Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

A Florida Court upheld the congressional redistricting map imposed by DeSantis on the legislature (he vetoed their map and put forward his own).

A lower court said the map was unconstitutional (Florida's constitution) because it eliminated a former minority majority district.

But the appeals court said that the district was a racial gerrymander:
"The district, of course, clearly pulled from 'two far-flung segments of a racial group with disparate interests"

and that:

"The constitution cannot demand that all voters are treated equally without regard to race and at the same time demand that voters are treated differently based on race,”

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/01/gov-ron-desantis-congressional-map-upheld-by-fla-appeals-court/71670380007/

[Martinned]

Plague on both their houses

[Brett Bellmore]

The appeals court has correctly identified the contradiction inherent in the interpretation of the Voting Rights act mandating creation of majority-minority districts. Note that I said the contradiction is in the interpretation, not the law; The Voting Rights act doesn't come out and SAY you have to racially gerrymander! It was just interpreted that way.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because we all know racism is the answer to racism.

[Bwaaah]

...and future racism is the answer to present racism.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like DeSantis is the one departing from past practice in a way calculated to make things worse for minorities.

There will always be a racial implication in any districting choice. Knee jerk complaining about white oppression doesn’t quite fit.

[Brett Bellmore]

In a zero sum game, refraining from making things worse for the majority and making things worse off for the minority are indistinguishable, because the minorities were being made better off BY making the majority worse off.

A reminder: The constitutional right isn't to being better off, it's to being treated by government in a non-discriminatory manner.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Brett, that is my point. This isn't affirmative action, you can't just claim this is anti-white and that is just neutral and good.

All you can claim is this doesn't burden any particular group overmuch.

We are talking a statute, not a Constitutional right, but that threshold issue shows up in both.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd be hard put to find a more zero sum game than racial gerrymandering: The total of the seats is fixed, and gerrymandering to increase the political influence of one group can only reduce that of others.

This was a reduction in racial gerrymandering, the district that was gotten rid of was a classic gerrymander, for explicitly racial purposes.

"We are talking a statute, not a Constitutional right"

And the Constitutional right in question is the right of everybody, not just specific racial groups, to equal treatment without regard to race. As has famously been said, "The Fourteenth Amendment, lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees, does not require what it barely permits."

The statute, as interpreted, if not as written, violates the 14th amendment, by mandating rather than prohibiting racial discrimination.

[Sarcastr0]

There are a ton of intersecting groups, so it's not like there's 'minorities' and 'white guys' and everything goes to one or the other. You're always going to have a big set that's helped and a big set that's not.

Equal protection looks a lot in the voting arena like the VRA, actually. But the VRA, as a statute, has clearer language.

And no, the VRA does not violate the 14A. Your version of the 14A is not the law.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You’re always going to have a big set that’s helped and a big set that’s not."

What makes it zero sum is that you have the group that is helped, and a group that isn't merely "not helped", but instead hurt. And the help is only possible because of the hurt.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The VRA violates the VRA.

[Sarcastr0]

The reason why it's not zero sum is that while any given decision will be a zero-sum micro-game, across the whole policy you will have various sets in the 'helped' and 'hurt' supersets so the net effect of the whole policy is not necessarily immediately evident. Theoretically you could just sum everything up for every cohort and get a zero-sum game, but that's not really operably useful.

Unless someone is trying to make it so and targeting a particular group...

That's why threshold determinations are the best way to go.

[Brett Bellmore]

All you're demonstrating there, Sarcastr0, is innumeracy. Math doesn't work that way.

[Sarcastr0]

Applied math does. Imperfect info is a legit constraint.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, innumeracy. There isn't any way to cut the pie to increase one group's share without reducing the share of another group.

[Kazinski]

Well it is neutral to craft congressional districts on the basis of geography and communities rather than race.

District 5 used to be a strip of land across the northern Florida border stretching about 175 miles east to west and just 30 miles north to south.

I don’t think creating arbitrary district boundaries on the basis of nothing but race helps Blacks, or does anything whatsoever to improve racial relations.

I’m not worried that it impacts white representation, what it does do is encourage people to vote on the basis of race which is bad for everyone.

Byron Donalds is a Black Republican Congressman in Florida’s 19th district which is only 5% black,and 70% white, 19% Hispanic.

So clearly race doesn’t have to be the deciding factor, the deciding factor should be representing the views of the district regardless of race.

[Sarcastr0]

Well it is neutral to craft congressional districts on the basis of geography and communities rather than race.
Sure, but that is hard to prove. Which is why we go to impact thresholds.

I don’t think creating arbitrary district boundaries on the basis of nothing but race helps Blacks, or does anything whatsoever to improve racial relations.
If someone has race relations issues about majority-minority districts I'd guess there are larger underlying concern.

[Kazinski]

I don't have any problem with minority majority districts, no more than I would majority white districts.

What I have a problem with majority white districts.

What I have a problem is going out of their way using race as a criteria to craft a district that makes no sense within geographic and existing political boundaries.

I'm not fond of political gerrymandering either, but at least it isn't based on race, which violates the 14th amendment and the civil rights act.

[Nelson]

You understand why the VRA was necessary in the first place, correct? And how the inability of the GOP to attract meaningful black support has resulted in a situation where attempts at partisan gerrymandering often result in racial gerrymandering. It doesn't matter if you want to screw over blacks because you are a racist or if you want to do it because you are a Republican, the result is a map that intentionally marginalizes black votes.

If cultural conservatives hadn't been virulent racists between the Civil War and the VRA, the GOP might not have this problem. But they were. And a distressing number of them still are.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If cultural conservatives hadn’t been virulent racists between the Civil War and the VRA,"

You use "cultural conservatives" here so that you can identify the Democrats who were the actual problem as 'conservatives', instead, and not take note of the continuity in Democrats' insistence on racially discriminatory policies.

What really happened is that Republicans had the black vote nailed down pretty well in the South, but it was heavily suppressed by Jim Crow. Then the civil rights movement gets going, and for maybe two years, the Democratic party was haltingly getting behind racial equality. Good for you!

March, 1961, Kennedy signed an EO mandating that federal contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.”

Then Johnson switched the goal to equal results, and that precious moment was over. You reverted to type, started offering blacks racial quotas and preferences instead of equal rights, and out-bid Republicans, who stuck by a commitment to equal rights.

What a poisonous chalice that was...

[Nelson]

"You use “cultural conservatives” here so that you can identify the Democrats who were the actual problem as ‘conservatives’"

Yes. The label that cultural conservatism operates under is irrelevant. Cultural conservatism is the problem, and always has been. When the force of government is used to prevent culture from changing, it's always wrong.

As long as it isn't actually harming others (as opposed to the false "they're reading stories to children while wearing drag" definition of harm that today's cultural conservatives bleat about) the government shouldn't legislate culture (or morality, for that matter).

If you, as an individual, want to adopt conservative cultural beliefs in your own life, good on you. But you have to extend the same freedom from coercion to those who reject conservative beliefs.

"and not take note of the continuity in Democrats’ insistence on racially discriminatory policies."

I don't give a toss about Democrats or Republicans. Both have sufficient good (and bad) actions to be lauded (or condemned) if that's the pointless game you like to play. The virulent racism that was rejected by the Ds in the 60s resulted in the virulent racists joining (and being embraced by) the Rs. The virulent racism was awful when it was done by Democrats and was just as awful when it was continued by Republicans. And no, the D bigotry of today isn't anywhere close to the "keep the black man down by any means necessary" racism of the past that Rs picked up when Ds put it down. Suggesting an equivalence between the two is partisan apologism in its most awful form.

Anyone who thinks that one party is good and one is evil is either too stupid to live or knows better, but prefers zero-sum partisanship.

Having to think about what your values are and who, each election cycle, prioritizes the issues you do takes a lot of effort and usually ends in split-ticket voting. A little over 50% of people are too lazy or stupid to think for themselves, so they are partisan Ds or Rs. About 30% more are mostly partisan Ds or Rs, but put a little thought into it so they sometimes don't vote party-line for their preferred party. The remaining 20% are able to recognize that the candidate and their positions are what's important, not the party they are associating with (for now).

"What really happened is that Republicans had the black vote nailed down pretty well in the South, but it was heavily suppressed by Jim Crow. Then the civil rights movement gets going, and for maybe two years, the Democratic party was haltingly getting behind racial equality."

That is complete revisionist history (and complete bullshit), but an excellent example of partisan apologism. Would you like to spout some Lost Cause mythology while you're at it?

"Good for you!"

Why? I'm not a partisan. Right now the Rs are more extreme, favor government force, and lack an ethical or moral compass. But give it time and that will change because there is no such thing as a "good" party or an "evil" party.

"Then Johnson switched the goal to equal results, and that precious moment was over."

Nonsense. When every "race-neutral" attempt was prevented by cultural conservatives doing any- and everything they could to prevent blacks from having ... basically anything the white folks already had (especially jobs), what should he have done? Thrown up his hands and said, "Whelp, that didn't work. Sucks for you, black folks. I tried.".

Violent, zero-sum, openly racist efforts to prevent blacks from gaining equality were evil. The Rs who became the champions of and apologists for such behavior couldn't be allowed to force things back to the way they had always been. So a more muscular approach had to be taken because the alternative was to allow evil.

The fantasy that the society built bt cultural conservatives in the 100 years after the Civil War could be reversed in a year or two is idiocy. It was always going to take generations of effort to raise up those who had spent a century being subjugated.

What you are doing here is loathsome. Pretending just encouraging racial equality was sufficient and anything more was as bad as the century of subjugation black Americans were subjected to is completely baseless and morally repugnant.

"What a poisonous chalice that was…"

Of course to you the virulent racism that approved of and encouraged racial violence against "uppity Negros" wasn't a poisonous chalice. The forceful action required to stop it was. What bullshit.

[Reallynotbob]

What's sad, Brett, is that you're so obsessed with "them" and "you" that you forgot the part where we're all Americans. There's no zero sum game to be played... unless your goal is to be the oppressor and ignore other Americans' voices in politics.

Clearly there is racism in the country. Working to ensure that racism doesn't overtake the actual goals of the nation is a good thing. And it doesn't cost your comfortable suburban lifestyle a thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Working to ensure that racism doesn’t overtake the actual goals of the nation is a good thing."

Indeed, and that is why I think racial gerrymandering has to go, why we need to return civil rights law to the principle of equal rights, not equal outcomes. Racism IS overtaking the goals of the civil rights movement, they are becoming what they fought.

[Sarcastr0]

So much for zero sum, eh? By your own logic every gerrymandering decision would be racial!

Or will you insist on rock solid knowledge of racist intent? In which case equality is pure lip service, and welcome to tyranny of the majority.

The majority carping about minority rights is always rich.
Would you prefer to become a black person in your position, to take advantage of all the unfair benefits you say they get?

[jb]

In theory, equal opportunities is a good standard. When you think you're providing equal opportunity and you consistently see unequal outcomes hopefully you'd take a step back and think "hmm, maybe these opportunities aren't so equal after all" and wonder how you might address that problem.

Most often, people arguing for "equal opportunity" are in the group that is benefiting from some sort of systemic bias in the status quo and wants to keep it that way.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

When you think you’re providing equal opportunity and you consistently see unequal outcomes hopefully you’d take a step back and think “hmm, maybe these opportunities aren’t so equal after all” and wonder how you might address that problem.

Or, if you're being honest (which I realize is a foreign concept to you and your ilk) you might consider that the opportunities are in fact equal, but too many are failing to take advantage of those opportunities, then go about figuring how why (perhaps cultural issues, side-effects of well-intentioned but ultimately destructive public policies, etc.)

[Sarcastr0]

Agree with Wuz that any achievement gaps are due to black 'cultural issues', or else you are a liar.

Sometimes I wonder how Wuz operates in real life.

[Analogia Entis & eggroll]

assuming it is a zero-sum game...
Your analogy is based on a statist society.
but what gets me is the assumpton that one is all majority or all minority. Today, most everybody is part of the morjoity in some aspects and part of the minority in others.

[Nelson]

Not really. I'm a white, heterosexual man. The closest thing that I have to a "minority" element is my deep distrust of organized religion and the hypocritical, self-congratulatory, moralistic bullshit it spawns. Although these days, even that might not be a minority position.

I'm not an outlier.

[Bob from Ohio]

"imposed by DeSantis"

He vetoed something and, having failed to override, the legislature passed something else that he signed. It wasn't some diktat.

[Kazinski]

It was definitely some political strong arming.

Interestingly enough under some theories it violated the Independent State Legislature theory.

[myself]

“The constitution cannot demand that all voters are treated equally without regard to race and at the same time demand that voters are treated differently based on race,”

So following the state constitution that minority voting power can't be deliberately diminished through district boundaries is bad because it's treating voters differently based on race.

But fixing the district boundaries so minorities can't elect a representative, totally not treating voters differently based on race!!

That's some solid judicial reasoning!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, exactly: You can't deliberately set things up so that the minority voters don't have their own special district. But if that's just how things shake out naturally?

Nothing wrong with that. Gerrymandering such a district into existence is still gerrymandering.

[VinniUSMC]

You're forgetting about the lefty ratchet. Once 1 minority district appears, it can never, ever be changed.

[myself]

Yeah sure, that maps with a comically spread out district that isn't even contiguous and creates the highest efficiency gap in the US is following the Florida constitution of prioritizing compactness and not diminishing minority voting power.

