difference between what was permitted to happen to these two men"

First, nothing was "permitted" to happen to Chauvin. Prison violence isn't permitted anywhere, but it happens anyway. But the difference is Floyd was a criminal murdered by someone who was supposed to be the opposite of a criminal while Chauvin was a criminal who another criminal attempted to murder.

"with Keith Ellison describing the Chauvin stabbing as “revenge”, it’s easy to speculate a Black perp(s) being the stabber."

In what sane universe is an uninvolved politician's speculation about a motive for the stabbing give any information about the identity of the attacker?

"So where are the White Lives Matter riots?"

In the dark corners of the internet where the virulent racists hide. Sane people can see a myriad of reasons why a former cop might get stabbed in prison that are completely unconnected to race.

Karma's a bitch, isn't it.

I still can't decide if you are truly as illogical and credulous of all things right-fringe as you seem or if you are playing it up for the cameras.

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User

He didn’t have a lethal dose of anything in his system. Except Derek Chauvin’s knee.

Nelson - of course you may have noticed, there was no forensic evidence supporting the states theory of the cause of floyd's death.

It was a combo of the fluid is his lungs that prevented the exchange of oxygen from his lungs into the blood stream (alveoli - air sacs) , the fentanyl, the meth and the bad heart. There were also indications that the combo of the excitement, and meth which accelerated the release of toxins from the tumor in his hip contributed to his demise.

[Brett Bellmore]

He didn't have an immediately lethal dose in his system, given his addiction, if he'd been healthy. Back in the real world, he was already at death's door.

But Chauvin pushed him through it a few minutes early, I suppose, and that's enough for liability.

[Nelson]

Joe, I've heard the various apologist explanations of why it was all Floyd's fault, nit the cops'. It's exactly as convincing and logical as the Lost Cause rhetoric from elsewhere in this thread: not at all.

Based on your other posts here, it's clear you are someone who believes what he wants to believe and will accept the most implausible and transparent conspiracy theories in order to retain your beliefs.

[Brett Bellmore]

It wasn't ALL Floyd's fault. Maybe 95%. The guy had one foot in the grave and was teetering, and wouldn't even have met Chauvin if not for passing bad bills, but Chauvin did nudge him over that line.

That's enough to reasonably make Chauvin legally liable, though I think murder was a stretch. The other officers were charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree manslaughter. Strange if it was actually a murder...

Oh, excuse me, one dead guy, and THREE counts. 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter. Of the same guy. Amazed they didn't throw in battery.

[Joe_dallas]

Brett Bellmore 32 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"It wasn’t ALL Floyd’s fault. Maybe 95%. The guy had one foot in the grave and was teetering,"

90+% would be reasonable estimate. The physical stress and excitement of arrest contributed to the demise, Before the knee on the back.
fwiw - its was probably at the point in time that Floyd exited the police car that without immediate emergency medical care that he would have either died within the next 15 -20 minutes or have had severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen to the brain. keep in mind that the fluid build up in the lungs at the point in time was starting to choke off the oxygen exchange via the alveoli. Note also that he was complaining about not being able to breathe prior to that point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I've read news accounts that go to great length to leave the impression, (Without actually saying so!) that he complained about not being able to breath while Chauvin had his knee on his neck.

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Joe, I’ve heard the various apologist explanations of why it was all Floyd’s fault, nit the cops’. It’s exactly as convincing and logical as the Lost Cause rhetoric from elsewhere in this thread: not at all."

Nelson - I am basing my comments solely on the basis of facts. The Hennipen county medical examiner got the facts correct with the exception of down playing the significance of the fluid in the lungs.

The problem with the states theory of the cause of death is that there was no forensic evidence supporting their theory of the cause of death. Along with the cardiologist and the pulmunary expert, was complete dismissal of the effects of the excess fluid in the lungs.

[Nelson]

Wait, are you saying that the fluid in the lungs was dismissed by the medical examiner, a pulmonologist, and a cardiologist, yet you know that it would have eventually gave killed him regardless of what Chauvin did?

What sort of medical experience do you have that would make you more competent and knowledgeable than three experienced medical specialists?

[Joe_dallas]

Nelson 50 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Wait, are you saying that the fluid in the lungs was dismissed by the medical examiner, a pulmonologist, and a cardiologist, yet you know that it would have eventually gave killed him regardless of what Chauvin did?

Nelson, I have no issues with the medical examiner. His testimony was very credible with the exception of downplaying the issue of the build up of fluid in the lungs. The cardiologist was flat out - not credible / borderline dishonest. Same with the pulmonologist. Both lost any credibility when they stated that the fentanyhl had no effect on the cause of death. both made a claim somewhat similar to the effect that because he survived a prior overdose of a similar amount , that the same dosage would never have killed him. That claim is absolutely false and well known to be false. It doesnt take an expert in medical knowledge to recognize dishonesty.

[David Nieporent]

.

It doesnt take an expert in medical knowledge to recognize dishonesty.

Sure, which is why it's obvious to every single person here that you are utterly full of shit on every single scientific topic you post about.

[David Nieporent]

Look, Joe barely passed high school remedial science, so he is an international expert on virology, microbiology, forensic medicine, climatology, and whatever other subject he needs to be. If you challenge him on this he will actually brag that he took biology in high school as if that makes him an expert.

[Nige]

Wouldn't Prison Reform riots be more appropriate?

[David Nieporent]

.

what is the real difference between what was permitted to happen to these two men.

You mean besides the obvious fact that in one case an agent of the state killed Floyd and an the other an agent of the state didn't kill (or try to kill) Chauvin?

And with Keith Ellison describing the Chauvin stabbing as “revenge”,

I can find no evidence that Keith Ellison did any such thing. Given that it's Dr. Ed, I assume it didn't happen.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court of Georgia has declined to approve draft standards of conduct and rules submitted by the newly created Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission. https://efile.gasupreme.us/viewFiling?filingId=02abf957-6722-4661-8bbe-df2219d604b1 This will effectively prevent the Commission from doing business.

Without directly reaching the merits, the Court opined, "After consideration, we have grave doubts that adopting the standards and rules would be within our constitutional power."

Score one for the uppity black female District Attorneys in Fulton and Dekalb Counties.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's not that they are "uppity Black" but that they are biased & prejudiced. Wasn't it the SC Bar that wound up dealing with Nifong?

[not guilty]

Michael Nifong prosecuted in Durham County, North Carolina, and he was thereafter disbarred -- by the judicial branch, without interference from the governor or legislature.

The impetus for the Georgia legislature creating the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission was a desire to curtail the independence of black prosecutors in urban areas. Several Republican state senators have filed a complaint kvetching about Fulton County DA Fani Willis's prosecution of Donald Trump. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/special-reports/ga-trump-investigation/ga-republicans-file-complaint-da-willis-after-trump-indictment/85-8d863d5d-2ed7-4945-86ea-732bc7b167aa

[Ed Grinberg]

"The impetus for the Georgia legislature creating the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission was a desire to curtail the independence of black prosecutors in urban areas."
Isn't it at all possible that the Legislature's impetus was a desire to curtail the independence of lawless prosecutors, regardless of skin-color?

[Mr. Bumble]

NG can't help himself. Projection is strong in him.

[not guilty]

"Isn’t it at all possible that the Legislature’s impetus was a desire to curtail the independence of lawless prosecutors, regardless of skin-color?"

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[Nelson]

"lawless prosecutors"

Outside of your own head, which prosecutors have been proved to be "lawless"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Aren't prosecutors who refuse to bring charges against person caught in criminal acts "lawless" by definition?
Asking for a friend.

[Sarcastr0]

Prosecutorial discretion is an important part of the operation of a lawful society.

[Brett Bellmore]

Used sparingly, maybe. Used wrongly, it's an important part of the operation of a lawless society.

May I remind you that a large part of Jim Crow was prosecutorial discretion? The KKK were utterly dependent on it, and the 14th amendment's equal protection clause was an effort to limit it.

“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

[Sarcastr0]

We have institutions that decide what counts as wrongly already, Brett. “lawless” by definition is not really in the mix.

Your non-argument offering no criteria is part of why.

I don't recall the way we got past Jim Crow being to go after prosecutors.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, empowering federal law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts to take care of racist criminal behavior not being adequately addressed by state authorities seems like it was absolutely a critical component of dismantling Jim Crow.

[Nelson]

“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”

I like that quote, Brett. Where's it from?

[Brett Bellmore]

Adam Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”

“Such is the account commonly given of our approbation of the punishment of injustice. And so far this account is undoubtedly true that we frequently have occasion to confirm our natural sense of the propriety and fitness of punishment by reflecting how necessary it is for preserving the order of society. When the guilty is about to suffer that just retaliation, which the natural indignation of mankind tells them is due to his crimes; when the insolence of his injustice is broken and humbled by the terror of his approaching punishment; when he ceases to be an object of fear, with the generous and humane he begins to be an object of pity. The thought of what he is about to suffer extinguishes their resentment for the sufferings of others to which he has given occasion. They are disposed to pardon and forgive him, and to save him from that punishment which in all their cool hours they had considered as the retribution due to such crimes. Here, therefore, they have occasion to call to their assistance the consideration of the general interest of society. They counterbalance the impulse of this weak and partial humanity, by the dictates of a humanity that is more generous and comprehensive. They reflect that mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, and oppose to the emotions of compassion which they feel for a particular person, a more enlarged compassion, which they feel for mankind.”

[Nelson]

Thank you.

[Nelson]

"Aren’t prosecutors who refuse to bring charges against person caught in criminal acts “lawless” by definition?"

No.

[Moderation4ever]

I would like to put in a plug for my Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers who, since his election in 2018, has issued 1111 pardons. Gov. Evers is not denying people's crimes but is offering forgiveness to allow people to move on to put their past behind them and to be better people and better citizens.

[Martinned]

That's quite impressive, given that (according to the national institute of corrections) as of 2020 the total prison population in Wisconsin was 20,298, with a further 13,650 in jails and 38,385 under probation and 1,683 under parole.

https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/state-statistics/2020/wisconsin-2020

[Michael P]

Felons are only eligible for this pardon process if they completed their most recent incarceration at least 5 years ago.

The list of the most recently pardoned people is alphabetical, and the first six are described as being on the right side of the law for at least two decades each.

[Martinned]

Wait, what? What's the point of pardoning people who've already served their sentence?