Why not just admit the obvious? The Florida supreme court is dominated about partisan hacks who don't give a damn what the law says.

[not guilty]

Judge Tanya Chutkan’s memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss the D.C. charges against him based on Presidential immunity and on constitutional grounds is tight as a drum. Trump will no doubt take an interlocutory appeal from the order, but in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Blassingame v. Trump, Nos. 22-5069, 22-7030, 22-7031 (D.C. Cir. December 1, 2023), briefing before the Court of Appeals can be had in a matter of days rather than weeks, and the appellate court need not tarry long before affirming the trial court’s order.

Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0.pdf

It couldn’t happen to a more deserving litigant.

[Mr. Bumble]

....to be continued.

[not guilty]

Au contraire. Judge Chutkan has ruled on every issue as to which the defense can take an interlocutory appeal -- which can move swiftly enough that there is no need for any continuance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Article 1 demonstrates that the Constitution's authors knew how to be explicit when they handed out immunity. It's absurd to claim that Presidents have such comprehensive immunity by mere implication, when Congressmen have much, much more limited immunity granted explicitly.

I may think that many of the legal attacks on Trump are bogus, and others clear cases of selective prosecution, but his claim of immunity is a joke. I don't think even sitting Presidents have any constitutional claim to immunity, former ones surely do not.

[Commenter_XY]

All of these cases will go to SCOTUS, eventually.

Looking at the current spectacle with POTUS Trump, it makes me wonder if, going forward, the Team R and Team D candidates for POTUS will need a dedicated legal funds to address the lawsuits that will occur while they are in office. That is a big change, politically and culturally.

[Martinned]

All of these cases will go to SCOTUS, eventually.

Will they? Why would the Supreme Court weigh in on a lower court ruling that is clearly right, with a fact pattern that will (hopefully) remain exceedingly rare?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Clearly right"?

[Martinned]

If you want to explain why Brett Bellmore is wrong, please go ahead.

[Brett Bellmore]

Remember, the whole case for disqualifying Trump is that he's obviously guilty. To the point where due process is pointless.

[Martinned]

Dude, I was agreeing with you. Why are you trying to pick a fight?

[Brett Bellmore]

We agree about immunity, not about the cases he's not immune from.

[Martinned]

And nothing in my previous comments suggest that I included those issues as examples of cases where the lower court's ruling was clearly right. That's just you and Mr. Bumble picking fights for no other reason than that it amuses you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Asking a question is picking a fight?

[Sarcastr0]

Does it hurt your self image that much to concede one thing?

[Brett Bellmore]

It didn't hurt at all to concede that Presidents don't have any constitutional claim to immunity. I've consistently held that position since, roughly, Ford's damnable pardon of Nixon.

It's got nothing to do with whether I think the charges he isn't immune to are legit.

[Sarcastr0]

Your eagerness to pick a fight on a different Trump matter says otherwise.

[not guilty]

Mr. Bumble, you have been known to comment on judicial rulings without having read them. Have you read Judge Chutkan's memorandum opinion?

If so, what do you claim she got wrong? Please show your work.

[Mr. Bumble]

Reading a lot in to "to be continued" and "clearly right?"
Appeals are likely, aren't they?

[Martinned]

This immunity ruling is clearly right, so I don't see why the Supreme Court would (eventually) grant cert on it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently the Secret Word for today is "clearly".

[not guilty]

Have you read Judge Chutkan's memorandum opinion or not? In either event, what is your basis for questioning whether she got it right?

Please show your work.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Mr. Bumble.

[David Nieporent]

.

“Clearly right”?

Yes. The claim that a former president is immune from criminal prosecution is frivolous. There is neither text nor history nor precedent to support it.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court won't hear an interlocutory appeal on immunity from prosecution because immunity is so clearly lacking.

The D.C. case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court if Trump is convicted.

[Reallynotbob]

Depends where the Court stands on Trump specifically. Taking the interlocutory appeal would ice the DC prosecution for an undetermined amount of time.

Then again, Harlan Crow appears to be lukewarm at best on Trump so maybe not...

[Zarniwoop]

Agreed. I think the trajectory for a presumed interlocutory appeal by Trump to the D.C. Cir is that they hear it on an expedited basis and don’t pause the case, and quickly affirm Judge Chutkun’s solid and thorough opinion.

I think an appeal to the S.Ct. from the D.C. Cir goes first to Roberts. I don’t see him granting even a temporary stay during referral to the full Court, and I don’t see the full Court staying the case either.

[VinniUSMC]

Will they? Why would the Supreme Court weigh in on a lower court ruling that is clearly right, with a fact pattern that will (hopefully) remain exceedingly rare?

This ruling and this case are referring to different things. Duh.

This ruling is a small piece of this case, and this ruling seems to be clearly right. That doesn't suggest, in any way, that this case will not be making its way to SCOTUS. In fact, I wager that no matter what the outcome is, it will end up before SCOTUS.

[SRG2]

FWIW I think that Cannon will find immunity in one form or another - though she'll be overturned on appeal.

[Zarniwoop]

How so, and what sort of immunity?

Unlike the D.C. case, Trump wasn’t president when he concealed classified materials and lied in response to a lawful subpoena. I’m not aware that he’s even tried to assert presidential immunity (or any other type) in the FL case.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Here are the most likely options Cannon will take:

1) Delay the case until after the election so if Trump wins, he can just order the DOJ to drop the case.

2) Dismiss it entirely.

[Zarniwoop]

I can readily see those outcomes occurring, but I’m still unsure what sort of “immunity” SRG2 is postulating.

[SRG2]

Either immune from prosecution for the duration of the campaign or presidency; or from having whatever assertion he makes of executive privilege, authority, etc. wrt the documents being challenged.

I don’t think that her rulings will make any legal sense but that won’t be the point.

[M L]

Judge Tanya Chutkan's denial of Donald Trump's request for a subpoena of J6 committee records is loose as a goose.

[Sarcastr0]

I remember when you used to do the occasional legal analysis.

[M L]

Earlier today? Last week? Good memory you have.

[Sarcastr0]

It has indeed been years.

[Michael P]

If your love your children and want them to be mentally healthy, you should be conservative rather than liberal: https://ifstudies.org/blog/parenting-is-the-key-to-adolescent-mental-health

[Martinned]

Clearly

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

[Tom for equal rights]

Martineed - the conclusions of that study are to be expected. After all, suicide rates of the mentally ill are much higher than the general population and transgender persons are mentally ill. Did you expect different results.

[Martinned]

I wasn't at all surprised that

discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by (...) family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.

That's why I thought it was a pretty obvious rebuttal to Michael P's claim that conservatism makes everybody happy.

[Michael P]

You didn't read my link at all, did you?

What you posted only makes sense as a response if you meant it as agreement in the sense that transgender people are mentally ill.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned - however they study got lazy when the blamed the higher rates of suicide on "discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by (…) family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons."

The higher rates of suicide is due to the mental illness.

Somewhat similar with the studies that blame the change in x (pick your changes) on global warming. the reactive blaming something on transgender or on global warming is just lazy science.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Another bigoted take from Joe_dallas, universal expert of all subjects, with a specialty in intolerance.

[Tom for equal rights]

Jason Only bigots see bigotry and racism in every word and deed

Looks like he was only stating facts on the higher prevalence of mental illness in the transgender population.

That fact isnt controversial - except to intolerate bigots masquerading who want to deny reality.

[Reallynotbob]

Aren't these the "conservatives" who want government to ban social media for all minors?

Source:
https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/final-ifs-eppc-protectingteensfrombigtech-aug2022.pdf

(P.S. they're not "liberal" either. It's something else....)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why are MAGA types so minoritarian and anti-institutional? Those two styles of advocacy seem sufficient to define their politics. I take the rest as window dressing, but dangerously flammable window dressing.

The alternative reality stuff can seem mostly a charade, to enable signaling for solidarity, and to convenience organization building. A pro-institutional progressive would not do that stuff, because alternative reality politics damages political institutions the progressives hope to rely upon to govern. A careless progressive might do it, but those are less in evidence than among the MAGAs.

The MAGA types delight to assert nonsense. To do it not only draws them together, but also tends to cripple their opposition’s politics, by burdening or thwarting political institutionalism.

If that understands MAGA accurately, it seems to point in the direction of an emergency need for more energetic institutional commitment—for instance at the Justice Department. Unfortunately, no sign of that kind of commitment is evident. More the opposite. The Trump prosecutions, which began with brave assertions that no one is above the law, have been conducted on a contrary premise—in overt fear that institutional support will not prove sufficient to enable impartial trials in the face of MAGA resistance.

Every instance of untoward caution serves to make Trump look stronger, and draws yet more anti-institutional admirers toward him. That road leads toward catastrophe for national institutions of governance.

[Mr. Bumble]

What is the name of your alternate universe?

[Don Nico]

"Unfortunately, no sign of that kind of commitment is evident."
What in the world are you asking for? A wet job?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, if you were charged on the basis of powerful evidence with the crimes Trump is charged with in the Florida case, nobody, including appellate courts, would be indulging the foot dragging of Judge Cannon. She would be off the case, and you would be in jail awaiting trial with your bail revoked.

An efficient justice system would never have allowed Judge Cannon near the case in the first place. No one familiar with her legal biography would have supposed for a second that she was qualified either to try the case for the government, or to represent Trump as a defense lawyer.

How can Cannon be qualified to preside over the trial if she is not legally qualified to represent either party? No matter what methods to select judges are customary, there is no excuse for allowing a legal novice to take charge of a case like that one.

If after repeated warnings from the bench, you made public attacks against a judge’s family members, or against court staff, with the result that they were deluged with threats, you would be in jail awaiting trial with your bail revoked.

To permit Trump to do those things does not serve a purpose of judicial neutrality. However inadvertently, it encourages politicization of the trials, with political results which reach outside the justice system and into the streets.

Trump obviously knows that, and is playing it for all it is worth. The law gives a judge power to bring up short Trump’s confrontational challenges against the justice system. It is pusillanimous and unwise not to use that power against Trump as it would be used against anyone else who did likewise.

[Don Nico]

You don't like what is going on. That is all that you are saying despite your rant about Cannon.
I don't like the delays either. I'd prefer that all these cases were being tried right now. Trials should have been underway.
But there are political realities of appearing to be the legal equivalent of a wet job on the leading candidate of a major party.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, agreed. And here is one of those political realities. To give Trump advantageous treatment which would be afforded to no one else destabilizes American politics in Trump's favor. He gets opportunity to parade in front of the public as a political force so powerful that he can force both the Justice Department and the judiciary to dance to his tune.

Especially among Trump supporters who crave a disruptive strong man, who will not suffer to be constrained by anything, but will instead deliver retribution as Trump has promised, that will prove a powerful point to drive turnout. If Trump were treated alike with others, that would not hand him gratuitous political advantage, no matter how angry it made his supporters.

Quite the contrary, it would make him look politically weak. It must not be the objective of the Justice Department to take political sides. The only way to do that is to do what it would always do in a like case involving others. The Justice Department is not doing that in Trump's case, and that mistake harms the nation.

[Don Nico]

Put that way, I agree with you. He is getting special treatment, which is unfortunate.

[Krayt]

To sum up, "Rats! Siccing the government on a political enemy is tough, yo!"

A beautiful screed that's a list of facetiousness waving that away.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"and you would be in jail awaiting trial with your bail revoked."

As I've discovered earlier, of the states admitted to the Union since 1789, all but two had constitutional guarantees of bail in noncapital cases. That's a consensus of a right firmly rooted in history and tradition - certainly compared to the right to gay marriage.

Why enforce one right and not the other? Misplaced priorities.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave, which of those states make that right absolute, to the extent that the right deprives a judge of any power to constrain or punish witness intimidation, or to respond effectually to public threats of violence directed at the judge or her family?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That sounds like a bit of a straw-mannish way to describe a system where if you violate the terms of bail you forfeit the money, and have to post new, even higher bail.

[David Nieporent]

.

if you were charged on the basis of powerful evidence with the crimes Trump is charged with in the Florida case, nobody, including appellate courts, would be indulging the foot dragging of Judge Cannon. She would be off the case, and you would be in jail awaiting trial with your bail revoked.

An efficient justice system would never have allowed Judge Cannon near the case in the first place. No one familiar with her legal biography would have supposed for a second that she was qualified either to try the case for the government, or to represent Trump as a defense lawyer.

How can Cannon be qualified to preside over the trial if she is not legally qualified to represent either party? No matter what methods to select judges are customary, there is no excuse for allowing a legal novice to take charge of a case like that one.

Your premises are mistaken in every respect. She has made no rulings that would permit her to be removed from the case. She is qualified to try the case for either side. And she is qualified to be the judge. Whether she's going to tank the case is a key issue, but it has nothing to do with what you raised.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do you think bare formalism will persuade anyone that a judge recently appointed by the defendant, who has never tried a major case, is qualified to try this case? If so, I suggest you do a thought experiment. What will a historian 100 years hence conclude about the process which put Trump's fate in Cannon's hands? I don't think the historians' conclusion is going to be, "Well, she was obviously qualified, so no problem."

[David Nieporent]

.

What will a historian 100 years hence conclude about the process which put Trump’s fate in Cannon’s hands?

Depends. Are these the dumb historians you think have some special insight into law just because they have a PhD in an unrelated field, or actually legally-knowledgeable historians?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, I have explained repeatedly why you would be hard pressed to persuade a good historian to opine at all on modern legal questions. Here it is again.