[Brett Bellmore]

It relieves you of any lingering disabilities that attach to having a felony record.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it (no surprise) if you're honest, don't you still have to answer "Yes" to the "Ever convicted of a Felony?" Question?
Do they take your name out of the NCIC so you can pass your background check?
I was all set to be outraged, but the outrage is that most of these saps were convicted in the first place. Except for one armed robbery, it's all selling pot to undercover police (isn't the cop committing a crime also?) bad checks, penny ante theft.

Frank

[defaultdotxbe]

It would depend on the nature of the pardon, some states include expungement with a pardon, but in most that is a separate process (although often made easier with a pardon).

Also in most cases restoration of 2nd Amendment rights is yet another separate process, and tends to be more difficult due to the politics surrounding the issue.

[Michael P]

The "EXCEPTION" paragraph of the directions for Form 4473 says:

A person subject to any of these exceptions, or who received relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), should answer “no” to the applicable question.

[Michael P]

It restores various legal rights, such as keeping and bearing arms, and in some states voting. (Other states restore voting more easily, and I suspect Wisconsin is among them.) It also affects background searches for job applications.

There's an argument that most of these changes should be automatic or at a much lower level of discretion (such as a district court), and I think that's the common approach in Europe, but not in most of the US.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett and Michael have it right. I remember a pardon given many years ago by then Gov. Thompson. The pardon allowed an old man to again use a firearm which allowed him to deer hunt a Wisconsin tradition.

[Martinned]

In that case, 1,111 pardons isn't obviously impressive. It's more likely to be a massive waste of everyone's time to accomplish what should be achieved through automatic operation of the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure. I'm of the opinion that at the end of your sentence you should get ALL your rights back, bar none. Automatic resumption of full citizenship.

Not for the benefit of the felon. For the benefit of everybody else. A system designed to selectively deny some people's rights is a system easily leveraged to deny other people's rights.

[Randy Sax]

When I argue 2A rights with people, they like to use the argument, “you wouldn’t let a a felon who just got out of prison buy a gun” And I answer “yes I would” It always leaves stunned looks on their faces.

[Brett Bellmore]

If they're too dangerous to have out on the street and armed, they're too dangerous to have out on the street, period. Because if they intend to do wrong, they're going to find it about as hard to arm themselves as to get illegal drugs.

This is not an issue for the gun control movement, because it's not driven by people afraid of criminals with guns, it's driven by people afraid of citizens with guns.

[Martinned]

@Brett: Indeed. There are way too many guns in the US. That's a problem quite separate from what you think a convicted felon might do with one.

[Moderation4ever]

I have no problem with most felons getting back their 2A right to firearms. I would hold off on felons that committed violet crimes or guns crimes. In the same way I think that sometimes we need to remove guns without conviction in case of Red Flag laws where individuals are found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others.

[Randy Sax]

@Moderation; I think still even if you were convicted of a violent crime, if you aren't sentenced to life, and have served your sentence, the state needs to recognize you as a full citizen again. Ex-cons have it rough enough. I don't think it's a good idea to release someone into the wild after 30 years and deny their right self defense through the use of a firearm.

[Nelson]

"If they’re too dangerous to have out on the street and armed, they’re too dangerous to have out on the street, period."

If they've served their sentence, whether the government thinks they are "too dangerous to have out on the streets" or not is irrelevant. Except for some Southern jurisdictions that think it's OK to keep people in jail after their sentences expire, the end of the sentence means they get released.

I oppose most restrictions to gun ownership. The solution to someone wanting most things we consider "dangerous" isn't to try to prohibit those things, it's to tighten accountability on the person who owns the dangerous thing. The more dangerous, the more accountability.

That said, anyone convicted of a violent crime, especially those like domestic violence with an insane level of murderous outcomes, has proven themselves to be incapable of being trusted with a deadly weapon. I think the felony thing is stupid because as loathsome as someone who runs a Ponzi scheme is, they haven't shown a propensity for violence. So I think the standard should be violent vs. non-violent, not felony vs. misdemeanor.

[Nelson]

"I don’t think it’s a good idea to release someone into the wild after 30 years and deny their right self defense through the use of a firearm."

How does being incarcerated change the equation? The average person is vanishingly unlikely to need to use a gun in self-defense and spending 30 years in prison foesn't make it any more likely. The "self defense" thing is a political, not logical, argument for the Second Amendment.

If you committed a violent crime, being armed makes you more of a danger to others (as proved by your previous violent actions), but doesn't make a noticeable difference to your own safety.

Allowing armed violent criminals (or former criminals, if you prefer) isn't worth the risk to the innocent people around them.

[Randy Sax]

Defensive uses of firearms do happen, so I don't agree with your statement that self defense isn't a practical 2A argument. The point I was making with the 30 years comment is that people change over time. Maybe not in every case, but I don't think it's practical to judge people based on the worst mistake they made in their lives. I know the system is screwed up, prison should be about rehabilitation, not punishment IMO.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I say, I advocate restoration of ALL rights at the end of sentence, not out of concern for the felons, but for out of concern for everybody else.

In order to have a system that nominally, (And only nominally.) disarms ex cons, you have to have a system which is really convenient for messing with everybody else's rights. Suddenly instead of just exercising your rights whenever you want to, you have to go to government for permission to exercise them.

But rights are exactly what you DON'T need permission to do!

It adds a choke point to the system where the rights of many non-criminals can be contracted, for every criminal whose illegal possession of a firearm is made inconvenient.

[Nelson]

"Defensive uses of firearms do happen,"

Offensive use of firearms against innocent victims happens all the time. It's much more likely that a violent criminal will use a firearm offensively than defensively. They had their chance and they threw it away. The innocent shouldn't be risked on the possibility the criminal is completely reformed.

"I don’t think it’s practical to judge people based on the worst mistake they made in their lives."

I agree 100%. But that doesn't justify endangering the public by trusting that a violent criminal is now non-violent. The onus is on the person who has proven to be dangerous to others to prove he can be trusted with firearms. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe he can and innocent citizens shouldn't be unwillingly put in harm's way if it turns out he was given the benefit of the doubt mistakenly.

"prison should be about rehabilitation, not punishment IMO."

Agreed. But you seem to think that rehabilitation should mean we ignore the past and pretend a violent criminal is as trustworthy as a law-abiding citizen. That's not a sensible approach when firearms are involved.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They had their chance and they threw it away. The innocent shouldn’t be risked on the possibility the criminal is completely reformed."

Well, sure. And if just telling a convicted criminal, "You can't have guns now!" resulted in them not being able to have guns, you'd have more of a point. But it doesn't. It mildly inconveniences them, and that's all.

So, we're not countering inconvenience for the law abiding against actually incapacitating the violent. It's inconvenience vs inconvenience, and the law abiding hugely outnumber the the violent.

Why not compromise? Drop all the bullshit Brady this, and waiting period that, (Which the criminals bypass anyway!) and just make possessing a gun after a felony conviction a sentence multiplier on their next conviction. At least that way the weight won't fall on the innocent.

[Nelson]

"Suddenly instead of just exercising your rights whenever you want to, you have to go to government for permission to exercise them."

Not true at all. Absent violent criminality, your Second Amendment rights are yours. Ot takes proactive action to change that equation. But if you demonstrate an inability to control your violent impulses, you arr demonstrating that you are incapable of exercising the responsibility necessary to justify having legal access to a firearm.

Said another way, absent violent criminality, the balance of rights is completely on the side of gun ownership. After displaying violent criminality, the balance of rights shifts to the side of the innocent.

[Nelson]

"Well, sure. And if just telling a convicted criminal, “You can’t have guns now!” resulted in them not being able to have guns, you’d have more of a point."

I've never understood the argument that gun absolutist use that says "if it can't stop every criminal act, it isn't valid". That's nonsense. No law prevents criminality. It maybe makes the cost/benefit equation shift, but it doesn't have any effect on intentional criminality. The law punishes criminality.

Why gun absolutists think gun laws are magically different than every other law out there is a constant source of bafflement to me. Unless they know they're being disingenuous and are intentionally acting in bad faith, which is always a possibility.

"But it doesn’t. It mildly inconveniences them, and that’s all."

It does more than mildly inconvenience them. It makes the return to prison dependent on gun possession. If a criminal convicted of a violent crime has a gun, they go to jail. That is the closest to a law "preventing" something as is possible. It means that only the most determined (or stupid) violent criminal will get a gun.

"Why not compromise? Drop all the bullshit Brady this, and waiting period that, (Which the criminals bypass anyway!)"

I agree. I think that legislation tightening accountability and responsibility are valid, but a three day waiting period for a gun is as indefensible as a three day waiting period for a medical procedure.

"and just make possessing a gun after a felony conviction a sentence multiplier on their next conviction."

No. There shouldn't be a "one violent crime free" provision. If you commit a violent crime, you lose the right to possess a firearm. And if you do possess one and get caught, you go to jail.

FWIW, I think the distinction should be violent vs. nonviolent crimes, not felony vs. misdemeanor.

"At least that way the weight won’t fall on the innocent."

It wouldn't. This would all happen after a conviction for (or plea to) a violent crime. That's not "the innocent" by any stretch.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Not true at all. Absent violent criminality, your Second Amendment rights are yours."

Admittedly, I live in SC, which doesn't have a state license to own or purchase firearms, and has little curiosity about which I own. Rather different from some states.

But if I decide that I want that Rossi CIrcuit Judge I'm hankering for, I will, indeed, have to go crawling to the federal government for permission to buy it.

Which, sure, they'll probably grant, with some variable delay, unless the Biden administration gets even worse. But it's still permission. To exercise a right.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’ve never understood the argument that gun absolutist use that says “if it can’t stop every criminal act, it isn’t valid”. That’s nonsense. No law prevents criminality. It maybe makes the cost/benefit equation shift, but it doesn’t have any effect on intentional criminality. The law punishes criminality.

Why gun absolutists think gun laws are magically different than every other law out there is a constant source of bafflement to me."

Well, if you're really curious.

There's a spectrum of effectiveness against criminals, and of infringement of rights.

Let's say you had a magic wand, or a genie owed you a wish. And you wished that it was physically impossible for convicted felons to touch weapons, and nothing more.

Well, the result would be fairly high on the effectiveness scale, not quite 100% because he could still punch somebody to death, but still darned high. And it wouldn't infringe anybody's rights to speak of. But, of course, that's magical wish fulfillment for you. Works great in your imagination, and nowhere else.

OTOH, let's suppose you promulgated an law that nobody could have weapons, period, with the normal level of law enforcement.

It would be pretty darned effective for all the people who were obsessively law abiding and were never going to misuse a gun anyway. They couldn't use a gun for ANYTHING.