You can't opine on anything present-minded without stepping outside the practice of history and spouting historical nonsense. That happens because to practice history is not only to search the records of the past to discover what might be found, but also to exclude utterly the present, to assure that you do not inadvertently smuggle into historical context notions which post-dated any possibility to create influence in the bygone era under study.

It is the bit about excluding the present which is generally the hardest part of historical practice to learn. That is also the part which non-historians do not even suspect they have to learn. They blithely analyze historical texts using no more notion of appropriate context than the one they learned growing up in the present—which is to say a context based on and packed with premises which post-dated the era under study.

Present-minded people who attempt historical analysis think their conclusions look reasonable. To a historian trained to the context of the founding era, those same conclusions are quite often demonstrably ridiculous. The difference is that the trained historian recognizes with the same startled sense that a historical figure would have experienced any insinuation of notions based on then-inaccessible future occurrences or cultural changes. For a would-be analyst without historical training, those same insinuations—founded as they are in the interval between the era under study and the present—set off no alarms at all.

Good historians know that, and decline invitations to venture into present-minded topics and interpretations. That is also why it is a contradiction in terms to suppose legitimacy for originalism practiced by judges and lawyers untrained in confining their interpretations within contemporary historical context.

It is not impossible to imagine a person trained to expertise in both law and history. The closest approximation of that I have seen on this blog is Will Baude, and even his historical takes are inconsistent methodologically. Other than Baude, I don't know of another legal expert who can even demonstrate insight that practice of history requires both art and expertise. Probably there are some. I wish they contributed here. It would improve the quality of the legal commentary in every case where originalism figures in the outcome.

[Roger S]

Straw man attack.

[Kazinski]

Well I do have to acknowledge I am an anti-institutionalist minoritarian, rugged individualist they used to call it.

But I do wonder at the the different perspectives between you and Not Guilty. He posts regularly crowing about Trump getting slapped down by the various judges, you fret about undue caution and want Trump and presumably the MAGA-verse brought up on charges of treason.

Meanwhile looking at the Realclearpolitics poll compilation in the head to head Trump-Biden polls since Nov. 1 Biden has led in 4 of them, Trump has led in 14. Biden's largest lead was 2, Trump's was 6. Its worth nothing that Trump never led for more than a day or 2 in the RCP aggregation in 2016 or 2020.

[not guilty]

What can I say? Schadenfreude is the best of all freudes.

[Mr. Bumble]

" Subsequent research has supported the notion that schadenfreude has more to do with the inferiority of the self rather than the success of others. "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-red-light-district/201908/10-unsettling-facts-about-schadenfreude

[Krayt]

Feeling a sort of glee or satisfaction in the failure of your successful friends? You don't say.

[Commenter_XY]

Kazinski: Polls are trash at this stage. It is an indicator of national mood, which is notoriously mercurial. There is nothing but war, death and national decline under POTUS Biden. The polls reflect that sentiment.

I will say: The election is no longer a lock against POTUS Trump. It was (and is) down to three states: MI, WI, AZ.

[Martinned]

There is nothing but war, death and national decline under POTUS Biden

Sure, except that for the first time in more than 20 years the US isn't actually involved in any foreign wars, Covid is history, and the economy is going like gangbusters. The only national decline that one might have in mind is the ever growing group of people who want to trash US democracy and the rule of law.

[ducksalad]

"for the first time in more than 20 years the US isn’t actually involved in any foreign wars"

11/13/23 "US forces in Syria attacked four times in less than 24 hours"
11/08/23 "Two US F-15 fighter jets conducted an airstrike on a weapons storage facility in eastern Syria"
8/27/23 "US air strike said to kill 13 al Shabaab militants in Somalia"
5/30/23 "U.S. Africa Command Conducts Airstrike Against Al Shabaab Militants in Somalia:
2/10/23 "Mystery Yemen drone strike renews questions over US campaign"
3 hours ago: "U.S. Navy Destroyer Shoots Down Three Drones in Red Sea, Pentagon Says"

OTOH, if you meant we aren't in pitched ground battles with high casualties, this is hardly the first time in 20 years. The same could be said for years-long intervals in both the Obama and Trump administrations.

[Martinned]

Dropping the occasional bomb on countries that most Americans couldn't point to on a map has been SOP for US presidents for decades. Somehow everyone seems to agree that that doesn't even count as war for the purposes of the War Powers Act, declarations of war, etc. But show me some boots on the ground.

[Brett Bellmore]

Count me out of that "everyone".

[ducksalad]

a. We do have boots on the ground in Syria, it's definitely a war, and they have come under fire recently.
b. If your definition of involved in a war doesn't include the current level of activity, then I'd argue that by your definition we weren't involved during the last half of Obama and most of Trump.
c. What Brett said.

[Don Nico]

"US isn’t actually involved in any foreign wars"
while there are not any acknowledge US personnel in the Ukraine I would call $100B of arms, logistical assistance, and tactical intelligence support including targeting as involvement in a foreign war.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

for the first time in more than 20 years the US isn’t actually involved in any foreign wars

LOL!

[Jerry B.]

Polls are always trash if they don't produce the results you want. 78% of those interviewed agree.

[Kazinski]

The polls are close and not dispositive, but I disagree they are trash for the simple reason that unlike most elections there are very few unknowns at this stage between Trump and Biden. Everyone has made up their minds on how they feel about the two candidates, even if they haven't completely made up their minds how to vote.

Those that have made up their minds on the basis of ideology or personalities have pretty much made up their minds, those that are going to vote on pocketbook issues may still be in play.

[Nelson]

“Why are MAGA types so minoritarian and anti-institutional?”

Cultural conservatism, the attempt to force personal conservative cultural beliefs upon the country as a whole through government force, is only necessary when those beliefs are no longer held by a majority of people. That’s why cultural conservatives are anti-majority. It’s also why they’re so angry, which Trump has taken advantage of politically.

MAGA just happens to be the latest version of a voting bloc that is characterized by rage towards change. In a small-l liberal democracy, cultural conservatism will inevitably be rejected. Trump is just the id of the losers of the culture wars given human form. Once MAGA fades, another rage-based cultural conservative movement will rise to take its place. The anger and the bitterness is the common denominator of cultural conservatism, MAGA is just its present form.

[Don Nico]

Have a look at "Why Doctors and Pharmacists Are in Revolt"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/business/economy/doctors-pharmacists-labor-unions.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled.

[Martinned]

It turns out perverse incentives screwed up the US healthcare system. Who knew?

[Michael P]

Thanks, Obama! (/sarc)

[Martinned]

No, not Obama

At Allina, primary care doctors are given incentives to talk to patients about their high-risk or chronic medical conditions, even if those conditions are well managed and aren’t relevant to a visit.

“Is that a valuable use of our 25 minutes together?” said Dr. Matt Hoffman, a primary care doctor at an Allina clinic that unionized in October. “No, but it means Allina gets more money from Medicare.”

[Michael P]

So it's Obama's fault two ways: his healthcare law both changed the incentives so that doctors almost have to work for those mega-practices and it incentivized wasting time on preventive care for well-managed conditions.

[Reallynotbob]

The ACA has contributed to improved health outcomes systemwide. That's a reduction in overall tax burden for the country, and relieves specific system burdens at the hospital level.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01436
"A growing body of literature examining the effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on nonelderly adults provides promising evidence of improvements in health outcomes through insurance expansions. Our review of forty-three studies that employed a quasi-experimental research design found encouraging evidence of improvements in health status, chronic disease, maternal and neonatal health, and mortality, with some findings corroborated by multiple studies. Some studies further suggested that the beneficial effects have grown over time and thus may continue to grow if the ACA insurance expansions remain in force."

As for preventative care, the AMA disagrees with you.
https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/aca-s-preventive-care-provisions-must-be-maintained

"Eliminating the lifesaving benefit of no-cost preventive care from millions of Americans is unwise and unthinkable. Our AMA is hardly alone in taking this stance, as evidenced by joint statement we signed alongside 60 other medical associations and societies in response to arguments in Kelley v. Becerra.

Physicians know the dramatic differences that preventive care can make, just as we know that uninsured individuals live sicker and die younger. The twin goals of extending health coverage to the uninsured while making coverage more affordable to all are just as important today as they were when they were adopted as formal AMA policy more than two decades ago.

As physicians providing care on the front lines, we know that eliminating copays and deductibles for preventive care works. Evidence shows that this popular aspect of the ACA has increased the uptake of preventive services while reducing racial and ethnic-based inequities. More than 150 million people reaped the benefits of Section 2713 in 2020 alone, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Preventive care saves lives, saves money, improves health outcomes and enables healthier lifestyles. The commitment physicians undertake to diagnose and treat disorders is only part of our ethical obligation, because we also share a professional commitment to prevent disease and promote health and well-being among our patients."

[Don Nico]

And they are getting worse.

[Commenter_XY]

What I would say is that there are too many layers in between the patient and their physician; this is where the perverse incentives come from.

[not guilty]

Judge Scott McAfee reportedly asked Fulton County prosecutors how long they would need to prepare for trial of Donald Trump and others should an opening occur earlier than expected, appearing to allude to the possibility of a delay in one of the federal cases. The answer was 30 days. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-lawyer-georgia-trial-would-have-to-wait-if-trump-wins-in-2024/ar-AA1kRFwm

That is reassuring in the event that SCOTUS stays the March 4 D.C. trial due to an interlocutory appeal or Judge Aileen Loose Cannon monkeys with the May 20 trial setting in Florida.

As Groucho Marx said, time wounds all heels.

[Mr. Bumble]

Grasping at straws. Jury selection in the other Fulton county Rico case took 10 months.

[not guilty]

Once a trial of Donald Trump in Georgia begins, there is no reason to think that it will not be concluded. Even if Trump should be elected to another term as president, Georgia prosecutors and courts are not bound by the U. S. Department of Justice policy, originally propounded by the Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting president is not subject to criminal prosecution while in office. No court has so declared, to my knowledge.

[David Nieporent]

No, obviously not. But do you think federal courts will allow it to continue as long as he's in office? And, assuming that they do, do you think they will allow any sentence to be carried out if he's convicted?

[not guilty]

That remains an unanswered question. But per 28 U.S.C. § 2283, a court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.

The prosecution in Georgia was not brought in bad faith, and considerations of comity command "a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971).

In the event of conviction in Fulton County, Donald Trump's avenues of relief would lie in the appellate courts of Georgia and, failing that, a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (I suppose it is arguable that Trump could bypass state appellate remedies upon a showing that circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant under § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii), but that would present a question of first impression.)

[Martinned]

I was going to flag an exciting new case at the ICJ, where the ILO (International Labour Organisation) has asked for an advisory opinion. The question is whether there is a right to strike under ILO Convention No. 87, the convention that deals with the freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise. But then I noticed that, of course, the US hadn't ratified it. This convention is from 1948, has been ratified by 158 countries, but as so often the US did not feel like joining the international community in developing a rules-based system.

Here are the main substantive provisions. See if you can spot which one the US Senate might have objected to:

Article 2
Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.

Article 3
1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.
2. The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

Article 4
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.

Article 5
Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and any such organisation, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers.

Article 6
The provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof apply to federations and confederations of workers' and employers' organisations.

Article 7
The acquisition of legal personality by workers' and employers' organisations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof.

Article 8
1. In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land.
2. The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.

Article 9
1. The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations.
2. In accordance with the principle set forth in paragraph 8 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation the ratification of this Convention by any Member shall not be deemed to affect any existing law, award, custom or agreement in virtue of which members of the armed forces or the police enjoy any right guaranteed by this Convention.

Article 10
In this Convention the term organisation means any organisation of workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interests of workers or of employers.

[Martinned]

Sorry, the convention in question is here: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312232

[Michael P]

#2 smells of antitrust violations.
#3 would trample the "right" of the NLRB to order people around.
Ditto #4.
#5 sounds like a COMINTERN front.
#6 discriminates unreasonably.
#7 violates the leftist dictate that corporations aren't people.
#8 delegates powers over labor orgs to whoever interprets the treaty.
#9 subordinates state sovereignty to the federal government.

Which one was it?

[Martinned]

I have no idea. I was asking you. I would have thought that a lot of this stuff was straight-up covered by the first amendment's freedom of association.

[Brett Bellmore]

Freedom of association doesn't include the right to have anybody else not ignore that association. And, critically, includes a right the above stuff omits any mention of: The right of individuals to NOT join associations!

[Martinned]

It also doesn't mention the right to go to church on Sundays. So what? This is not a case of "everything not allowed is forbidden".

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a Trader Joe's a couple hundred yards over the Amherst (MA) town line in Hadley. It was the first Trader Joe's nationally to organize. Now it looks like it will be holding a vote to deorganize.

Gotta love unions...

[Michael P]

Some of it is. Some of it probably isn't, depending on how much is read between the lines. What good is a treaty that doesn't even mention the ability of a workers' organization to negotiate employment contracts on behalf of it's members (and/or other employees)?

[Martinned]

The ILO has many conventions (which is why this one is number 87). Some of those deal with collective bargaining.

[Michael P]

So what would joining this one change in terms of substantive US law, besides federalizing the question of police unions? If that's all it would change, it seems proper for us to pass on it.

[Martinned]

The point of ratifying treaties is not to change domestic law. You can do that on your own if you want to. It's to make a mutual commitment with other countries, to create an international rules-based order.

[Artifex]

Ok, I don't get it. What possible advantage is following the wishes of a bunch of Euro-Karens going to bring me ? I don't attach much value to the approval of the self righteous. You are going to have to do better than "following the international rule of law as defined by us, so we like you more".

[Martinned]

What possible advantage is following the wishes of a bunch of Euro-Karens going to bring me ?

Well, for one thing, it might help you persuade those Euro-Karens to start a beef with China when that has absolutely no benefit to them.

You are going to have to do better than “following the international rule of law as defined by us, so we like you more”.

How about: "following the international rule of law so that other countries will do the same"?

[Artifex]

Well, for one thing, it might help you persuade those Euro-Karens to start a beef with China when that has absolutely no benefit to them.

What a weird, disjoint statement. Why would I care ? Feel free to start or not start any beefs with China that you want. Personally, I try to avoid Chinese goods due to both lower quality and the use of slave labour to manufacture them, but you be you. If you want to cry about rights violations out of one side of your mouth and line your pockets with the profits of totalitarian produced goods and materials with the other hand, you would just be your average European.

How about: “following the international rule of law so that other countries will do the same”?

That's sort of the point isn't it ? Despite your vastly inflated sense of your own importance. I really don't care how you manage organised labour in your own sandbox, and don't value your input about how it should be managed in mine.

[Bob from Ohio]

"it might help you persuade those Euro-Karens to start a beef with China when that has absolutely no benefit to them."

Or to us!

The US and its Pacific allies can handle china. Or not. Europe adds nothing either way.

[Martinned]

The US and its Pacific allies can handle china. Or not. Europe adds nothing either way.

You could have fooled me, given how much time and effort the White House has spent in recent years strong-arming the Dutch government into prohibiting ASML from exporting chip makers to China.

[Bob from Ohio]

"how much time and effort the White House has spent in recent years"

the current white house does a lot of stupid and useless things

[Martinned]

@Bob: Here, have an article about the Trump administration putting pressure on the Dutch over ASML: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-asml-holding-usa-china-insight/trump-administration-pressed-dutch-hard-to-cancel-china-chip-equipment-sale-sources-idUKKBN1Z50H5/

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, the point of ratifying treaties like this IS to change, or at least constrain, domestic law. It's a mutual agreement as to what domestic law may be, after all.

[Martinned]

The point is to change, or at least constrain, *other people's* domestic law. If you want to change or constrain your own domestic law, you don't need a treaty for that.

[VinniUSMC]

Yes, exactly. The point is for the EU to try to force the US to change their laws. This way, hypocritical moral scolds like Nazi martin will be able to put arguments like "We're all doing it, why do you refuse to join us in the international community?" on the table.

[David Nieporent]

.

The point of ratifying treaties is not to change domestic law. You can do that on your own if you want to.

The point of ratifying treaties is not to change domestic law; it's to lock in domestic law.

It’s to make a mutual commitment with other countries, to create an international rules-based order.

But something like the labor treaty you're discussing involves purely domestic issues that are not properly part of any international rules-based order.

[Martinned]

The point of ratifying treaties is not to change domestic law; it’s to lock in domestic law.

That might be why politicians do it, but it's not the legal purpose of the exercise. Treaties can be renounced, and in the US treaties can be renounced quite easily.

But something like the labor treaty you’re discussing involves purely domestic issues that are not properly part of any international rules-based order.

1. All labour regulation affects international trade. Conventions like this prevent a race to the bottom, where all production gets outsourced to whichever Asian country has the worst labour standards.

2. Sometimes, we make treaties simply because we care about what happens to people in other countries. That's not a bad thing.

[Both Sides]

Private-sector employees have no First Amendment right to join unions, much less bargain collectively with private-sector employers. Many private-sector employees get those rights from the National Labor Relations Act (or the Railway Labor Act), both federal laws.

Public-sector employees have a First Amendment right to join a union without being fired for so doing, but that right does not extend to the right to bargain collectively. Public-sector labor rights are set by state, not federal law, and those state laws vary considerably. Many, but not all, provide collective bargaining rights for public employees.

[Martinned]

Private-sector employees have no First Amendment right to join unions, much less bargain collectively with private-sector employers.

Well, they do, but they don't have the constitutional right to join a union without their employer retaliating.

[Both Sides]

That is technically correct (which I hear is the best kind of correct). In my defense, I think most people, when they talk about a labor right to do X, mean something like, “and their employer can’t legally fire them for doing X.” But to the extent you think it’s worth adding that the U.S. government can’t prosecute an employee for the act of joining a union, yes that’s correct.

As I hope you noticed, the main substance of my post was to note that abiding by this ILO rule would change the law in the U.S. (which was your question, right?) mainly for *public*-sector workers, who currently lack a right to bargain collectively in a number of states.

[Martinned]

This ILO convention, in its time (1948), was definitely about making sure that *governments* wouldn't try to stop unionisation. That's a thing governments, including the US government (longer ago) and undemocratic governments (closer to 1948) did.

And yes, noted that the convention would require some changes in US law. Not sure that that's a bad thing. International best practice, etc. Note that the convention does not require the government to allow e.g. the armed forces and the police to unionise.

[Both Sides]

If your question is why the U.S. wouldn't sign onto the convention in 1948, I would make two guesses. First, prior to the mid-1960s, employees of state and local governments could (and did) legally fire employees simply for joining/affiliating with a union. Courts didn't start holding that violated the First Amendment for a couple of decades later.

Now, *private*-sector employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act or Railway Labor Act had a statutory right not to be discriminated against by their employer for joining a union. But it's worth recalling that the U.S. had a pretty anti-union Congress around then. The Taft-Hartley Act, which significantly cut back on labor rights in the original NLRA, was enacted (over Truman's veto) in 1947. So, probably no appetite for signing on to international labor rights agreement in Congress then.

My guess as to why the U.S. has continued not to sign onto some ILO treaties is that, again, some states still don't grant collective bargaining rights to some or all public employees.

[Kazinski]

Well there are two things:

Article 3 would cause big problems when a local or national union is captured by Organized crime the way the Teamsters was, or a political party like the AFT and the Democrats (or the AFT has captured the Democratic party kind of hard to tell). The government has had to take several unions into receivership, ban officers from union positions and audit and control their financials. All of which would seem o be banned by article 3.

Second the National Labor Relations Act was crafted in 1935 and required a lot of compromise on both sides and while not flawless there is no reason to think that signing the ILO and bringing the NLRA into compliance would be an improvement.

And we probably made the decision that whatever France was doing in Labor relations we would do the opposite. To make a more serious point nothing about labor relations in Europe from 1948 until at least 2000 gave us any reason to emulate them.

[Martinned]

As you can tell from art. 4 and art. 8 of the provisions I quoted, nothing in this convention prevents the authorities from seeking a court order dissolving a union, or from enforcing the normal criminal laws against a union.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but as so often the US did not feel like joining the international community in developing a rules-based system."

It couldn't be that we have doubts about the rules in question?

We're a liberal democracy, in some regards more liberal (In the original sense of the word.) than practically any other. We exist in a world where countries which still practice slavery get seats on the UN human rights commission.

International agreements are often crap in such a world.

[Martinned]

It couldn’t be that we have doubts about the rules in question?

It could be, which is why I asked what those doubts might be. I even quoted the relevant provisions to make it easier to answer that question.

International agreements are often crap in such a world.

Sure, but the US refuses to ratify them whether they're crap or not, because it thinks that it is better off in a world where it can do whatever it likes, instead of a world based on the rule of law. And one day the US is going to wake up and realise that it isn't 1955 anymore.

[ducksalad]

“a world based on the rule of law”

A document stating some laws is only one tiny part, and not a strictly essential one, of living with the rule of law. The US signing or not signing isn’t going to switch us between anarchy and world peace.

[Martinned]

The US signing or not signing isn’t going to switch us between anarchy and world peace.

No, but it's not exactly helping either. As demonstrated by our singular failure at getting several extremely useful treaties agreed and ratified.

[Bob from Ohio]

"our"

You are Dutch living in England, what "our" are you talking about.

[Martinned]

In this case, "our" referred to the international community, e.g. such as it is gathered at the moment at COP28, where it is failing to address climate change.

[Bob from Ohio]

The US invented the concept of a "world based on the rule of law" and its [relative] success is a function of US power.

"one day the US is going to wake up and realise [sic] that it isn’t 1955 anymore"

Europe will like a post-1955 world a lot less than we will. We'll hardly notice in fact.

[Martinned]

The US invented the concept of a “world based on the rule of law” and its [relative] success is a function of US power.

Where TF did you get that idea?

[Bob from Ohio]

The UN and most international organizations were US ideas and depend on US money to function.

[Martinned]

Were they? Since we were talking about the ILO, let's take that as a case in point of exactly the opposite happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Labour_Organization#History

Also, has the US actually paid its arrears at the UN yet?

[Martinned]

Since I was curious I checked, and no, the US has not paid up its debts to the UN system yet. If anything, its arrears are growing rather than shrinking: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF10354.pdf

It seems that part of the problem is that Congress thinks that it should get to decide how much the UN spends, which is exactly the kind of "we will do whatever the fuck we want" attitude that I was talking about earlier.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, Congress thinks that it should get to decide how much the US spends.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Weird...the very first line of that is...

"The United States is the single largest financial contributor
to the United Nations (U.N.) system."

[Martinned]

It is. It's also the largest economy in the world.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

It is. It’s also the largest economy in the world.

Make up your sad excuse for a mind. Are you here to whine about the U.S. not paying its fair share to finance the U.N., or claim that even though it pays MORE than its share, it should pay more anyway?

[Martinned]

@Wuz: The US pays *less* than its share. It's supposed to roughly pay a share that's equivalent to how big it is, but it is consistently wildly in arrears. So looking at what it actually pays, as opposed to what it's supposed to pay, it pays less than its fair share.

[VinniUSMC]

It seems that part of the problem is that Congress thinks that it should get to decide how much the UN spends, which is exactly the kind of “we will do whatever the fuck we want” attitude that I was talking about earlier.

Yes, fuck the UN.

[Martinned]

That's the spirit!

[VinniUSMC]

Yes, fuck the UN. And you martinazi.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How many states ratifying the convention actually observe the rules of this rules-based system?

[Martinned]

I have no idea. Feel free to go do some research. But laws are valuable even if they are not complied with 100% of the time.

[ducksalad]

Laws can be valuable, laws can be harmful. And even if a law itself is valuable, the enforcement can be harmful.

[Martinned]

So can rain. Thank you for your contribution.

[ducksalad]

MIght as well give you my opinion on international law. It's like that library in Alexandria.

If it disagrees with what functioning democracies do on their own, it is wrong.
If it agrees with what functioning democracis do on their own, it is superfluous.

[Martinned]

Speaking of the ICJ, the exciting case of Venezuela v. Guyana continues. The latest development is that Venezuelan voters voted in a referendum yesterday, approving the takeover of the disputed territory with about 95% of the vote.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/04/americas/venezuelans-approve-takeover-of-oil-rich-region-of-guyana-in-referendum/index.html

Did anyone say anything about referendums being a tool for demagogues and dictators?

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny what you find to be "exiting".

[Martinned]

There's more oil in that part of Guyana (if you include the territorial waters that go with it) than in all of Venezuela. If this goes sideways, and it well might, it could become the biggest war in the Americas in decades. The US would have to intervene to protect Guyana, for reasons that range from protecting its strategic (oil) interests to the Monroe doctrine to stopping tinpot dictators from invading neighbouring countries. And the entire border area between Venezuela and Guyana is a massive tropical jungle, which isn't exactly the kind of place where the US can straighten things out with some well-aimed bombs.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Can it be a jungle and a quagmire at the same time?

[Martinned]

I think the Vietnam war decisively established that it can be.

[Bob from Ohio]

Caracas is in fact exactly the kind of place where the US can straighten things out with some well-aimed bombs.

[Martinned]

Don't you people ever learn? Dropping bombs on the capital, apart from likely being a war crime, doesn't end anything. Unless you think that US intelligence agencies are magically good enough to be able to work out where the entire Venezuelan leadership is going to be sufficiently far ahead of time that you can send them some bombs. But that's not something they've ever been able to do before, so that seems like an optimistic assumption.

[Bob from Ohio]

Everything is a war crime to you. Who is going to arrest us?

[Martinned]

It's the same war crime over and over again, because certain commenters on this blog can't seem to get enough of dropping bombs on civilians.

[Bob from Ohio]

Who said bomb civilians? Must have been your imaginary friend.

[Sarcastr0]

You think the Venezuelan military is in Caracas?

Rare of you to backpedal; don't often see you feeling shame.

[David Nieporent]

.

You think the Venezuelan military is in Caracas?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defense_(Venezuela)

[Bob from Ohio]

"You think the Venezuelan military is in Caracas?"

Military dictatorships never have facilities in their capital city. This is known.

Generalisimo Francisco de Miranda Air Force base is in Caracas. Internet says there is a navy base too.

President's palace, Defense and Interior/Police ministries are valid military targets.

[Sarcastr0]

MoD or not, bombing Caracas if Venezuelan military does something dumb is targeting civilians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is oil and then there is dirty oil -- high sulfur oil. Venezuelan oil has some of the highest sulfur levels in the world, and it stand to reason that adjacent oil would be similar.

It's not just that the sulfur in the refined products (which not only messes up catalytic converters and pollutes the air) but it takes a very special refinery to even refine high sulfur crude. Memory is that the CITGO refinery is the only one in the world able to refine Venezuelan crude. It requires special equipment and technology.