The people who were reasonably law abiding but who felt no need to comply with blatantly unconstitutional laws? They're now criminals.

It would have almost no effect at all on criminals, who'd just buy their gun from the black market.

This law is near zero on effectiveness, and maxes out right infringement.

It is generally the case that real world gun control laws look a LOT more like our latter example, than the genie wish. Typically near zero effectiveness, and maxed out rights violations.

Well, of course that's how it works out. They're the "gun control" movement, not the "crime control" movement: The rights infringement IS their goal! Annoying criminals would be at the most a nice byproduct of what they're after.

[Nelson]

Ignore this. I accidentally hit the "flag comment" button and since I can't undo it, I wanted to save it so I can reference it.

“Not true at all. Absent violent criminality, your Second Amendment rights are yours.”

Admittedly, I live in SC, which doesn’t have a state license to own or purchase firearms, and has little curiosity about which I own. Rather different from some states.

But if I decide that I want that Rossi CIrcuit Judge I’m hankering for, I will, indeed, have to go crawling to the federal government for permission to buy it.

Which, sure, they’ll probably grant, with some variable delay, unless the Biden administration gets even worse. But it’s still permission. To exercise a right.

[Nelson]

"I will, indeed, have to go crawling to the federal government for permission to buy it."

In what way? As long as you aren't a criminal or legally barred from owning a gun, can the government prevent the purchase?

Are you conflating a check to see if you are ineligible to own a gun with the government having to give permission for you to purchase a gun? I support banning guns for those who have proven themselves to be violent, but oppose the various nuisance obstacles that only inconvenience legal gun owners, not actually prevent any gun purchases.

That said, I think you are stretching the meaning of the word "permission" awfully far. It's more a check for eligibility, not permission.

[Nelson]

"Well, if you’re really curious."

So you didn't actually address my point. The argument of gun absolutist is that if there isn't a 100% crime prevention effect, the law is invalid.

Your hypotheticals reinforce that error. Your assumption is that without 100% effectiveness, rights might possibly be impacted and therefore it is an invalid action. In addition, your premise is that all gun laws are designed to steal your rights, not for any legitimate purpose. Those are two extreme and illogical jumping-off points.

If you are looking for effective gun control laws (which gun absolutists falsely claim isn't anyone's goal), you first have to recognize that there aren't only options, 100% effective crime prevention or 100% rights infringement.

I believe the best approach is to make responsibility by gun owners absolute (including in sales) and make the consequences for possession of guns by those who are banned from possessing them potent and unconnected from any crime other than possession.

Also, as I mentioned several times, make any ban based on violent vs. nonviolent crimes, not felony vs. misdemeanor so that violent misdemeanors would still result in a ban, but nonviolent felonies wouldn't.

So laws like requiring registration of all guns and responsibility by the registered owner for anything done with that gun would be a way to encourage more accountability and simplify anti-straw-purchase laws.

Kit or 3D printed guns would be required to have serial numbers on all parts. That way legal gun owners who are responsible have nothing to worry about, but irresponsible or criminal gun owners would be at risk. With the rise in kit guns and 3D printers, it would possibly have to be a requirement to have serial numbers for various parts (barrels, for example) rather than an entire "gun" per se.

Regarding banning guns, that would be limited to violent criminals, especially perpetrators of domestic violence, and possibly "career" criminals. The idea that someone who got busted for writing a lot of bad checks will suddenly become violent if allowed to own a gun seems idiotic to me.

The bottom line is that the simplest way to do it is to increase pre-crime accountability and post-crime punishment. That would leave the vast majority of gun owners, who never commit a crime, alone.

I think the weakness of the anti-gun forces is that they are trying to sharply reduce the number of guns in America, but nuisance measures won't stop purchases, just delay them. And the only way to significantly reduce the number of guns in America is to eliminate the Second Amendment. Not only is that a terrible idea, it's never going to happen.

So the anti-gun folks have to decide if they want to keep tilting at windmills or if they will bow to reality and start to develop effective means of reducing (because it will never be eliminated) gun violence by attaching consequences to irresponsible gun ownership, criminal gun usage, and possession by known violent criminals.

[Bored Lawyer]

In a prior AI thread, I commented that, IMO, the big issue in intellectual property for AI is not qualification for protection, but infringement. As an experiment, I entered the following prompt in three AI engines, ChatGPT, Bing and Bard:

Write a short story about a boy who discovers he is a wizard and then goes to wizard boarding school.

The results are too long to post here, but I printed them and link to the results: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/d48skn82kvlnt2du5bggk/AI-Test.pdf?rlkey=20vd0fn05jbzmaqoef7i6axs2&dl=0

If this were human generated I would say that Bing is clearly an infringement, Bard is not, ChatGPT is debatable.

Since the Copyright Act requires copying, not independent creation, which is hard to prove, many courts have relied on a two part test: access and substantial similarity. If the accused infringer had access to the copyrighted work, and the result is substantially similar, one may infer that copying took place.

Whether that test applies to AI is an interesting question, which I think courts will be addressing in the near future.

[Commenter_XY]

BL, what's the remedy, in your mind? (the Bing example)

[Bored Lawyer]

As for any infringement, the copyright owners can sue, get an injunction and damages. Assuming its worth it.

[Randy Sax]

What are the qualifications to decide if something is adequately "transformative"?

[Bored Lawyer]

The Supreme Court recently addressed this in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (2023). You can read the whole thing here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-869/#tab-opinion-4742178

One key point of the decision is that "transformative" as part of the Fair Use analysis means for a different purpose, and not just changing the content of a work for the same purpose. I can quote part of a work to criticize it, or teach something about it. But if I create something that has the same purpose -- a story that copies a story -- then it won't be fair use.

[Randy Sax]

Thank you for the insight. I do still have lingering question though,

AWF does not challenge the Court of Appeals' holding that Goldsmith's photograph and the Prince Series works are substantially similar. The question here is whether AWF can defend against a claim of copyright infringement because it made "fair use" of Goldsmith's photograph.

What is required to argue that a work is NOT substantially similar? Is it a case by case basis? Do you think Dreamworks would have a case against 3GI for the fan-made "Shrek Retold"?

To determine whether a particular use is "fair," the statute sets out four factors to be considered:
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

It is that third bullet point I am most curious about.

[Bored Lawyer]

I should add that in my search for AI sites, I noticed there are many sites discussing how to use AI to write novels and short stories. So it's going to be used a lot for that.

[Nige]

Given how expensive ‘AI’ actually is these will implode the way NFTs and big chunks of crypto did. Who knows how much damage it’ll do first, though. It's a good thing we're not facing a planetary crisis that needs some real innovation and visionary thinking.

[Mr. Bumble]

From the what's old is new file:

"World's largest airship is unveiled: Enormous aircraft backed by Google co-founder Sergey Brin measures 400 FEET long - almost twice the size of a Boeing 747

The Pathfinder 1 uses one million cubic feet of helium to take off vertically
The world's largest aircraft has just begun its first flight tests in California "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12795187/Worlds-largest-airship-unveiled-Enormous-aircraft-backed-Google-founder-Sergey-Brin-measures-400-FEET-long-twice-size-Boeing-747.html

...and still only half the size of the Hindenberg.

[Randy Sax]

Isn't helium becoming a scarce resource? They shuld'a used hydrogen.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was, essentially, deliberately made a scarce resource. Like the recent deliberate emptying of the strategic petroleum reserve, somebody didn't like that we had a strategic helium reserve, and dumped it on the market. So you had a generation getting used to helium balloons at parties, while the reserve was emptied.

But, yes, the Hindenburg wasn't really designed properly to use hydrogen, that doesn't mean that you can't safely use hydrogen in a dirigible.

[Randy Sax]

It my teens I worked at a shitty Party City type store and it wasn't birthday parties that we're our biggest balloon customers. By far the biggest consumer of balloons was realters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wildlife folk hate Helium balloons.
Seems they tend to land in wetlands and ducks eat them...

[Frank Drackman]

Is that why Donald Duck talked like he did?

[Mr. Bumble]

+1

[David Nieporent]

.

By far the biggest consumer of balloons was realters.

…because high-pitched voices close property deals?

[Randy Sax]

For open houses.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, I know what you meant. It was funnier my way.

[Mr. Bumble]

A 400 foot long hydrogen filled bomb would make quite an inviting target.

[Sarcastr0]

*that's the joke*

[hobie]

Seems like a good idea to me. For a one-time purchase of $250,000 you have the energy to achieve vertical flight for as long as you can keep the helium contained. The only constant energy needs would then be that to propel it forward. But as Sir Branston made plain, you get a balloon into the jet stream and it will fly along at 100mph for as long as you wish

[Mr. Bumble]

Per the story a one time fill-up could run as high as $1 million.

[John F. Carr]

Helium leaks through solid objects more readily than any other gas.

When I was in college it was said that one should not keep a cathode ray tube too close to a dewar of liquid helium. The helium would get into the tube and mess up the image. I never observed this, but then again I never observed a CRT too close to liquid helium.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Helium rises -- how could it go laterally?

[John F. Carr]

Bulk helium rises. Dilute helium moves with the air it is mixed with. On geologic time scales hydrogen and helium do rise to the upper atmosphere and escape to space.

I remember a disaster novel _Denver Is Missing_ about a drilling accident that released nitrogen that made high altitude cities like Denver uninhabitable. Nitrogen is slightly lighter than air. The science may have been a bit off there. Or a lot.

[Nelson]

Training and believing in itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's actually enough helium in the atmosphere that regular vacuum tubes can eventually be compromised by helium diffusion. Not only does it leak through solid materials, getters don't do a very good job of immobilizing it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This polemical political blog
with a vanishingly thin
academic veneer has
operated for no more than

TEN (10)

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

FORTY-ONE (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 steady, partisan stream of
gay-bashing, misogynist, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, transphobic,
Palestinian-hating, and
immigrant-bashing slurs and other
bigoted content published daily
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the receding,
disaffected, 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.

Tickets go on sale in a couple of days! From Chicago to New Orleans, Vancouver to Orlando, Los Angeles to New York, try to make as many shows as you can.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Rev. Deja Vu.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hey Kirkland: ******

[Commenter_XY]

Do they give poor old Mick some O2 before getting on stage? The dude is almost as old as POTUS Biden. Old as dirt.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Poor old Mick?

He's more physically fit than the average 30-year-old. (His father was a physical education teacher.)

He seems to enjoy his life, with good reason.

He is ridiculously wealthy and can earn at will. A million dollars each time he steps on stage.

He is exceptionally talented -- especially when mocking hayseeds.