What this means is that the only market for Venezuelan crude is the USA, and if Guyanan crude is equally sour (high sulfur), which I suspect, the only market for it would be the same CITGO refinery (which I believe Venezuela owns). Now if it happens to be sweet (low sulfur), the oil could be sold to anyone including the Chinese, but I doubt it is.

Hence I wonder what really is at play here.

[Kazinski]

Well first of all Venezuela already has the largest oil reserves in the world, although it is heavy sour crude and difficult to refine, estimated at 299 billion barrels.

Guyana's reserves are at about 11 billion.

Second, the OAS will get involved and I doubt Brazil will sit on its hands while Venezuela gobbles up 2/3 of Guyana. Brazil and Mexico are more likely to settle this dispute than US and the UK, although they will be involved diplomatically.

I think the OAS would rather get involved itself to settle it than invite US or European troops to get involved.

[Sarcastr0]

You can just not comment Bumble.

[Mr. Bumble]

Coming from you, that's rich.

[Sarcastr0]

You tell people they shouldn't have posted because you are personally unintersted.
I don't do that.

So yeah, you should consider not posting on stuff you don't care about, rather than insisting people post according to your interest.

[Mr. Bumble]

My comment was only about his choice of "exciting" to describe his post, not its content.

[Martinned]

My word "exciting" described "case". You can tell, because that's the noun that's right next to the adjective "exciting".

[Krayt]

Did anyone say anything about referendums being a tool for demagogues and dictators?

Swaying the blowing winds of political passion is the stock in trade of demagogues.

Also, when you get to brass tacks doing this, redirect your hoi polloi’s rage against an external enemy, that’s a good one. Then they won't be as focused on what a dictator you are.

[SRG2]

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

It could bring the UK into it as well. And with a presently very weak Tory government, the prospect of a foreign war against a presumably soft target would not necessarily be viewed with any great degree of animadversion

[Martinned]

A soft target, are you nuts? A combined US/UK fleet would be OK at sea, but this would quickly descend into a never ending jungle war.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two words: Night Vision.

We didn't even have FLIR for helicopters back then, and the enemy hid at night. Can't do that now...

[SRG2]

The Venezuelans lack Gurkhas.

[Bob from Ohio]

You attack Caracas directly. Remove the government. Install a new one. New one recalls the military.

Or you just bomb the rear bases and supply lines. Destroy the Venezulan air force.

[Sarcastr0]

US imperialism in Latin America.

Nothing but good experiences there; lets do it again.

[Bob from Ohio]

Venezuelan imperialism is better!

[Sarcastr0]

You seem very confused about what imperialism means.

[Bob from Ohio]

An armed invasion of another country to control territory and exploit its resources.

[Sarcastr0]

Even wiki says it's disputed.

I'd ding you for playing world judge, but I know you don't care about the facts. You just want to see blood.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You just want to see blood."

When a larger country invades a smaller one to annex land and seize resources there is no blood shed?

Guyana can't fight Venezula without help. Brazil might help but its military is outclassed and will be fighting on extended lines.. But the powerful near by country can't help because ...?

[Kazinski]

Even Chavez said the issue was settled in 2004.

The claim is made on the basis of an old Spanish claim but neither Spain nor Venezuela ever exercised sovereignty over the area.

We've got as much right to Canada up to the 54-40 parallel as Venezuela does to 2/3 of Guyana, maybe we should have a referendum.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s disputed I don’t know the history enough to opine. But even if Venezuela sucks, us bombing their Capitol or else letting it happen is a false choice.

You though beg the question.

Things you like: death penalty. US Bombing campaigns. US occupations. Israel killing civilians. Invoking the insurrection act. President Trump. Honesty from politicians on the right.

Things you don’t like: due process. International law. In general policies that avoid violence.

It adds up to you having a bloody minded worldview and wanting to make it real.

[Absaroka]

"Even wiki says it’s disputed"

The Wiki article says "...is administered and controlled by Guyana but claimed by Venezuela". My sense is that, at some point, you have to fix borders. Otherwise you will continue to have territorial wars forever; every border is disputed when a suitably ambitious dictator comes along. See Kuwait, Ukraine, Kurdistan, Mussolini, and on and on. IMHO, if Guyana has controlled it since the 1800's, it's Guyana's now.

Also from that article, the disputed region isn't a narrow strip, it's most of Guyana.

From the article, the ICJ is tasked to settle the dispute: "The status of the territory is subject to the Geneva Agreement, which was signed by the United Kingdom, Venezuela and British Guiana on 17 February 1966. This treaty stipulates that the parties will agree to find a practical, peaceful and satisfactory solution to the dispute.[3] Should there be a stalemate, according to the treaty, the decision as to the means of settlement is to be referred to an "appropriate international organ" or, failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.[3] The Secretary-General referred the entire matter to the International Court of Justice. On 18 December 2020, the ICJ accepted the case submitted by Guyana to settle the dispute".

There you have it. Let the ICJ rule, and enforce the ruling. Dictators don't get to solve the domestic problems they have created by annexing weaker neighbors.

[Sarcastr0]

Abrosaka - you make a satisficing case.

That's the collective security way we set up the modern era. It didn't work well come the Cold War, but seems well suited here.

But maybe leave well-aimed bombing of Caracas off the table.

[Absaroka]

"But maybe leave well-aimed bombing of Caracas off the table.

In the very unfortunate event that Venezuela decides on an unlawful invasion, I hope targeting decisions will be made by the commander of U.N. forces. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some targets - telephone exchanges come to mind - in a major city like Caracas, as there were in Baghdad.

[Martinned]

Even wiki says it’s disputed.

It's disputed in the sense that Venezuela disputes it. The dispute that existed in the past has already been settled twice before. And now it's before the ICJ.

[David Nieporent]

.

Even wiki says it’s disputed.

It's disputed in the same way that the 2020 election is: one side refuses to admit reality.

[Martinned]

Remove the government. Install a new one.

Even assuming that the US would be able to do that: How well did that work the last couple of times the US tried to do that?

[Bob from Ohio]

Well enough. Iraq is better off now and we got 20 years out of Afghanistan.

They had an election a few years back , the winner can just assume his rightful position.

[Martinned]

The Venezuelan opposition just chose a new unity candidate for president: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar%C3%ADa_Corina_Machado#2023_presidential_primary_elections

No way of knowing how much support she or Guaido would have in Venezuela. (Which in any case would presumably depend on how you count all the Venezuelan refugees.)

[John F. Carr]

The last time the U.S. tried in Venezuela it didn't try hard enough.

Last year the press was abuzz with commentary about John Bolton's admission to plotting a coup in Venezuela. I guess it's true what they say about political memoirs: sometimes bought, rarely read. I did read Bolton's memoir The Room Where It Happened. He had a chapter devoted to trying to get a better government in power. This came out in 2020 and all anybody cared about was the battle between Bolton and Trump over pre-publication review.

[Sarcastr0]

Latin American adventurism is a bad idea.

Regime change is not an effective way to change the politics of a region. We do not nation build well.

[Commenter_XY]

Re: Moore v US

How do you write regulations to tax unrealized capital gains? Wealth taxes have been tried (and failed) multiple times.

What makes this time different (why will a US wealth tax work where all others have failed)?

Would a wealth tax force an exodus of uber-wealthy from the US?

[Martinned]

How do you write regulations to tax unrealized capital gains?

It depends on how comprehensive you want to be. In the Netherlands we used to have income tax on a presumed return. Everyone was presumed to earn 4% on their savings and investments, and was then taxed 30% on that. During the previous decade, when savings rates were consistently much lower than 4%, there was litigation and the supreme court decided that this arrangement was a violation of the right to property somehow. (I still think that's ridiculous, because a straight-up wealth tax is perfectly legal in the Netherlands. We used to have one for decades in the last century.)

Alternatively, you could limit the tax to assets that are liquid enough to have a valuation day-to-day. My banking app tells me every day how much my stock portfolio is worth, for example. There's no practical reason why I couldn't be taxed on gains there, just like I'm taxed on my interest earnings that appear elsewhere in the app. (For the record, the UK only taxes realised gains.)

Would a wealth tax force an exodus of uber-wealthy from the US?

Given how all-round marvellous the US is, why on earth would anyone want to leave?

[Mr. Bumble]

“Given how all-round marvellous the US is, why on earth would anyone want to leave?” Why does everyone seem to want to come here?

By the way, what happened to that "wealth tax"?

[Martinned]

By the way, what happened to that “wealth tax”?

Which one? If you mean the Dutch situation: Until 2001 the Netherlands taxed everyone’s wealth at (I think) 2%. In that year, they combined with wealth tax with the income tax by attributing a return of 4% and taxing it at a flat 30% rate. Since the supreme court judgment, they’ve changed that into a 30% tax on realised gains.

[Mr. Bumble]

So they're actually taxing income, as most people understand income to be.

[Martinned]

They are now, yes.

[Krayt]

Japan decided to tax real estate because of astronomical values in Tokyo. It took decades for their economy to recover.

They were amateurs compared to this plan. Which, keep in mind, is not to balance the budget. There will still be massive borrowing because they borrow based on what they think they can get away with.

[Martinned]

Japan decided to tax real estate because of astronomical values in Tokyo. It took decades for their economy to recover.

Are you suggesting a causal connection between those two facts?

[Tom for equal rights]

Just a basic fact of micro economics

[Martinned]

If it's anything, it's macro economics. That's the branch that studies "the economy", economic recovery, etc. But so far I'm hearing only crickets.

[Tom for equal rights]

micro economics – artificial shift in the demand curve. which creates issues on the macro side since housing is such a big piece of the overall economy

[Martinned]

That is still, being generous, only hand-waiving in the general direction of an explanation of how a causal link between taxes on real estate and economic growth might work.

[Tom for equal rights]

Everyone is mischaracterizing the legal issue in the Moore case

The statute is attempting to impose US income tax on an individual for income earned by a foreign corporation on the foreign corporation’s Non US source income.

The income is in fact income, That should not be in dispute. Its just not the Shareholders income. One of the bedrock principles of taxation is the entity earning the income is the entity that pays the tax on that income. The statute upsets that basic principle.

[bernard11]

It's pretty easy to tax unrealized gains in investments in marketed securities.

Take the value of the portfolio on Dec. 31, 2023 and and subtract its value on Dec 31, 2022. Then subtract the amount invested in the portfolio during the year. That gives you the taxable amount.

Of course that's not a wealth tax, which I actually think is a bad idea because of the complexity - impossibility, really - of actually measuring wealth.

How in the world are you going to assess the value of every house, every private business, expensive art and jewelry, etc.? It would be a nightmare of inequity, tax evasion, litigation, and so on.

[Tom for equal rights]

Taxation of unrealized gains in the Moore case is not the issue.

The statute is attempting to impose US income tax on an individual for income earned by a foreign corporation on the foreign corporation’s Non US source income. That income does not belong to the individual the statute is attempting to tax.

[Life of Brian]

.

It’s pretty easy to tax unrealized gains in investments in marketed securities. Take the value of the portfolio on Dec. 31, 2023 and and subtract its value on Dec 31, 2022. Then subtract the amount invested in the portfolio during the year. That gives you the taxable amount.

It's easy to tax them, but as always the devil's in the details. Unless I get a refundable tax credit in the years my portfolio value goes down (ha!), this is virtually guaranteed to overtax (and in some cases extremely so) the ultimately realized gain. It also taxes people differently (again, in some cases extremely so) depending on the volatility of their investments, holding period, exit point in the volatility cycle, etc.

[Tom for equal rights]

life of Brian - bernard was demonstrating that he doesnt understand the issue in the Moore case.

The issue is whether the US can impose an income tax on an individual based on the income earned by a foreign corporation that does not have US source income .

The answer to that is a resounding no

[bernard11]

Tom just demonstrated that his reading comprehension is pathetic.

XY asked how you would tax unrealized capital gains. I responded, saying zip about the Moore case. Yet he decides my comment shows I don't understand the Moore case.

That's like saying it shows I don't know anything about football. It wasn't about football, and it wasn't about the Moore case.

[Joe_dallas]

bernard11 11 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User Tom just demonstrated that his reading comprehension is pathetic.

XY asked how you would tax unrealized capital gains. I responded, saying zip about the Moore case. Yet he decides my comment shows I don’t understand the Moore case.”

Bernard – you really should work on your reading comprehension since your were replying to Tom's post, not XY,

[bernard11]

Maybe I need to work on being more careful about the placement of my comments, but that's it. Tom, meanwhile, could work on staying away from snarky cheap shots on minor errors.

Regardless, my comment, while misplaced, did in fact say nothing about the Moore case.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - you insulted someone even though it was your error.

[bernard11]

And Tom insulted me for no reason whatsoever.

bernard was demonstrating that he doesnt understand the issue in the Moore case.

Any sensible person would understand what I was responding to, and what my point was, but Tom the Jackass just decided to throw some random shit, because he was not capable of understanding that.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Tom just demonstrated that his reading comprehension is pathetic.

XY asked how you would tax unrealized capital gains. I responded, saying zip about the Moore case. Yet he decides my comment shows I don’t understand the Moore case.

So you're not only an idiot, you're a hypocritical idiot. No, you did not respond to XY's question. You responded to Tom's statement.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Take the value of the portfolio on Dec. 31, 2023 and and subtract its value on Dec 31, 2022."

If it goes down the next year, does the government give you the tax money back?

[bernard11]

If it goes down the next year, does the government give you the tax money back?

If it goes down you have a loss which is tax-deductible. This is the same way things like S-corporations, partnerships, and LLC's are treated.

[Martinned]

Why not? That's what they do with realised gains, at least in my current country of residence. If you realise losses, you can offset those against the taxes you owe on other income, and otherwise on future income taxes.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"One of the bedrock principles of taxation is the entity earning the income is the entity that pays the tax on that income. The statute upsets that basic principle."

Now explain taxation of partnerships, LLCs, and S corporations.

Are you claiming those entities don't earn the income?

There is nothing in the Constitution which requires Congress to tax corporations differently than partnerships are taxed (which is to say, taxing the owners/participants on a pro rata basis rather than taxing the entity itself). That's a policy choice, not a constitutional mandate. That goes at least double for foreign corporations.

[bernard11]

XY,

We already have a sort of wealth tax on some retirement savings.

Past a certain age you are required to take a distribution from any IRA's, 401(k)'s, etc. These distributions are then taxed as ordinary income. There is little difference between this and just taxing the IRA directly.

[Mr. Bumble]

A minimum distribution, based on your life expectancy which you actually realize in cash.

[Commenter_XY]

Whoa, whoa, whoa....ain't no tax on unrealized gains. You have to sell to be taxed (Roth, HSA excepted - they are not taxed). I get what you are trying to say. I thought you had it right upthread when you said :

Of course that’s not a wealth tax, which I actually think is a bad idea because of the complexity – impossibility, really – of actually measuring wealth.

How in the world are you going to assess the value of every house, every private business, expensive art and jewelry, etc.? It would be a nightmare of inequity, tax evasion, litigation, and so on.

Wealth taxes just do not work. It is a jobs program for CPAs and lawyers.

[bernard11]

Bumble, XY,

Yes, but the point is you are required to take the distribution, whether you want to or not.

It's not strictly a case of voluntarily taking a distribution and being taxed on it.

[Kazinski]

You are only required to take the distribution if you elect to take the option of putting the money in tax deferred account.

You aren't required to spend the cash, but the tax deferral had conditions attached. That's a far cry from taxing wealth.

[bernard11]

Whoa, whoa, whoa….ain’t no tax on unrealized gains. You have to sell to be taxed (Roth, HSA excepted – they are not taxed)

Not true. You can take the distribution "in kind." You don't need to transfer cash. You can move investments from the IRA to a regular brokerage account.

The distribution is still taxed at the ordinary income rate, but your basis is reset to the value at the time of the transfer.

[Absaroka]

In fairness, though, the RMDs are only required for tax deferred accounts. You can completely avoid being forced to realize those gains for tax purposes by not taking the tax deferral up front[1]. It's a bit of a special case.

[1]which would, generally speaking, cost you money.

[Ben_]

The "problem" is easily addressed by making gains on assets used for loan collateral not eligible (or partly not eligible) for basis step-up upon inheritance.

[bernard11]

Good idea.

[apedad]

Dozens of Troops Suspected of Advocating Overthrow of US Government, New Pentagon Extremism Report Says

An annual Pentagon report on extremism within the ranks reveals that 78 service members were suspected of advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government and another 44 were suspected of engaging or supporting terrorism.

The report released Thursday by the Defense Department inspector general revealed that in fiscal 2023 there were 183 allegations of extremism across all the branches of military, broken down not only into efforts to overthrow the government and terrorism but also advocating for widespread discrimination or violence to achieve political goals.

However, the report did note that, out of all the suspected extremism and criminal gang activity, 68 of the total cases were investigated and cleared or deemed unsubstantiated.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/12/01/dozens-of-troops-suspected-of-advocating-overthrow-of-us-government-new-pentagon-extremism-report.html

Not much of a surprise - a small amount of military personnel are part of the movement to overthrow the US govt.

Yes, just like our general population we have a small minority in the military that are stupid too.

Meh.

As a retired AFOSI agent, I am proud that about a third of the cases "were investigated and cleared or deemed unsubstantiated."

[Mr. Bumble]

"Seven Days In May", the sequel.

[Michael P]

Isn't a more important number the fraction that were substantiated? If 37% were found invalid that easily, it sounds like there's a really low threshold for starting an investigation -- and it doesn't mean the other 63% were actual cases of extremism.

[Krayt]

I wanted to know whether this is part of an upward or downward trend before worrying, but apparently it's only been going on for 3 years:
270
146
183

So no trend, maybe a slight downward one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd like to see a breakdown between motivations/identities -- i.e. percent who were White Supremacists, percent who were Black Nationalists, percentage Radical islamicists, etc. My guess is that there is considerable diversity in this group.

And to show JUST how small the number is, what are the numbers on other crimes, e.g. rape or dealing drugs?

[VinniUSMC]

That same report detailed the Armed Services efforts in DIE. So, I'd put odds that they only had concern for a specific subset of extremism (white MAGA and/or anti-govt) at 100%.

[Nelson]

Even considering it's you, that's one of the thinnest and most ridiculous conspiracy theories I've seen here.

Let's make sure I understand your "reasoning". You're saying that because somewhere else in the report DEI was discussed, it proves government agents are corrupt and will ignore any extremists other than white supremacists?

[Brett Bellmore]

My question is, what is taken to constitute advocating the overthrow of the US government? That exists on a continuum from, "Let's replace it with a communist dictatorship next Tuesday!", to "Well, sure, if the US government became a communist dictatorship, and ordered me to start committing genocide against Americans, I'd join the rebels."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"widespread discrimination or violence to achieve political goals."

Those are NOT the same thing!

[Sarcastr0]

To collect information for this report, we requested that the MILDEPs provide prohibited activity data regarding:
(1) allegations reported that a member of the covered Armed Force engaged in a prohibited activity,
(2) referrals for investigation or inquiry,
(3) allegations not referred for investigation or inquiry,
(4) allegations not substantiated or cleared by investigation,
(5) actions or no actions taken involving members of the Armed Forces who engaged in prohibited
activities, and
(6) referrals to other law enforcement agencies for the period of
October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023.

Allegations:
Advocating or engaging in unlawful force, violence, or other illegal means to deprive individuals of their rights under the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States. (3)

Advocating for or engaging in unlawful force or violence to achieve goals that are political, religious, discriminatory, or ideological in nature. (22)

Advocating, engaging in, or supporting terrorism within the United States or abroad (44)

Advocating for, engaging in, or supporting the overthrow of the U.S. Government or seeking to alter the form of the Government by unconstitutional or other unlawful means (78)

Advocating for or encouraging military, civilian, or contractor personnel within the DoD or USCG to violate the laws of
the United States or to disobey lawful order or regulations for the purpose of disrupting military activities, or personally undertaking the same (4)

Advocating for widespread unlawful discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy), gender identity, or sexual orientation (32)
===========
There's a ton of 'NR's in the chart - so this data is not clean.

Allegations only...the rollup of when substantiated and when action is taken doesn't seem to be broken out by category.

The theory that it's all black nationalists is pretty dumb, but the term white doesn't appear in the report, and the term black appears only once in relation to HBCUs.

I think this report doesn't say much we should be concerned about, but also not much that tells us we shouldn't be concerned.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Advocating or engaging in unlawful force, violence, or other illegal means to deprive individuals of their rights under the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States. "

Like saying it's OK to punch a Nazi? Sounds like pretty broad criteria.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How long will it be before you realize that the people operating and controlling our military hardware should have any advocacy of deliberately violating their Oaths investigated to check whether it's just idiot rhetoric or something far more sinister and dangerous?

[Nelson]

"Like saying it’s OK to punch a Nazi?"

That's always admirable behavior. White supremacists of any flavor deserve to suffer.

[Jerry B.]

Completely unlike the people who advocated for overthrow of the government during the Trump administration.

[Sarcastr0]

What people?

[Brett Bellmore]

You're really going with the "I've got amnesia!" argument?

[Sarcastr0]

Don't accuse me of bad faith.

Who advocated for *overthrow of the government* during the Trump administration?

[Brett Bellmore]

So you ARE going with it.

We've discussed this repeatedly. No elected officials did, to my knowledge, but plenty of rioters were in that camp.

Ah, but you're in denial about the nature of 'autonomous zones', aren't you?

For that matter, weren't we discussing just a week or two back the 'decolonization' movement, and the way they deny the legitimacy of North American governments, and aspire to replace them? (Along with most of the population...)

Plenty of people were advocating the overthrow of the government during the Trump administration. Some of them actually made violent attempts to get that overthrow started.

[Sarcastr0]

We’ve discussed this repeatedly. No elected officials did, to my knowledge, but plenty of rioters were in that camp.

It's not amnesia to think maybe 'people' meant more than the utterly unremarkable usual background of crazies.

[Michael P]

How many autonomous zones are there in the "utterly unremarkable usual background of crazies" on your home planet?

[Sarcastr0]

The autonomous zone advocated for overthrow of the government?

[Absaroka]

They were like the Confederacy - neither wanted to over throw the government in Washington (state or D.C., as appropriate). They just declared their area had seceded, kicked out (federal troops|the Seattle police), and established their own government.

So more 'actually overthrew' than 'advocated overthrow'. Like the Confederacy, their insurrection didn't last.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes. That is precisely what they did, at least as regards to the territory they were occupying.

[Sarcastr0]

Our thesis is drifting from overthrow to other stuff, as you noted.

But even so, the zones didn't really have anything to say about the federal government at all.

A Confederacy of a couple of blocks is not at sufficient scale to comparable to the Confederacy.

Technical/formal/etc. arguments aside, CHOP and CHAZ were more dumb than dangerous to our Republic; the analogies to the Confederacy or to J6 are not good ones.

[Nige]

For the purposes of defending Trump’s attempts to take over the government, yes, it seems.

[David Nieporent]

.

Technical/formal/etc. arguments aside, CHOP and CHAZ were more dumb than dangerous to our Republic; the analogies to the Confederacy or to J6 are not good ones.

Among other things, "autonomous" and "independent" are different words.

[Nige]

'Plenty of people were advocating the overthrow of the government during the Trump administration'

Yet you failed to identify any.

[Nelson]

"but plenty of rioters were in that camp."

You're mixing up your violent mobs. The only one that tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power through violence happened after Trump had already been thrown out of office through a free and fair election.

"Ah, but you’re in denial about the nature of ‘autonomous zones’, aren’t you?"

You mean the illegal act of occupying a small piece of a small American city? That's you making a mountain out of a molehill.

"For that matter, weren’t we discussing just a week or two back the ‘decolonization’ movement"

Which is a bunch of people talking about their wingnut beliefs. Not rioting, talking. That makes your "autonomous zone" molehill look like Mount Everest in comparison. And way, way, way less problematic than a pro-Trump mob smashing their way into the Capitol to try to stop the recognition of the will of the voters.

"Some of them actually made violent attempts to get that overthrow started."

Again, there's only one case that could even theoretically be described as "a violent [attempt] to get that overthrow started". It's the one you don't admit was a politically-motivated violent mob that rioted because they actually, truly, factually, and indisputably lost an election.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should probably program a hot key for this.

"You're trying to make the definition of "insurrection" be, "Exactly what we accuse Trump of, and nothing else." That's not the definition.

[Bob from Ohio]

"78 service members "

Out of 1.2 million. Very scary!

[santamonica811]

So, Trump and Gov Ron DS are in the news this weekend, talking about replacing Obamacare. Trump is lying (duh…it’s a day ending in a “y”) about Obamacare being a “new” issue, and his (and his Republican-majority Congress) failure to “repeal and replace” Obamacare was one of his biggest lies and biggest failures. The governor’s position, however, makes sense, since it highlights one of Trump’s massive fuck-ups while he was president. And, if he can come up with an actually good plan, it might attract some real attention.

Okay, so, your assignment is to help Ron. What would a good replacement look like? Remember, it has to be something that could actually pass a slim majority (you can pick a D or an R majority Congress). 1. Must be more affordable, or at least comparable, to current Obamacare. 2. Must have insurance available to the poor, and the low-income (and mid/low income, unless you want to argue that a replacement system that tosses tens of millions off of health insurance can pass, in today’s political climate. 3. Must have, presumably, relatively-decent access to contraception and to abortion (given abortion’s 70% approval, in some circumstances, and the even higher approval of almost unfettered access to contraception). Presumably, a new health care system that had some policies with zero abortion access, but other policies with robust access, would be politically fine.

My own idea would be something similar to Germany (and, I think, Japan). Some rough version of Medicare for All, plus lots of opportunities for competition from private insurance companies. Either direct competition with full insurance policies, or “add-on” policies you could purchase from these private companies…sort of like how the elderly can buy MediCare parts B, C, D, etc etc.

I don’t see how any system will be “must insure” and still be financially viable, absent significant govt subsidies, which is what we currently have with Obamacare.

Trump has said that he’s going to reveal his new plan. (He’s lying about this, obviously, just as he lied about it earlier.) But Gov Ron is a more serious person, and when he says he’s going to reveal his own plan; I take him at his word. No idea if he already has a pretty firm idea in mind, but there are lots of smart people who post here. Maybe there are some good ideas.

Obamacare saved my life (well, saved my financial life), so I’m a fan. But, if you show me a better plan, I’m more than happy to consider it, and so are most people. I hope I’m pleasantly surprised by your ideas. ????

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Commenter_XY]

SM811...Take a look at the Swiss model.

[Krayt]

Obamacare was one of his...biggest failures.