He gets to perform some of the world's best music with some of the world's best musicians.

[Commenter_XY]

Now Arthur, I enjoy The Stones. Truly, I do. But they don't even play Stones on 'classic rock' channels anymore. That is how old Mick is. Nevermind past your prime...you're past 'classic' Now that is old.

Paint it black does it for me. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who are the classic rock stations playing these days?

Led Zeppelin? Bob Seger? Pink Floyd?

Jimi Hendrix? James Gang? Black Sabbath?

The Doors? The Beatles? Deep Purple?

ZZ Top? Neil Young? Lynyrd Skynyrd?

[Commenter_XY]

They play shit from the late 90's and early 00's and call it classic. I call it something far less charitable.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The last time I listened to a classic rock station, they were playing Nirvana and Greenday. I'm sure we're only a couple of years away from the Strokes and the White Stripes.

[Bob from Ohio]

“That is how old Mick is. ”

Not going to the “Rockers with Walkers” tour this summer?

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be poor Ozzy Osbourne.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Not going to the “Rockers with Walkers” tour this summer?

If Bob from Ohio could afford a Stones ticket, he might know that Mick Jagger is more fit than most people.

Proofreading downscale residential deeds in backwater Ohio doesn't pay enough to even get a glimpse of a genuine rock star, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

For our Euro friend.

"The results of the election were described as "one of the biggest political upsets in Dutch politics since World War II",[6] with the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) becoming the largest party in the House of Representatives[6][7][8], and all four parties of the incumbent coalition government suffering losses.[9]" wikipedia 2023 Dutch general election

[Sarcastr0]

We shall see what coalition forms.

But illiberal wankers are needing to turn crumbs into mountains these days:
"Yes, we have the evidence of Italy and now the Netherlands this year. But we also have Poland, where the illiberal Law & Justice party was pummeled in October and will be replaced by a liberal coalition. We have Spain, where lefties remained in power in the October election. We have Slovakia, where social democratic parties dominated against the incumbent conservatives in September.

Last year, Jair Bolsonaro was turfed out in Brazil and replaced by a socialist. In France, Marine Le Pen improved her performance by a few points but was still handily defeated by the incumbent centrist. In Germany, Social Democrats beat the incumbent conservatives in 2021 and the hard-right AfD lost seats. In Britain, the Conservative Party is deeply unpopular and will almost certainly be crushed in the next election.

And of course, here in the US Donald Trump was tossed out in 2020 and Republicans did surprisingly badly in the 2022 midterms."
https://jabberwocking.com/is-the-world-moving-in-a-right-wing-direction/

[Martinned]

It seems like only yesterday that the Dutch Farmer-Citizen movement was all over Fox News as the latest front in the global war against democracy and the rule of law. Now they only ended up with 4.7% of the vote.

[Kazinski]

But BBB will be part of any coalition that PVV forms, and PVV is already a climate skeptic party. My take is the voters that are concerned about climate policies killing farming had more confidence in Wilders delivering than van der Plass, the BBB leader.

That and the fact that BBB is more migrant friendly than Wilders, farmers like a ready supply of cheap unskilled labor, especially from agrarian countries. The voters clearly want new migration to be sharply curtailed, and the BBB in control of a coalition isn't likely to deliver that.

[Ed Grinberg]

"We have Spain, where lefties remained in power in the October election."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1725556767365443753

[Don Nico]

You and the WaPo writers sure see the tea leaves differently.
Of course she was trying to be alarmist.

[Sarcastr0]

I may be alarmed, depending on the coalition. Even in the face of good global trends, it sucks to see one country backsliding.

People seem pissed about immigration worldwide for reasons I largely disagree with.
That tide is receding at the moment, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be content (if not yet alarmed).

[Bob from Ohio]

"tide is receding at the moment"

Tides can change pretty fast.

"The AfD, once seen as a party most relevant to post-communist eastern states, won 18.4% of the vote on Sunday in the powerhouse state of Hesse, around Frankfurt, and came second only to the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). In Bavaria it came third, behind the rightwing populist Freie Wähler (Free Voters) party." The Guardian: Far-right AfD says it is now ‘major all-German party’ after state elections. Mon 9 Oct 2023 10.38 EDT

[Sarcastr0]

"illiberal wankers are needing to turn crumbs into mountains these days"

[Kazinski]

Turns out Europe is where rednecks came from. All this time I thought they were.cosmopolitan urban sophistcates.

But compared to Asians, they're pikers in terms of xenophobic insular societies. Most Asian countries the riots would have started long ago, but that may be because only a handful permit meaningful opposition parties.

[Sarcastr0]

No one else in this thread is talking about America, what is the point you're trying to make with your redneck crack?

[Martinned]

O, don't worry, I noticed.

[Tom for equal rights]

Hamas swap prisoners

This "disfigured woman" is a car bomber who, having blown herself up in a an attempt to kill Israelis, demanded that Israelis pay for her plastic surgeries. This is how The New York Times covered her release.

"perhaps the most well-known name on the list of 39 Palestinian prisoners and detainees relased from an Israeli jail early Sunday was AIsraa Jaabees, who was accused for attempted murder by Israel and had been in jail since 2015."

Typical of the dishonest reporting from the NYT

[SimonP]

I've got no strings, to hold me down, to make me fret, or make me frown. I had strings, but now I'm free; there are no strings on me!

It's interesting that Israel would choose to release people with records like that, as part of the exchange for innocent hostages held by Hamas, isn't it? Hm, I wonder why Israel would choose them, as opposed to the many other, more-innocent or less-dangerous Palestinians it has detained, including in recent weeks?

[Commenter_XY]

Better to released an ugly-assed, failed terrorist (the beotch who managed to F up her own face - how fitting) than an actual murderer.

[SimonP]

Relax. I'm sure you're not treat to look at, either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I wonder why Israel would choose them"

Your insinuation is noted.

Anywho, recall that its women and teenagers who are being released.

Plus, they are releasing people wit the shortest time remaining in their sentences. I guess on the theory that they are less dangerous.

[SimonP]

Your insinuation is noted.

But not in any way addressed or rebutted, I see.

[Tom for equal rights]

Israel has previously released very bad hamas members in exchange for hostages.

Hopefully the hamas members getting released have been chipped to cut down on search time.

[Tom for equal rights]

The NYT article provides a good explanation of why you are so easily deceived. Its a typical example of how the NYT and other media outlets regularly distorts the facts to fit the agenda leftists believe.

[SimonP]

What is it, do you suppose, I'm "deceived" about?

If you want to talk about who's deceiving whom - we might look at the story whose details you omit to mention, or at the fact that you accuse the NYT of running with a "leftist agenda" apparently favoring the Palestinians when they've consistently been running mini-bios of each individual Israeli hostage that's also been released.

Were you aware of that coverage? Or did you just take your talking point from your keepers without asking for context?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why do you continue to omit "Simple" from your screen name?

[SimonP]

That's a stupid question, Mr. Bumbling.

[M L]

U.S. immigration judges are granting “asylum” to foreigners who are gay or transgender based on the argument that their home countries aren’t hospitable to them.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/people-perceived-be-gay-could-be-eligible-asylum-us-court-says-2023-01-26/

This isn’t new, it has been going on for decades. Recent “asylum” cases include people from countries such as Mexico, Russia, Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala.

If people are highly motivated to obtain immigration status, this could create strange incentives. Legal advice website Nolo has an explainer for claimants looking for information, stating “The immigration judge or asylum officer will likely question you about whether you are truly lesbian, gay, or whatever sexual orientation or identity you have claimed.” It then goes on to explain how one can easily be prepared to answer such questions.

DHS also issued guidance exempting persons with “particular vulnerabilities” including “sexual orientation or gender identity” from processing under the Migrant Protection Protocols. This was after a federal judge tapped the brakes on the administration’s aggressive open borders policy of terminating MPP altogether. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/21_1202_plcy_mpp-policy-guidance_508.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

This isn’t new, it has been going on for decades.

[M L]

Some aspects of it and the extent of it are new, however.

[Sarcastr0]

Then maybe talk about those, not some speculation about fake gayness.

[M L]

Try reading above again.

[Sarcastr0]

You link a story. Say it's not new.
Speculate some.
Link to 2021 guidance that seems to speak to but not create the policy that you already said isn't new.

Not seeing what your point is still.

[M L]

If you're not able to understand the regulatory issue or the new cases, let's make it simpler. Forgetting whether it's new or not, do you think LGBT people from Jamaica should be considered refugees and shipped over here?

[Sarcastr0]

What is the specific novel issue you're talking about?
You're not making it clear at all.

[M L]

Do you think that LGBT people from Jamaica (and perhaps the majority of nations around the world) should be treated as refugees to the U.S.?

I assume so, since you suggest it isn't even worth discussing if it is not new.

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

‘Some aspects of it and the extent of it are new, however.’

Seems like actually no, you’re just mad at gay people getting asylum. Part and parcel with your general nativism. Once we clear away your everpresent coyness in your commenting.

Good luck with that. I don’t know Jamaica's treatment of gay people so your new scenario is not one I will speak to.

[David Nieporent]

"Shipped"?

[hobie]

I think that would be hilarious if all Mexicans showed up at the border dressed as RuPaul. MAGA's worst nightmare. I would suspect they would have to keep up the pretext for a year or two until they officially matriculate, which would make for make for epic high jinks in orchards, factories and motels staffs across the nation

[Randy Sax]

Hey meng, can I come into the States?

NO!

But I sucked that guy off earlier!

Ok, fine, come on in.

[M L]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxDokpOOt8I/

[Randy Sax]

Ryan and Danny are always great.

[Frank Drackman]

As I wasn't yet sentient on November 23, 1963 (I was 16 months old, many say I'm not sentient now) I never really understood how people felt the day after.
After this year's Iron Bowl, now I know.

Frank

[Aunt Teefah]

The Biden administration has been providing the Israeli military with the coordinates of humanitarian groups operating in Gaza, supposedly "to try to prevent strikes." You'll *never guess* what the Israelis have done with those coordinates . . .

(Unless, of course, you aren't an absolute moron, in which case it would be pretty easy to foresee what they'd use them for). https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/21/u-s-has-sent-israel-data-on-aid-group-locations-to-try-to-prevent-strikes-00128336

[Frank Drackman]

I hope bombed/strafed/burned the shit out of them

[Aunt Teefah]

If you read the article, you'll see they did exactly that. The mighty IDF remains undefeated against ambulances and children's cancer wards. Unfortunately for you, when they try to engage with people who can actually shoot back, they've done about as well as an Auburn defensive backfield facing Nick Satan.