Remember when Trump said McCaine was a loser for letting himself get captured, even though he refused early release because he wouldn't leave his men behind, so almost 50 years later, McCaine made sure he was the last one to vote on it, as a final FU?

Good times, good times.

[Frank Drackman]

Sound's like you've got a little of Parkinsonian Joe's Dementia, because what "45" said was that McCain (it's not "McCaine", adding extra letters is a sign of Dementia) let's go to the Internets!
“He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
So he didn't say he was a "Loser" he said he was a Hero, and you know who else didn't like people who were captured? McCain's first wife for one.
Getting shot down was the best career move McCain ever made, got into the Academy thanks to his Admiral daddy, and if it hadn't been for the war, would have been passed over and ended up selling real estate.
That last Obama-care vote epitomized McCain's political career, as Obama would call it "Doing Stupid Shit" let's see, "Suspending" his Cam-pain in 2008, picking Palin, pretty much everything he did in the Senate.
And I did vote for him in 2008, because the other candidate was a race-ist and opposed Same-Sex-Marriage

Frank

[Krayt]

Please. The quote you reproduce was a sarcasm, dismissing him as being a hero because he was captured.

Trump effed up big time with this statement.

[ducksalad]

McCain was comprehensively bad person and that far outweighed his heroism (and to be clear, that heroism was only in volunteering for a dangerous job, not in stuff that other people did to him).

First and foremost was being a neocon warmonger. He supported every misguided war we got into, and was an advocate for several others that we managed to avoid despite his efforts.

Toward the end it got ridiculous, like that time he flew to Syria and posed with a bunch of jihadists, merely because they invited us to join them in a war, any war.

He voted for a law that would put people in prison for up to five years for making a video critical of Hillary Clinton….or himself.

Then we can throw on a bunch of lesser but still serious sins like the abovementioned vote on Obamacare, picking Sarah Palin, being the teacher’s pet of the MSM, etc.

He is a large part of the reason that every decent person trembles when they hear the word “bipartisan”. Insulting him is one of the very few things Donald Trump did right.

[Krayt]

Oh I don’t claim he was a great politician. I literally voted against him in his presidential election as I didn’t want to reward censorship.

I just note Trump’s take on it was profoundly tone deaf, and had a resultant devastating reaction due to his mouth.

Which is ironic because if it were up to the Democrats, we'd have illegal books, with facetious defenders saying appearance of corruption outweighs free speech.

[Nige]

It's hilarious that your counter-factual remains speculative despite Democrats being in power at various levels of the government.

[ducksalad]

It remains speculative because the Supreme Court shut down the attempt.

[Sarcastr0]

‘if it were up to the Democrats, we’d have illegal books, with facetious defenders saying appearance of corruption outweighs free speech.’

What attempt from the Dems did SCOTUS shoot down on this?

Note the present tense; some 1960s nonsense won't fly.

[David Nieporent]

It’s a reference to Citizens United, with the Obama administration expressly arguing that the government could ban books in enforcing McCain-Feingold.

[Krayt]

From the case in question:

"Are you saying if a company published a book 30 days before an election, about a candidate, that book would be illegal?"

Government Lawyer: "Yes."

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. So nothing about how it would be if it were up to Democrats, just some quote from someone making a specific argument in a specific case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Some rando chosen by a Democratic administration to represent it before the Supreme court, yes. In a case where the left went totally nutso after losing, to the point where the ACLU was forced to hire as head of litigation a guy who's claim to fame was gaming out ways to undo the ACLU's victory.

But aside from all that reality, nothing to do with Democrats in your imagination.

[Sarcastr0]

A Supreme Court advocate as an utterly different job than a policymaker.

You are conflating the two positions in order to write a narrative you wish were true.

There is in actuality zero sign the Dems want illegal books. Republicans, on the other hand, *you included* are pretty enthusiastic with banning books, academic freedom and local control bedamned.

Is this that projection thing?

[not guilty]

John McCain did a bangup job as a Navy pilot. Multiple times.

[Brett Bellmore]

He did bang up a lot of planes. Not always his fault, though. Maybe about half the time.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem for conservatives is that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is built on conservative market principles and there is no real conservative alternative. There is a more liberal Medicare4All but that the only real alternative. What a number of Republican believe is that health care is a product and like all products you are entitled to what you can afford. The problem with this approach is that it is not broadly popular.

[Martinned]

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. Which rich guy and which poor guy do those laws apply to?
2. Why do you guys want rich people to be allowed to sleep under bridges?

[Brett Bellmore]

If the law is not going to apply impartially to the wealthy and the poor, it is going to end up only being applied to the poor. That's the reality of it. Majestic equality is indeed an improvement over the only real world alternative.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup.

[bernard11]

This is true, except that laws can be facially impartial but designed so as to affect only the poor, like a law against sleeping under bridges.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You'd rather have it be facially partial?

The problem with using power to protect the powerless from the powerful is... well, you get it.

[Frank Drackman]

neither is paying a fortune for shitty insurance, or having other peoples pay for your shitty insurance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The problem for conservatives is that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is built on conservative market principles and there is no real conservative alternative."

Nothing about the health care system is built on conservative market principles.

The conservative alternative should be to break the link between employment and health care by making all health care tax-deductible.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed. That linkage in the first place came about as a way of circumventing WWII wage controls. It has no place in a free market economy, and is a major driver of dysfunction in the health care market.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why is it that right-wingers always spot instantly an opportunity to throw poor people to the wolves? Do we all find most readily the things we habitually look for?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe you can flesh out your argument a little?

[VinniUSMC]

Why is it that leftist shits always spot instantly an opportunity to throw people into identity groups? Hammer, nail.

Something can be a good, or bad, idea without "stick it to xyz people" as the underlying principle.

[bernard11]

Breaking the link is a good idea, but it would not come close, by itself, to establishing a good health insurance system.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why don't you think so?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, like pulling a nail out of your foot, it doesn't guarantee you'll cease being lame, but makes it at least possible.

The fundamental problem of health care is third party payers. Markets work best when the person making the purchasing decision is liable directly for the cost of what they're purchasing: Cost AND benefit land on the same person, who can thus evaluate them according to their own preferences.

In our system this is exacerbated by two factors: The first being linkage of health insurance to employment, because providing health insurance was a way to circumvent WWII wage controls, and ended up stuck to employment due to ill considered tax laws that gave health insurance pre-tax status, but only if provided by an employer.

This could be fixed by giving health insurance the same tax status regardless of where you obtain it. You still need large enough groups to achieve good statistics, by this could be through fraternal organizations, clubs, churches; The sort of organizations you can if you like stick with your whole life.

The other distortion arrived with Obamacare: What was new with Obamacare was the federal government creating an off budget entitlement program by mandating that a regulated industry provide the entitlement at its own cost as a condition of doing business.

Obama wanted a massive new entitlement, BUT, he didn't want it showing up on the budget. He wanted to pretend it was free.

To fix this, we need to establish that using regulatory powers to force a company to sell a product below cost is a taking.

[Sarcastr0]

Health care is not a product amenable to normal market forces. Unless you want the poor to just die from preventable diseases a lot, and have horrible teeth while they do so.

The main nut of life-saving health care access is not an efficiency issue, it is a coverage issue.

Universal health care is the only real way to do that.

I like markets, but knee-jerk devotion to markets as magically innovating solutions to all distribution policy puzzles is just as blind as any idiotic Communist.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you don't want people starving, you don't go out and mandate that grocery stores have to sell food at below cost to the poor. You give the poor money with which to buy food.

Why not handle health care in the same manner? Only because the Democrats didn't want their huge new entitlement program on budget. They wanted to pay for it by driving up the cost of insurance for people who already had it, so that voters would blame the insurers, and not Congress.

There is fundamental scarcity when it comes to healthcare: You could bankrupt the WORLD giving everybody in one country the best care! So you have to accept that some people are not going to get care that would indeed benefit them.

Nobody has come up with a better way of rationing scarce goods than a market, because market 'rationing' tends to increase supply.

[Sarcastr0]

Lower quality food is still nourishing, with appropriate regulatory safeguards.

Lower quality health care results in lower quality heath outcomes, even if properly executed.

Because there is a continuum of service and outcomes, scarcity is a hard one to buttonhole quantitatively. But qualitatively demand absolutely outstrips supply.
And markets deal with scarcity by running to the wealthy first. Seems a bad choice for distributing a continuum of care.

Bottom line, free market for health care would be dystopian for a lot of folks who are not you or I.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now who can argue with that?

[Brett Bellmore]

“And markets deal with scarcity by running to the wealthy first. Seems a bad choice for distributing a continuum of care.”

Seems like a bad choice if you start out thinking that “Who pays for it” and “Who gets it” have no natural connection. Bourgeois morality says that people should pay for what they get, and get what they pay for, making this a very good choice for distributing health care indeed.

People dismiss Bourgeois morality as a bad thing. But the nice thing about it is that it tends to lead to things working.

The reason markets work well at rationing is that when the person getting the product is the one paying for it, they’re motivated to get it cost effectively. Both sides, cost AND benefit, are experienced by the same person, and can be traded off according to that person’s own preferences.

While if Peter is forced to pay for Paul’s medical care, Peter’s only interest is in spending as little as possible, he doesn’t care if Paul’s medical care is good. And Paul’s only interest is getting the best care possible, he doesn’t care how much it costs.

Things get pathological when the two halves of the calculation are split between different people, so that no particular person is performing any actual tradeoff between the two.

So, for instance, if I'm undergoing some kind of surgery, and BC is picking up the bill? If the doctor suggests a precautionary Tylenol as I'm being wheeled out, I don't care if the hospital charges $50 a pop for them.

If I'm picking up the bill? I get one out of the bottle at home, for a few cents.

[Sarcastr0]

Bourgeois morality says that people should pay for what they get,

So you like markets because you have decided markets are the only moral thing.

Over here in non-tautology land, free markets for heath care lead to a society that fails one of the main requirements of a society - to care for its weak and infirm.

Health care is not something to incentivize minimal use. Disincentivizing profligate use, sure. But check ups and preventative care are good things - if you care about health outcomes and not market worship.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So you like markets because you have decided markets are the only moral thing."

Did you read the rest of his comment where he explains why markets make health care better?

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly, TiP did not bother to read the rest of mine.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bourgeois morality says that people should pay for what they get, and get what they pay for, making this a very good choice for distributing health care indeed.

I would caution you about too heavy reliance on rationalism in politics. Except that isn't even rational. It's just ideological tautology.

It has the further disadvantage of being wrong. Costa Rica, with far less per-capita income than the U.S., has over the last few decades improved its socialized health care system to the point where life expectancy there exceeds that in the U.S.

[bernard11]

The fundamental problem of health care is third party payers.

Not remotely true. Look, people want health insurance, for perfectly sound reasons. It makes all the sense in the world to insure against expenses that are highly variable. So there will be third party payers - maybe government, maybe private insurers - as there are everywhere in the world.

Markets work best when the person making the purchasing decision is liable directly for the cost of what they’re purchasing: Cost AND benefit land on the same person, who can thus evaluate them according to their own preferences.

This is true for most markets, not all. Markets are a mechanism for allocating resources. That's all. They are not divinely inspired. When it comes to health insurance they are beset by all sorts of problems of asymmetric information, long-term financial viability of sellers, and a few other things.

They also have no morality. Poor guy wants to buy rice to eat. Rich guy wants to buy rice to throw at his daughter's wedding. Guess who gets the rice.

[David Nieporent]

.

Not remotely true. Look, people want health insurance, for perfectly sound reasons. It makes all the sense in the world to insure against expenses that are highly variable. So there will be third party payers – maybe government, maybe private insurers – as there are everywhere in the world.

For catastrophic health care, yes. For ordinary health care, no, it doesn't make sense.

Just as for cars, it makes sense to have collision insurance but not run-out-of-gas insurance or flat tire insurance.

[bernard11]

But catastrophic care is different for different people. It probably makes no sense for Jeff Bezos to buy health insurance at all, because he is likely not risk-averse even in the range of extremely catastrophic coverage.

So you're going to have insurance sold to cover what you or I might consider manageable, but others don't. And people will buy it.

And note what I said:

It makes all the sense in the world to insure against expenses that are highly variable. I guess I should have added "with the high end of the range not within one's means."

[VinniUSMC]

Just as for cars, it makes sense to have collision insurance but not run-out-of-gas insurance or flat tire insurance.

Unfortunately, people using the marketplace don't see that. The latest marketplace ad I recall was a younger man who says "I got into a motorcycle accident and didn't have health insurance. Now I have health insurance for $9 a month." (Paraphrased because I don't have perfect recall, but I don't think I missed anything important.)

Who thinks that 1) they should get long-term hospital coverage for $9 a month insurance, and 2) that their insurance actually costs $9? They may only pay $9 a month, but there will be a giant deductible, and the rest of the cost is being paid still, by someone.

[Randy Sax]

Health insurance should only be for disasters and long hospital stays. Ideally my dentist would work like a McDonalds. I want a video board menu above the receptionist, "I'll take a #3 combo, cleaning and cavity filling".

[Sarcastr0]

Rich people insurance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I finally get to agree with Sarcastro. Randy's system is fine for people who can take an unexpected $3000 dental bill. If you can't, not so much.