[Tom for equal rights]

hamas regular transmits its members via ambulances hoping to avoid getting attacked.

[Aunt Teefah]

There is literally no proof of this (other than a laughably fraudulent "intercepted phone call" the IDF released). Stop making shit up.

[Tom for equal rights]

Aunt Teefah 4 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"There is literally no proof of this (other than a laughably fraudulent “intercepted phone call” the IDF released). Stop making shit up."

Aunteefah - Hamas has a well known history of transporting members of hamas via ambulances. Quit being an apologists

[Aunt Teefah]

Ok, if there's such a "well known history", then I'm sure you'll have no trouble providing a source to support your claim. Something beyond a mere ipse dixit assertion from Israeli or US "intelligence", I would hope.

[Drewski]

Yes, we get it. You love and trust Hamas, hate and distrust Israel and the US, yet choose to live in the US. Yawn.

[Aunt Teefah]

I'll take that as a "no." You guys have no evidence to support your ridiculous propaganda claims.

I trust facts and evidence. I do not trust unsupported claims made by Hamas, Israel, or the US. You can if you want. You can choose to be a dupe. Just don't expect others to believe your bullshit.

[ThePublius]

Here:
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) released video evidence of Hamas fighters admitting to using ambulances and hospitals as cover.
Will you concede now?

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, you've cited to the laughably fraudulent recording I referred to above. Please tell me you don't seriously believe this. Are there no limits to your credulity?

Think about it for more than two seconds. If you're Hamas, you already know that ambulances aren't safe - Israel bombs them all the time. On the other hand, you've got hundreds of miles of tunnels that are safe. Why would you use ambulances for protection?

[Jerry B.]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-prisoners-reveal-terror-org-uses-ambulances-to-transport-weapons-it-s-safer/ar-AA1jCjty

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.jpost.com/operation-protective-edge/analysis-fighting-terrorists-who-move-around-in-ambulances-363498

[Joe_dallas]

Aunt Teefah 2 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Ok, if there’s such a “well known history”, then I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a source to support your claim. Something beyond a mere ipse dixit assertion from Israeli or US “intelligence”, I would hope.

Anti teefah - I was hoping that I was having a discussion with someone less ignorant of facts.

[Joe_dallas]

Aunt - ignorant Teefah - are the 3-4 citations sufficient for you - or doesnt it remain a dark unverfied secret ?

[Aunt Teefah]

All of which rely on either (1) the same plainly fraudulent recording; and/or (2) the Israeli military's say-so. I'll wait for actual evidence.

[David Nieporent]

Those are actual evidence.

[Don Nico]

Anti-semites like you will never be convinced

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, yes, opposing the bombing of ambulances is antisemitism. Very convincing as always.

[Joe_dallas]

An intentionally ignorant anti semite ignores evidence presented to him.

Not surprising

[Joe_dallas]

https://embassies.gov.il/UnGeneva/NewsAndEvents/Pages/Hamas-uses-hospitals-and-ambulances-for-military-terrorist-purposes.aspx

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I hope bombed/strafed/burned the shit out of them.

And I hope that sort of right-wing belligerence -- which infuses every bit of Israel these days, from its shitty, superstition-soaked laws to its immoral treatment of people in the occupied territories -- causes the United States government to stop subsidizing the Israeli assholes who continue to elect Netanyahu, right-wing religious kooks, and other deplorable people.

When America stops providing the skirts Israel currently operates behind, some people -- the Christian right, Israel's genuine supporters -- will begin begging better Americans to reconsider. Fruitlessly, I hope.

[Frank Drackman]

I know you've been "out of circulation" for a while, "Coach".
But Israel doesn't need our Shekels, they're just being polite, like that Chick at the bar who doesn't want to accept the Creepy old man's drink, but is more worried about what happens if she doesn't.
You know, like when you'd buy recruits a Coke....
And Israel's a DemoKKKrat's paradise (OK, except for the guns and Jews defending themselves) Socialized everything, Gay this/that, Kibbutzim...

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Israel doesn't need our support, why are American taxpayers being asked to provide it -- at great and varied cost -- to a bunch of ingrates and immoral bullies?

Why can't gays get married in Israel? Other than the influence of bigoted, superstitious assholes in Israel, I mean.

[Commenter_XY]

Fog of war. Tragic.

Hamas can end this in 15 minutes by doing the following:
-- release the hostages
-- surrender to the nearest IDF unit

Every death is on their heads and hands. They have had 51 days.

[Aunt Teefah]

"We'll stop committing war crimes, but only if you unconditionally surrender."

How magnanimous. "World's most moral army" etc. etc.

[Tom for equal rights]

Israel is not committing war crimes.

At least not anywhere the level you believe.

This is not the case of a few rogue political leaders in gaza and hamas members attacking Israelis. The majority of the civilian population of gaza, if you want to call the "civilians" civilians, are fully behind the activities of hamas.

[Aunt Teefah]

So what? The vast majority of Israeli civilians support the murderous fascists in the Israeli government too. They are still off-limits, as all civilians are. Targeting civilians is a war crime.

[Tom for equal rights]

Aunt Teefah 8 seconds ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"So what? The vast majority of Israeli civilians support the murderous fascists in the Israeli government too. They are still off-limits, as all civilians are. Targeting civilians is a war crime."

Anti intelligent Teefah - you remain extremely ill - informed. Very few civilians in gaza are in fact civilians. You need to respond based on actual facts, not the facts that you would like the facts to be.

[Aunt Teefah]

You've given me no facts to respond to. Only the absurd and despicable claim that Gazan women and children are legitimate military targets. That's an ideological assertion - your feelings - not fact.

Here are some actual facts bearing on your claim:
- Approximately one half of Gazans are children.
- There are more than 2 million people living in Gaza.
- Israeli leaders think there are approximately 50,000 Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters.
- That's less than 2.5% of the relevant population.

[Commenter_XY]

You're confused. Israel isn't the one committing war crimes, Hamas is.

The real crime here is the absolute shitty municipal administration by Hamas, since being elected in 2007. They have had 16 years to fix the roads. Nope. And the former parliament building (now flattened)? Totally filthy and nasty. Gazans now live in pools of their own piss and shit because Hamas has done such a wonderful job, administering to their constituents.

Not to worry AT. The ceasefire will end, and Israel will hunt down Hamas members and kill them.

[Martinned]

Israel isn’t the one committing war crimes, Hamas is.

How would we know? It's not like Israel accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC.

[Don Nico]

And neither does the US.

[Aunt Teefah]

Indeed. In fact, US law requires the military to invade the Hague should any American be detained for human rights violations. Rather than face justice, we'll simply kill the judge. Kinda like the mafia. Something to keep in mind when you hear US leaders prattling on about the "rules-based international order."

[Aunt Teefah]

Both are committing war crimes. Hamas committed atrocities on 10/7, and Israel has done so tenfold since then.

I don't know who you're trying to fool with this "municipal administration" shit. Like trying to blame a prison gang for the conditions on Rikers Island. Gazans have tried to build critical infrastructure, like electrical power and water plants. Israel bombs and destroys them. They cannot get necessary building materials into Gaza due to Israel's blockade.

Why don't you enlighten us, o wise urban planner, how Hamas ought to be administering services when under a total blockade and surrounded by a hostile enemy intent on destroying any infrastructure you might build?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hamas commits war crimes every single day it holds civilians hostage. It's not like their criminal behavior is all in the past...

[Commenter_XY]

Israel has not committed war crimes, cry as you might.

You know AT, when I think about it, what about that anti-gay, anti-tranny agenda of Hamas? You know, that Hamas that hangs gays and trannies from cranes and lets the birds feed on their dead flesh, or Hamas' equally revolting practice of throwing gays and trannies off rooftops. You're good with that, right? Just toss 'em off the roof. No biggie. The mental contortions you leftists do must be mind-blowing.

At, what really bothers you is Jews just won't die quietly, or turn the other cheek. That will not happen. What will happen is Hamas will be hunted down like the human animals that they are, and killed.

[Aunt Teefah]

Hamas has despicable policies toward LGBT people (though no more so than Israel's allies in the Gulf). I very much wish that Palestinians had a secular nationalist vehicle of resistance to their occupation and imprisonment, rather than only an Islamic fundamentalist one. But unfortunately Israel has gone to great lengths to make sure that they don't.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh, it is not just Hamas. It is palestinian society. There aren't any Pride parades in Jenin, or Ramallah. You think they have retailers in Ramallah selling pride T-shirts, LOL? Why do you suppose that is, AT? Oh, and you think just having a secular nationalist 'government' (will it be elected?) will just magically fix their belief that gays and trannies are worthy of death.

How many murders of gay men is acceptable, AT? You tell me. They hand out candies to celebrate their deaths. These are the very same people you support.

[Nige]

'How many murders of gay men is acceptable, AT?'

How many of the thousands of Gazan dead in the current conflict were gay, I wonder.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't you remember what Ear-Ronian President Moe Ahmadinejad said when he visited the UN?, they don't have Homosexuals in the Middle East.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is there a reason (other than your childish, silly superstition) gays can not marry in Israel?

Why should educated, modern, successful Americans support such a country?

How long do you think that question will be relevant. After America stops subsidizing Israel, most Americans won't care much about Israel. They can stand or fall on their own, on merit.

[David Nieporent]

.

Is there a reason (other than your childish, silly superstition) gays can not marry in Israel?

Is there a reason you're lying about this?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"In July 2022, the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel under an online civil marriage service established by the U.S. state of Utah, including same-sex marriages, are legal in Israel, thereby removing the requirement for same-sex couples to leave the country to get married. The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023. A June 2019 opinion poll conducted by Hiddush showed that 78% of Israelis supported recognizing same-sex unions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel

[David Nieporent]

.

“In July 2022, the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel under an online civil marriage service established by the U.S. state of Utah, including same-sex marriages, are legal in Israel, thereby removing the requirement for same-sex couples to leave the country to get married.

Yes. Indeed, it was discussed here at the VC at the time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So Israel won't allow gays (or, if I remember correctly, people who do not bow at the alter of a particular flavor of superstition), but Israel now will recognize a marriage performed elsewhere?

That's supposed to be an argument for Israel being less bigoted, less discriminatory, less shitty, less backward, less objectionable, etc.?

Good luck with that, clingers.

[Nige]

Of course they are, it’s just you support those war crimes.

‘is Jews just won’t die quietly’

More like Netanyahu wants to stay out of prison.

[Bob from Ohio]

If Bibi had resigned on October 8, Israel would be doing little or nothing differently under Benny Gantz or Yair Lapid.

[Nige]

They might have paid attention to the intelligence reports about the attack?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There is little room for question about Hamas' war crimes, but there is significant evidence that Israel has committed its own war crimes, and will continue to do so. Because that's how they roll.

This George Monbiot article discusses some of them:

"During its assault, on Black Saturday, Hamas broke numerous laws of war, starting with its rocket fire into Israel, which made no attempt to discriminate between military and civilian targets, breaking article 13 of protocol II of the Geneva conventions. Its fighters murdered, tortured and raped, breaking common article 3 of the Geneva conventions and articles 27 and 32 of the fourth convention. They also engaged in pillage and terrorism (33, fourth convention) and the taking of hostages (34, fourth, and article 8 of the Rome statute). Hamas clearly intends to use these hostages as bargaining chips, exacerbating the crime.

Though this is harder to prove, these acts might have been motivated by genocidal intent, arguably also putting Hamas in breach of the genocide convention. Any of the people responsible who are captured should be tried for crimes against humanity.

In responding to this attack, Israel has also broken several laws of war. These crimes begin with the use of collective penalties against the people of Gaza (article 33 of the fourth convention and article 4 of protocol II). One aspect of this punishment appears to be the pattern of Israel’s bombing and shelling of Gaza. “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy,” a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces announced, which looks to me like stated intent to commit a war crime. The war crime in this case is the damage to property: article 50 of the first Geneva convention, article 51 of the second Geneva convention and article 147 of the fourth Geneva convention.

Many of the buildings hit, including numerous schools and health facilities, do not appear to qualify as military targets, despite Israeli claims that Hamas uses people as human shields. Such indiscriminate attacks contravene article 13, protocol II and article 53, fourth convention. The bombing of mosques breaks article 16 of protocol II.

Human Rights Watch claims that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells at Gaza and Lebanon in the course of its counterattack, although this has been denied. White phosphorus munitions can legally be used on battlefields to make smokescreens, mark targets or burn buildings, but it is considered an indiscriminate and terrible weapon, whose use in such cases might constitute a breach of the chemicals weapon convention.

The Israeli government has admitted cutting off essential supplies to Gaza. On 9 October, the defence minister, Yoav Gallant, stated: “I ordered a full siege on the Gaza Strip. No power, no food, no gas – everything is closed.” This too looks like collective punishment. The energy minister, Israel Katz, appeared to confirm this when he wrote: “No electrical switch will be turned on, no water hydrant will be opened and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home.” The siege also appears to breach articles 55, 56 and 59 of the fourth convention and article 14 of protocol II, which protects “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”.

While the Israeli government could argue that instructing the people of Gaza City to leave is an attempt to protect them from bombardment, this directive might constitute a breach of article 17 of protocol II, forbidding the forced movement of civilians, and of article 49 of the fourth convention on deportations and evacuations. Again, to judge by the statements of some officials, in the siege and attacks on Gaza there could be evidence of genocidal intent. The current fighting, of course, takes place in the context of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the many subsidiary crimes associated with it."

[Bob from Ohio]

So many falsehoods and farcical assertions but I'll confine my rebuttal to this.

"This too looks like collective punishment."

No international law REQUIRES one belligerent to provide electricity or water from its own territory to the other belligerent.

George Monbiot has a degree in zoology, BTW. Get better sources.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

XY's claim was, "Israel has not committed war crimes," and my response was that there was significant evidence that Israel has committed war crimes.

Monbiot's article was just a handy example, citing such evidence and the potential war crimes committed.

Any allegation of war criminality is subject to enforcement in a court of law, during which process the defendants are perfectly entitled to raise the numerous and creative defences you and others have mentioned below. I look forward to them having their day in court. Do you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The siege also appears to breach articles 55, 56 and 59 of the fourth convention

The articles of the 4th GC refer to actions of "the Occupying Power". Gaza is under the effective control of Hamas (though technically the PA). Or has Hamas already been defeated, with Israel having taken control of the region?

and article 14 of protocol II, which protects “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”.

Quote the whole thing:

"Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless, for that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works."

Note that "refuse to supply" isn't in the list of prohibited activities.

[SimonP]

There are separate protocols having to do with interfering with the provision of aid and evacuation of the wounded, not that you're interested in actually debating anything in good faith.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There are separate protocols having to do with interfering with the provision of aid and evacuation of the wounded, not that you’re interested in actually debating anything in good faith.

Are you really too damned stupid to comprehend that I directly addressed the specific provisions that were actually cited?

You wouldn't know good faith if it bit you on your pathetically ignorant ass, where your head appears to be inexorably lodged so deeply.

[David Nieporent]

Article 23 of the 4th GC requires parties to "allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases."

There are exceptions, but that's the general principle.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Article 23 of the 4th GC...

...was not one of the articles cited.

[Don Nico]

"like collective punishment."
when criminals are completely and inextricably embedded in the civilian population, there is no way to cutoff supplies to them without cutting off supplies to all. That is not collective punishment, it is a direct attack on the enemy.

[Don Nico]

"current fighting, of course, takes place in the context of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land"
I guess that 1967 war never happened.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Its fighters murdered, tortured and raped, breaking common article 3 of the Geneva conventions and articles 27 and 32 of the fourth convention."

Wait, you're saying those things are illegal? I had no idea.

[Nige]

It's so illegal you're allowed to kill more than ten thousand people who had nothing to do with it.

[Aunt Teefah]

And a pro tip for you: if you want to feign concern for gay and transgender people, it's best to avoid calling them by a slur. Makes it seem less convincing. Don't worry though, you'll get it! If you keep practicing, you may eventually develop into a mediocre hasbarist.

[Commenter_XY]

Truth hurts, I know. You must get brain cramps from the values conflict. How can you possibly support Hamas (and gazans too), who demonstrably have anti-LGBT and anti-Tranny policies (namely, the policy is death by torture)?

The mental contortions you do are astounding.

Oh, before I forget. Just wanted to let you know the Pride Parade in Tel Aviv next year is June 14th.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At the Volokh Conspiracy, the slurs are a feature, not a bug.

[Aunt Teefah]

Not really all that difficult at all. When you put 2 million people in a concentration camp, they have the right to resist by whatever means are necessary. Including people who are very culturally conservative.

As I've said countless times, I do not support Hamas. I disagree with much of their political program, including particularly their policies toward LGBT people. It is most unfortunate that Israel helped them defeat their secular rivals, such that they are now the only real vehicle for patriotic Gazans to resist their oppression and assert their humanity.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you care to try to defend Israel's anti-gay and anti-trans policies, Commenter_XY?

Does Israel still permit its right-wing religious kooks to keep women off certain buses? Are they now permitted to ride, so long as they stay in their place?

When will Israel permit marriages not steeped in silly superstition?

If you and Israel continue to align with America's right wing and you will learn the consequences of choosing the losing side of America's culture war, the wrong side of history, and the weaker side at the modern marketplace of ideas.

[SimonP]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: a lifetime of growing up with racist, sexist, and homophobic would-be domestic terrorists right here in the Good Ol' US-of-A, and learning to see their "humanity," such as it is, tends to inure us to the faults they share with members of Hamas or Palestinians more generally.

"Hamas would string up gays and trannies in a heartbeat!" Until very recently, how do you think we fared, here in the land of the free? There's a whole political movement to make being queer illegal and scary again in the US, even.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating

I've never seen you say anything that was worth saying once, let alone repeating. This instance appears to be no different.

a lifetime of growing up with racist, sexist, and homophobic would-be domestic terrorists right here in the Good Ol’ US-of-A, and learning to see their “humanity,” such as it is, tends to inure us to the faults they share with members of Hamas or Palestinians more generally.

Please share for use any of these "lifetime of" examples of "would-be domestic terrorists right here in the Good Ol’ US-of-A" committing act even REMOTELY similar to those that were committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023 in Israel.

“Hamas would string up gays and trannies in a heartbeat!” Until very recently, how do you think we fared, here in the land of the free?

I'm having trouble recalling any group...let alone one in a governing position...doing anything like that in the U.S. within living memory.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : "The real crime here is the absolute shitty municipal administration by Hamas"

Is it possible you're missing the big picture here?

"The worsening economic and humanitarian situation raised great concern abroad. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in January 2003, the Israeli blockade and closures had drained as much as US$2.4 billion out of the economy of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Throughout 2006, the Karni crossing was only partially operational, costing Palestinians $500,000 a day, as less than 10% of the Gaza Strip's minimal daily export targets were achieved. Basic food commodities were severely depleted, bakeries closed and food rationing was introduced.

The World Bank estimated in 2015 that the GDP losses caused by the blockade since 2007 was above 50%, and entailed large welfare losses. Gaza's manufacturing sector, once significant, shrunk by as much as 60% in real terms, due to the wars in the past 20 years and the blockade. Gaza's exports virtually disappeared since the imposition of the 2007 blockade. It stated that "solutions have to be found to enable faster inflow of construction materials into Gaza", while taking into account "legitimate security concerns of neighboring countries."

In May 2015, the World Bank reported that the Gaza economy was on the "verge of collapse". 40% of Gaza's population lived in poverty, even though around 80% received some sort of aid. It said the restrictions had to be eased to allow construction materials "to enter in sufficient quantities" and to allow exports. "The economy cannot survive without being connected to the outside world", The World Bank said the tightened restrictions meant the construction sector's output was reduced by 83%."

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

[Commenter_XY]

Nah, not missing the big picture at all grb. Hamas, a Judeocidal terrorist group (btw, elected by the people of Gaza over the corrupt and inept palestinian authority in 2007), is more interested in killing Jews than actually improving the lot of their own people. And Hamas enjoys broad support w/in gaza for their Judeocidal agenda.

The gazans can sit in their own piss and shit until Israel finishes the job of hunting down Hamas members and killing them. Maybe they can use the time to reflect on poor choices at the ballot box.

Post war, the biggest question will be what to do with an entire society stewed in a toxic brew of Jew hatred, with Judeocide as the main dish.

[Nige]

So, you've decided to be a war crime apologist.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Post war, the biggest question will be what to do . . .

. . . when Americans -- who generally don't support supertition-based right-wing belligerence at home -- decide to stop subsidizing it in Israel.

You won't be talking to tough then. You will be on your knees, groveling. Unless you have enough character and courage to travel to Israel to try to prevent -- for a minute or two -- the consequences Israel will confront without America's military, economic, and political skirts to hide behind.

I hope Israel changes course soon and severely. If not, it will deserve whatever comes after its big brother leaves the playground.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I don't mean to interject facts in the way of your slur-tossing hategasm, but about half of the citizens in the Gaza strip are minors, which means they did not have any say in the 2007 election.

I know, I know. You think they're all evil and they all are collectively guilty (except for the "very young" which you've graciously exempted from your judgment and sentencing of death).

Your hatred is just as despicable as theirs.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason, Jason...friend to the friendless Hamas. Are you back again?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I noticed that you're still unable to focus on the fact that you're wrong, and you're still trying desperately to spread anti-Semitism by being the biggest asshole around.

Yawn.

Perhaps you have something to say about your demographical ignorance of those whom you rabidly condemn? You know, the part where you were just proven wrong (again).

No? I didn't think so.

[Commenter_XY]

Jason...still shilling for the friendless Hamas? You know, if Hamas knows you shill for them, they give you a commemorative keffiyeh in addition to the 50 cents. You should look into it Jason. Might help 'spiff up' your wardrobe.

Oh, and you also have arrested moral development, dipshit.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Look at the sensitivity displayed by the hateful ignoramus!

Commenter can't catch a break. Being wrong all the time, spreading his nasty genocidal hopes, anonymously hiding behind his Judaism like a little snowflake while trying to dodge facts.

Israel continues to lose support due to their callous indifference to civilian deaths, and you keep pounding your tiny, impotent fists.

Poor baby.

Hey, speaking of children: Did you have anything to say about your ignorant remark regarding the ballot box? Still no? Utterly shocking, I tell you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe they can use the time to reflect on poor choices at the ballot box.

When better Americans impose on Israel the consequences of poor choices (Netanyahu, aligning with the right in American politics, immoral right-wing belligerence in the occupied territories, etc.), you will be begging for reconsideration of the decision to stop subsidizing Israel. And I hope the American mainstream disregards your whining and groveling.

[Bob from Ohio]

"According to the UN"

Hardly an unbiased organization towards Israel. In fact its actively hostile. I doubt the World Bank is any friendlier.

Assuming accuracy, the moral of the story is if you don't launch rockets and terror attacks, you don't suffer economic blockade.

[Nige]

It's a good thing such a hard-line approach to Gaza didn't result in any truly awful blowback.

[Sarcastr0]

This was posted in response to the argument 'The real crime here is the absolute shitty municipal administration by Hamas.'

It rebuts that pretty well, I think.

Your new goalposts and 'the UN and World Bank are lying, I'll bet. No I have no alternative investigations.' argument in the alternative are misaligned and unsupported.

[Commenter_XY]

No one has rebutted the fact that Hamas has in fact done a truly shitty job at municipal administration in gaza. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Tunnel building doesn't count?

[Commenter_XY]

Now that is a good point, there is that = Gaza Metro

Still though, the roads are shit, water and electric are sporadic, the traffic lights do not work, and the toilets do not flush.

I'm gonna stay with: Hamas has done a truly shitty job at municipal administration

[Don Nico]

"It rebuts that pretty well,"
No, it does not. In fact that post is irrelevant to the issue of the quality of the Hamas administration, that siphons off hundreds of million dollars of aid every years just to build its war machine against Jews.

[Sarcastr0]

Palestine, not just Hamas, does that. It sucks. Don't think I'm holding them blameless.

But there is enough blame to go around. Israel is also a player in making the conditions awful over there.
grb establishes that additional causality quite well, unless you want to buck the reporting which would need more support than I've seen so far.

You could probably blame the rest of the neighboring countries as well in the mix.

[Don Nico]

"You could probably blame the rest of the neighboring countries "
Indeed, one could. The wealthy Arab nations have done little to actually improve the lot of the average Palestinian civilian. And the PA has been notoriously weak and corrupt. Does Israel play its part. Yes, it has not helped. But it did not start the 1967 and later wars; neighboring Arab states did.

[Don Nico]

"Hardly an unbiased organization towards Israel. "
Just look at the record of UNGA votes concerning Israel. It is hard for something to be more lopsided

[Sarcastr0]

Votes don't mean the reports are a pack of lies.

[Don Nico]

I did not say that. Also the original statement did not say that. The "pack of lies" is your statement imputed to others.
Read the original statement: “Hardly an unbiased organization towards Israel. ”

[Joe_dallas]

The world bank got only one thing correct
A loss of 60% of manufacturing sector due to twenty years of war.

If hamas had not started & continued their war with Israel then they won’t have caused the self destruction of their economy & would need the massive foreign , a significant portion which get siphoned off to fund their war

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

According to the UN...

The same UN whose Human Rights Council is currently chaired by Iran?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Tragic.

I hope to remember that word when you are on your knees, begging better Americans to reconsider their decision to stop subsidizing Israel's right-wing assholes politically, economically, and militarily.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The Biden administration has been providing the Israeli military with the coordinates of humanitarian groups operating in Gaza, supposedly “to try to prevent strikes.” You’ll *never guess* what the Israelis have done with those coordinates . . ."

Your link doesn't support your claim.

[David Nieporent]

You'll never guess that pro-terrorist Aunt Teefah is lying about what the article she links to says. Oh, wait, you would easily guess that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Possibly of interest: https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/11/24/law-professors-hate-free-speech-and-embrace-control/

Written by a non-lawyer: Law professors hate free speech & embrace control.

[M L]

Whenever someone talks about A.I. "safety," you have to keep in mind that they are usually referring to the danger that Trump could be reelected.

[Nige]

....what? Has his hair gained sentience?

[Defenderz]

The supposed "antisemitic" tweet from Musk was undeniable truth. How can anyone claim otherwise?

[Nige]

Your support is definitely a point in favour of one side of the argument.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel is so far gone to the right-wing asshole side that its leader is embracing Elon Musk today. What, a week after Musk's most recent spasm of antisemitism? What's next -- a photo op of Netanyahu embracing Marjorie Taylor Greene outside an Israeli laser facility?

Israel is entitled to embrace immoral, violent, bigoted right-wing policies and practices -- just as better Americans are entitled to stop providing cover for Israel at the UN, weaponry and funds for Israel's right-wing jerks, and other forms of support.

I think America will get along just fine without supporting a parasite such as Israel.

[Defenderz]

There was nothing antisemitic about Musk agreeing that left wing Jews largely support third world immigration to dilute the white Christian vote.

You don't get to brag "Demography is destiny" and then feign ignorance.

[Nige]

Yes, please keep adding data to support a side of the argument.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why are the customarily loud voices in this context -- Bernstein, Volokh, Blackman, Commenter_XY, and others -- silent when right-wing antisemitism is expressed at this blog?

Other than the cowardice, partisanship, and hypocrisy, I mean.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know just how far and how long, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Have any of the usual blusterers said anything about Elon Musk's most recent antisemitic spasm?

It's probably about time for one of them to post something excoriating some students at a strong, mainstream campus for being insufficiently hospitable to the widespread killing of innocents in Gaza, though.

Carry on, deplorable clingers.

[M L]

This should be an Onion or Bee article, not an actual thing.

https://reason.com/2023/11/27/elizabeth-warren-wants-the-government-to-investigate-americas-sandwich-shop-monopoly/

[ThePublius]

Likewise, her epiphany on Obamacare's unintended consequences are more evidence she has hit her head.
Elizabeth Warren's 'epiphany' on ObamaCare's unintended consequences is overdue: WSJ

[ThePublius]

Likewise, her epiphany on Obamacare's unintended consequences are more evidence she has hit her head.
Elizabeth Warren's 'epiphany' on ObamaCare's unintended consequences is overdue: WSJ

By the way, these sandwich shops pale in comparison to Jersey Mike's.

[jb]

Can you elaborate on why you think people shouldn't be concerned about market power in the sandwich industry? Probably not as big of a deal to society as market power in the tech sector, but that's already being investigated, so why not both?

[ThePublius]

Because it's sandwiches, from a few ho-hum, mediocre sandwich shops. And, what constitutes a monopoly in the sandwich biz? I'm willing to bet single location, individual proprietorships sell the most sandwiches.

Aren't there bigger fish to fry? Like Google and Amazon, for example? Apple? Microsoft (again)?

[Sarcastr0]

Why bother to do market research, ThePublius has studied it out right here for us!

[David Nieporent]

.

Can you elaborate on why you think people shouldn’t be concerned about market power in the sandwich industry?

1) Because even if it were a thing, it's trivial. Who cares?
2) Because it's not a thing. Sandwiches are sold at millions of food places, and there's no barrier to entry. A few thousand specialty chain stores do not create "market power."

[John F. Carr]

The top court of Australia recently ruled that deportable aliens could not be held indefinitely but must be released from detention. The legislature quickly responded by requiring a curfew and GPS monitoring. The penalties are noncompliance are high. The web site refuses to show me the bill text and I can't quantify "high". This appears to be an attempt to get deportable aliens to break the law to legitimize their reimprisonment. The court will decide soon whether to invalidate the new law.

[John F. Carr]

The site finally woke up. The penalty is 5 years in prison or 300 penalty units. A penalty unit is a peculiarly Australian inflation-indexed fine. Instead of amending hundreds of different laws the government need only change one definition of the value of a unit. Three hundred penalty units is more than these migrants can afford, about $94,000 (Australian).

[jb]

Penalty Units seem like a good idea, as does the practice in some Nordic countries of indexing penalties to the transgressor's income.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Talk about revisionist history.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, only the government could screw up that Reagan quote.

[Magister]

More out of context than screwed up, although Reagan said "I'm" rather than "We're".

In other news, Coolsville sucks.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

More out of context than screwed up

No, it was absolutely screwed up. He omitted the first part of the quote, completely changing the meaning of what he was saying.

[Magister]

That's what is meant by "out of context".

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You seem to be missing the point. He didn't just omit the first part of the quote, he misused the quote to convey meaning that wasn't present in the actual quote (quite the opposite), and appeared to be completely oblivious of that fact. He "screwed up".

[ReaderY]

During his career at UCLA, Professor Volokh was the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law.

Did Professor Volokh ever use the Schwartz? Was the Schwartz ever with him? Did he ever play with dolls?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Nelson]

I believe that publicly, the dignified and scholarly Prof. Volokh would never admit knowing about the Schwartz, never mind using it.

In private he's probably an avid practitioner of the Schwartz and the president of a Mel Brooks fan club.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does anyone know the screen name Jason J. Eaton uses at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[David Nieporent]

If he's an antisemite, it's probably Arthur L. Kirkland.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He's the guy who reportedly shot three Palestinians without a word the other day. I assume you were rooting for him, clinger.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's Fulton County lawyers have filed what the call a notice of supplemental authority on ripeness of pretrial First Amendment as applied challenge, ostensibly based on Hall v. State, 268 Ga. 89, 485 S.E.2d 755 (1997). https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24175839/trump-notice-of-pretrial-1st-amendment-challenge-112723.pdf The notice recites that "President [sic] Trump respectfully alerts this Court that he intends to file his own First Amendment challenge prior to the due date for filing pretrial motions."

In Hall the Georgia Supreme Court entertained an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of the accused's motion to quash the accusations against her alleging three separate counts of violating the Georgia Reckless Conduct Statute. The Court granted interlocutory review in order to examine the constitutionality of the statute, as it was applied in that case. 268 Ga. at 89. The Court there noted that the accusations there set forth no factual allegations, but rather contained only conclusions. On appeal, Ms. Hall did not substantively contest the State's factual allegations. Id., at 90.

As best I can tell, the defense theory seems to be that the instant indictment charges Trump only with core political speech
and expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The forthcoming motion to dismiss will admit the indictment’s
recitation of supposedly “false” statements and facts, undisputed solely for purposes of a First Amendment-based general demurrer/motion to dismiss. [Scare quotes in original.]

This theory is bizarre. To the extent the indictment charges Trump with engaging in speech, the defense simply ignores that the constitutional freedom for speech and press does not extend its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. Giboney v. Empire Storage Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). "[I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed." Id., at 502.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

In some ways, Trump has brought OPCA litigation into the mainstream.

[mydisplayname]

The "pause" in Israel's illicit invasion of Gaza was conditioned upon the release by Israel of 3 Palestinian political prisoners (a euphemism for hostages) for every hostage released by Hamas. To date, Hamas has released 69 hostages and Israel has released 150 of its political prisoners: Israel must release 57 additional political prisoners to meet its obligation under the agreement.

History repeats itself: it is unlikely that the Israelis will keep their word, yet will find some way to blame others for continuing violence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hostage, or Israeli hostage?

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside the made up stuff ("illicit" invasion and "euphemism for hostages" and such), that's not even right on its own terms. Hamas has been releasing extra, non-Israeli hostages (e.g., Thai guest workers) that weren't part of the deal.

[M L]

Since we got into the secession and war discussion above, the following is interesting. I don't fully agree with the article, because I believe that slavery itself was one of the reasons for secession, and this article downplays and denies that. But the specific historical facts marshaled in support of the argument are interesting and rarely mentioned anywhere, and tend to give a more nuanced account. (Note the link won't post.)
_______________________________

. . . Southern “pro-slavery” arguments, including those made in the Declarations of Secession, should not be confused with their motive for secession. The old adage is “actions speak louder than words.” At least in the case of the South, its actions clarify its words about slavery. There is abundant proof in the actions of the CSA after secession that slavery was NOT the motive for secession. The CSA turned down the infamous Corwin Amendment. It turned down the offer to keep slavery made in the Emancipation Proclamation. It turned down the suggestion at the Hamptons Road Peace Conference that by returning to the Union it could defeat the proposed 13th Amendment ending slavery. In addition to these actions, throughout the war, various Southern leaders and newsprint stated explicitly that slavery was not “the cause” for which they seceded and fought. Both in actions and words the South made clear that “preserving and extending” slavery was not its cause. Its cause, its ultimate object was INDEPENDENCE.

Perhaps the strongest post-secession ACTION proving slavery was not the CSA secession motive was its willingness to end slavery to achieve its ultimate object of independence. Regarding this willingness we find evidence in both foreign and domestic sources beginning as early as 1861.

As difficult as emancipation was going to be, the South was so determined to gain independence that it was willing to do it even at the high economic and social cost of freeing the slaves and trying to accommodate them within the CS borders alone. The South knew it would need foreign support to win its war for independence. It also knew that a barrier to that support was the institution of slavery. So as early as November of 1861, there is primary source evidence that the South was willing to endure the immense difficulties of emancipation if it meant obtaining recognition and military support from France and Britain.

A British paper called “Once A Week,“ dated Nov. 30, 1861, provides an early indication of Southern willingness to emancipate:

“Slavery is doomed, on any supposition; and the Confederate authorities are already saying publicly that the power of emancipation is one which rests in their hands; and that they will use it in the last resort. This is a disclosure full of interest, and hope.” (Slavery, Secession, and Civil War; Charles F. Adams, pg. 304)

Note that this was written only seven months after the war began.

Additional foreign evidence reveals, as the war escalated, that the CS considered it time to make that offer to end slavery as early as 1862. On April 8, 1862 the “South Australian Register” reports:

“A Southern Bait.— It is understood, in that indirect but accurate way in which great facts first get abroad, that the Confederacy have offered to England and France a price for active support. It is nothing less than a treaty securing free trade in its broadest sense for fifty years, the complete suppression of the import of slaves, and the emancipation of every negro born after the date of the signature of the treaty. In return they ask, first, the recognition of their independence; and secondly, such an investigation into the facts of the blockade, as must, in their judgement, lead to its disavowal. — ‘Spectator.’” (South Australian Register, Tuesday, April 8, 1862, page 3, BRITISH AND FOREIGN GLEANINGS)

One month later, in “The Daily British Colonist,” page 2, May 29, 1862 we read:

“The rumors of interference by France and England in American affairs are received, and it is even asserted that the South, in return for the intervention, will guarantee the emancipation of her slaves.”

It is interesting to note that as a result of this 1862 offer to end slavery, France agreed to ally with the CS if Britain would also. The only reason Britain did not was because, according to the same article in The Daily British Colonist:

“The proposition for intervention comes from France…. The ‘Independence Belge’ asserts that the object of Lavulette’s recent visit to England was to induce England to consent to a common intervention in American affairs. England agreed on condition that the Roman question be first settled.”

What was this “Roman question?” There was an issue occurring in Rome involving occupation of Papal lands by French troops that Britain was afraid might escalate into a European conflict. The Brits did not want to involve themselves in the American conflict until this “Roman question” was resolved. Unfortunately for the CS, the issue was not resolved until 1871, and not fully resolved until the Lateran Treaty of 1929.

From these foreign papers we find out something must be in the works regarding Confederate emancipation. By July 15, 1862, we find even stronger evidence from a domestic source. Seven Union loyal border State Congressmen write emphatically in a letter to Lincoln that the CS offer to end slavery is reality:

“We are the more emboldened to assume this position from the fact, now become history, that the leaders of the Southern rebellion have offered to abolish slavery amongst them as a condition to foreign intervention in favor of their independence as a nation. If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union.” (Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress: Series 1. General Correspondence. 1833 – 1916: Border State Congressmen to Abraham Lincoln, Tuesday, July 15, 1862).

These seven Union loyal border State congressmen had no reason to lie to their President in affirming the CS offer to end slavery as a “fact now become history.” Even though such a offer would by nature be highly secretive, these border State congressmen were in a position to find out about such a secret CS plan because the seceded States were in constant contact with them in attempts to persuade them to join the CS cause. Someone in the CS spilled the beans, and now the secret was being revealed to Lincoln.

[Brett Bellmore]

"“Slavery is doomed, on any supposition; and the Confederate authorities are already saying publicly that the power of emancipation is one which rests in their hands; and that they will use it in the last resort."

In the last resort.

I would say that they seceded over slavery, but having seceded, and having had war waged upon them by their former countrymen, they preferred independence from those former countrymen without slavery, to reunion on any terms.

IOW, motives shifted over the course of the war, on both sides. What began in the South as an effort to preserve slavery became an effort to preserve independence, what began in the North as an effort to prevent that independence became an effort to abolish slavery.

In both cases the means transformed into the end.

[Sarcastr0]

Always fun to check ML's sources, especially when he doesn't link them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Livingston#Abbeville_Institute

Neo-secessionists make the best historians.

Upon searching for "If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union" you will unsurprisingly find this is not the mainstream interpretation of these diplomatic entireties.

The consensus seems to be that this bare statement, while it did occur, was not followed up on, and was disingenuous. At best the CSA at the time planned to at best replace it with indentured servitude but only for blacks.
Here is one such source; not too hard to find others:
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/09/was-there-a-confederate-emancipation-proclamation/

[Magister]

In fairness, it does seem that the commenting system rejects comments with a link to the article quoted from. Lost Cause, lost link.

[Sarcastr0]

And I somehow got 2 links in....my oversight, but also it worked.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not blocking Wikipedia or Marquette college. They ARE blocking the Abbeville Institute's site. But who is "they"?

Given Reason's position on censorship, I suspect they're employing a stock spam filter, and the filter company has added some ideological filtering. I've noticed this happening more and more at libertarian and conservative websites that are aggressively anti-censorship: You'll see sites or words that the proprietor would never actively decide to block, (Just because they're not into doing that.) blocked at an automatic level.

For example, at Instapundit, if discussing the history of immigration enforcement, it's simply impossible to post anything mentioning Operation Wetback. And I'm pretty sure Reynolds doesn't object to using that term.

[Brett Bellmore]

Incidentally, my view that the site shouldn't be blocked doesn't mean that I don't think it's dreck. Hope you understood that.

[David Nieporent]

.

Upon searching for “If they can give up slavery to destroy the Union; We can surely ask our people to consider the question of Emancipation to save the Union” you will unsurprisingly find this is not the mainstream interpretation of these diplomatic entireties.

Note that this quote undermines the neoconfederate argument that the U.S. wasn't fighting to end slavery. Why would the U.S. need to "consider the question of Emancipation," and how would that save the union, if the U.S. wasn't fighting for emancipation?

[David Nieporent]

.

Southern “pro-slavery” arguments, including those made in the Declarations of Secession, should not be confused with their motive for secession. The old adage is “actions speak louder than words.” At least in the case of the South, its actions clarify its words about slavery. There is abundant proof in the actions of the CSA after secession that slavery was NOT the motive for secession.

Weirdly, even though he starts with 'actions speak louder than words,' he relies solely on words, not actions.

Here's the actual "action": at no time did the South ever give up slavery, or try to. Indeed, even when the war was going badly for the South at the end, it rejected the possibility of enlisting black soldiers as part of a quid pro quo for emancipating them.

[Bored Lawyer]

Further to my AI comments:

Sports Illustrated Published Articles by Fake, AI-Generated Writers https://futurism.com/sports-illustrated-ai-generated-writers

Apparently, SI used AI to generate articles, and even used fake bios for the “authors.”
One author even had a fake name and AI generated headshot.
The fake author was Drew Ortiz a "neutral white young-adult male with short brown hair and blue eyes."