[Randy Sax]

What I'm arguing for will doubtfully ever happen. What I wana see is insurance companies entirely removed from the equation for anything except emergencies. My car insurance doesn't cover regular maintenance. An oil change is ~$50. McDendist and Dentist King would compete with each other for my dollar. Yes, I know I'm talking about Magical Christmas Land, and this system won't happen in the U.S., but a man has a right to dream.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you realize how getting rid of subsidized check-ups and maintenance items would not be a great decision from the point of view of public health?

Our health insurance industry is a stand-in for governmental public health infrastructure. Just because it's called insurance doesn't mean you can deny it's actual function.

[Absaroka]

"Do you realize how getting rid of subsidized check-ups and maintenance items would not be a great decision from the point of view of public health?"

I'm not sure you are really engaging RandySax's point. Consider: "Getting rid of subsidized oil changes would not be a great decision from the POV of minimizing long term car maintenance expenses".

I think it's an interesting angle, because dental and car maintenance expenses are at least approximately of the same magnitude (unlike health care). If we generally expect most people to look out for their self interest by changing the oil in their cars, and occasionally coughing up enough for a new transmission, why do we assume it's unthinkable for them to get their teeth cleaned and cough up for the occasional filling?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know enough about dentistry as relates to public health vs. quality-of-life.

I have less of a problem with quality-of-life, but I know dentistry has some overlap in both areas, just not specifically how much. I also know culturally we Americans love our teeth extra.

I was speaking to healthcare, which he also was.

[Reallynotbob]

But they're already competing on price. The insurance companies aggressively negotiate prices with the providers. Your dentist would love to increase your prices by 3-4x, but cannot charge those to the insurance companies. Losing 1000 BCBS patients isn't worth it, especially when your competitors will take the insurance prices.

My dentist just stopped taking insurance. Price increased 2x. My reimbursement was 50%. I'm also changing dentists.

[Randy Sax]

"Your dentist would love to increase your prices by 3-4x, but cannot charge those to the insurance companies." Or to regular people. I'd rather negotiate on my own than pay the middleman. The financial burden of dealing with the insurance companies significantly increases the cost of medicine.

[Sarcastr0]

The financial burden of dealing with the insurance companies significantly increases the cost of medicine.

I'm no fan of insurance companies, but for individuals I'm not at all sure that's correct.

For individuals the demand curve for health are is pretty wonky. Demand is low until it's infinite. But that low demand has correlations with the risk of later infinite demand.

The free market is great for efficient distribution of resources. But most don't think of health care (and thus health outcomes) as a resource we want distributed *efficiently*. It's not a sector as amenable as most to free market benefits.

[Absaroka]

>>The financial burden of dealing with the insurance companies significantly increases the cost of medicine.
>I’m no fan of insurance companies, but for individuals I’m not at all sure that’s correct.

Anecdote Alert: a few years ago we were talking with a surgeon who worked at the local cancer care place. She said that *50%* of their staff were admin types dealing solely with insurance.

I dunno what the overall percentage is. IIRC our long term GP's practice had 3 MDs, 2 RNs, and 3 admin types. I dunno how much of the admin work was insurance vs scheduling, etc. That doctor became an concierge doctor, precisely because he was tired of dealing with insurance (and perhaps the electronic records mandates). He said he wanted to work with patients, not insurance companies and computers.

[Sarcastr0]

The paperwork burden is absolutely insane. I know someone who were planning on medical school and went nurse practicioner instead because they wanted to do medical work not paperwork.

There's another story about folks coming up with an AI expert system to deal with the paperwork on the hospitals side and the insurance companies came calling to ask for the AI so they could understand their own paperwork.

My GP just went concierge. I like him, but not enough to go long. So I'm visiting a new GP tomorrow.

So no, I think out current instantiatinon of public health via these third parties suuucks.

But none of this establishes: 'the financial burden of dealing with the insurance companies significantly increases the cost of medicine.'
I do not find it at all evident that even given the crappiness of our current system that health care would be improved by throwing it to the free market.

[Randy Sax]

For one, every dollar the insurance company profits is one dollar less efficient than the system could be.

[Sarcastr0]

Randy - only if your markets have perfect information flow. In the real world, monitoring and evaluation are required. Uh-oh, paperwork!

Not to mention compliance requirements. Not hard to see wildcat health insurance being inefficient on accounta being a scam.

[Reallynotbob]

Randy -- that also assumes the insurance profits won't go to doctors or other middlemen in the insurance-free version you're advocating.

In a sense, the insurance companies act like brokers for our system. They're greedy brokers, to be sure, but they have monopsonistic power to set low prices just like WalMart does. Yes, they get in the way of great care sometimes. everyone has a story about a pre-authorization inscrutably denied. But I'm with Sarcastr0: eliminating the insurance company buyers is not at all guaranteed to improve outcomes or reduce prices.

[bernard11]

Randy,

every dollar the insurance company profits is one dollar less efficient than the system could be.

Yes, insurance costs money. But, as I said above, people want health insurance, so it's not going away. This is because people are risk-averse, and are willing to pay a premium to avoid risk. I mean, you'd be better off, on average, not having homeowners insurance, but you hate the risk of a fire, so you are willing to pay more than the expected loss from a fire to make sure you get reimbursed if it happens.

[Krayt]

I don’t like how health care (btw, this was an invented name to take the magic of “medicine” out of the concept) is treated by politicians as a static thing to be provided, like oil in the ground, or garbage disposal, or corn.

It is a constantly moving target, with improvements increasing the length and quality of life. Almost no other realms do that, and certainly not as profoundly, save, perhaps, food itself, also roundly conquered by capitalism.

As a result, note most “solutions” involve crushing the profit motive and breaking it to the saddle of government. This is the exact opposite of what you want to do.

It sucks if some are left out, but left out of what? More lives are saved with advancing tech than slowed tech, and accumulates like continuously compounded interest, falling further and further behind where it should be.

You can’t give it out for free until it is invented first.

In one debate long ago, when Obamacare was being discussed, I asked where motivation to invent comes from, as other more disabling schemes were also being considered. “From a desire to invent and do good!”

Well, thanks for risking our lives on that. How about consumer electronics, while you’re at it? Video games? HDTVs?

Yes, if it’s good enough for vital stuff like medicine, how much better single-payer for fluff like video game development!

Obamacare at least maintained some profit motive. Mass murderous otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

It sucks if some are left out, but left out of what? More lives are saved with advancing tech than slowed tech

Health care *access* before health care tech progress. Tech progress is going to be expensive and end-of-life for the most part. So your world is a health care aristocracy - access to amazing health miracles for the few, access to the same health tech as we had in 1100 AD for the rest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that stupid trope again. You don't realize that expensive stuff can't be developed and eventually get cheaper if wealthy people aren't allowed to buy it when it's expensive.

Like consumer electronics: It always starts out as a niche application for people with money, and eventually gets cheap enough that everybody's got a cell phone. You'd throw a speed bump in the middle of that well traveled road.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, I'm all for health care technology development.

Putting that above health care access right now is absolutely the wrong prioritization.

Health care is not consumer electronics, is the point.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're willing to sacrifice lives tomorrow, in order to make sure that the lives saved today aren't the lives of the people footing the bill. It's that important to you that paying for health care doesn't give anybody any advantage over not paying.

And you think you're taking the moral stance. Weird.

[Sarcastr0]

The amount of uncertainty as to numbers and access to unknown tech in the future is far too great for you to start with that 'killing future people' bullshit.

You, on the other hand, are wanting to throw *actual current lives* off of health care access, which *will result in currently living people dying who would not otherwise die* in service of your market worship.

It's important to me that people don't die of easily preventable diseases just because they are poor. Free markets assure that outcome.

That is not just unimportant to you, you're angry that I care about it at all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What I wana see is insurance companies entirely removed from the equation for anything except emergencies. My car insurance doesn’t cover regular maintenance. An oil change is ~$50."

No, but it might make sense for your extended warranty provider to cover it, if they think it will incentivize you to provide regular maintenance. Same thing with dentists, and insurance provider might choose to cover cleanings if they think it will reduce the big ticket issues. But I agree they shouldn't be required to.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Health insurance should only be for disasters and long hospital stays."

That's how it started. It only covered hospital stays. Over the years it morphed into covering prescriptions and all sorts of doctor visits. Many states required all sorts of optional coverage.

Prices climbed accordingly.

Elective plastic surgery is usually not covered so it remained relatively low cost. Same with things like lasix.

How much would car insurance cost if routine maintenance was covered? Or home insurance if painting and other routine maintenance was covered by insurance?

[bernard11]

Health insurance should only be for disasters and long hospital stays.

The difficulty there is that what is a disaster for one person is a manageable, or possibly insignificant, expense to someone else.

Besides, why "should" health insurance be that way? Even short hospital stays, or ER visits, can turn out to be quite expensive.

[Randy Sax]

Let me amend my statement, I only want MY insurance to cover disasters and long hospital stays. I don't want to pay for legally mandated hysterectomy, drug abuse or healing crystals coverage.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you think that's all the health care there is other than your own personal needs?

[Randy Sax]

Of course not. I want people to be able to pick whatever plan suits them best. The plan I would prefer is illegal, unfortunately.

[Sarcastr0]

Choice is absolutely important!

But what about those too poor to pick a plan that meets their needs?

[Brett Bellmore]

When I took econ in college the first words out of my instructor's mouth were, "We will not talk about needs in this class. Only wants." Once you start talking about needs, you've left economics behind. Pretty soon you'll be urging things economics is telling you can't work.

The simple fact of the matter is, as I said starting out, you could bankrupt the whole world providing the best health care to one country. That somebody will not, at some point, get care they 'need' is baked in, it's unavoidable at our level of technology.

We're not arguing about whether or not somebody somewhere won't get health care they need. We're arguing about whether the person not getting it will be somebody who paid for it, or somebody who didn't pay for it.

You'd rather that the person who loses out be the person paying the bill. Apparently footing the bill makes them LESS worthy in your mind, somehow.

[Reallynotbob]

Well, YOUR insurance wants you to get annual checkups so you don't have to go to the hospital for that undiagnosed prostrate cancer or heart failure. You good with them telling you what to do (with your own money) as a condition of covering your next catastrophe?

Because they would love to send you a letter on Day 2 of your hospital stay after you barely survive a widowmaker that says, "Oops, you're not covered because you didn't get your annual teeth cleaning, because gum disease is a risk factor for heart failure, and you missed your 6-month cleaning by 3 weeks."

[Reallynotbob]

Also, the catastrophic costs of medical care are borne by the taxpayer anyway because ERs don't (can't) just let poor folk with life-threatening injuries/conditions die.

When your car drops its transmission on I-94 because you don't maintain your vehicle... the cost of having a trooper control traffic while the tow truck takes your car to the junkyard/shop/front lawn is pretty insignificant.

[ducksalad]

"Soft-libertarian" proposal:

1. No individual mandate, no mandatory participation in Medicare. If you like your insurance you can keep it, even if your favorite insurance is "none".

2. Change Medicare as follows:
a. Sold on the open market to anybody. For middle class and above, and to people who are not citizens/ permanent residents, it is sold at cost plus a small profit margin defined by law.
b. It is insurance. It does not cover things that are expected, it does not cover elective stuff, and it has a significant deductible. Note that contraceptives are in the expected/elective category. Abortions are sometimes elective and sometimes not.
c. Subsidized purchase for the poor out of general revenue and the profits, assuming they are citizens or permanent residents.

3. Deregulate private insurance except for outright fraud or breach of contract. For example, a plan with a $100K deductible that doesn't cover anything objected to by some strict religion would be legal. At the other end a plan with zero deductible requiring you to live in a commune and eat a specified diet would be legal, and covering housing and clothes would be legal.

4. Encourage fee for service by eliminating laws banning cash discounts.

[Reallynotbob]

I submit you have little knowledge of the economics of health policy. These proposals would worsen public health overall, leading to larger burdens on the emergency medicine system; would raise prices across the board including to the current Medicare population; and would line the pockets of the insurance companies.

P.S. what is the "at cost" price for Medicare? (Trick question.)

[M L]

As a young healthy individual in a non-deep blue state, you could get health insurance for like 30 bucks a month before Obamacare happened.

Do you "insure" your wiper fluid, gas, tire wear and tear, wiper blades, powertrain wear and tear, tie rod replacements, etc. on your vehicle? No, that's not insurance. That's a prepaid service plan.

Let insurance be insurance, and let welfare be welfare.

[Sarcastr0]

ML comes out swinging for single payer.

[bernard11]

Let me suggest that the coverage stunk. Further, you are not going to be 30 years old for more than twelve months.

[ducksalad]

"I submit you have little knowledge of the economics of health policy."

I submit that perhaps you have little respect for personal autonomy. Hint: if you only believe in it when there is zero cost, you don't really believe in it at all.

"These proposals would worsen public health overall, leading to larger burdens on the emergency medicine system"

In a city of 100,000, with 23% under the poverty line and over 10% undocumented, we've got like six standalone emergency rooms plus two in hospitals. The waiting time at the standalones is usually under 5 minutes. I'm not worried anymore about EMTALA and the concern about ERs is factually false.

would raise prices across the board including to the current Medicare population

What raises prices is third party payments. You probably know this, but probably your answer is to impose a lot of regimentation on the two principal parties, the patient and the doctor. No, the answer is to restore price incentives to the decision makers.

would line the pockets of the insurance companies

I care about prices, not profit margins. But anyway, under my proposal, people like yourself with moral objections to profit could just buy Medicare, with the profits going to subsidize the poor. Or just pay cash for routine stuff...how does paying cash enrich the insurance company?

P.S. what is the “at cost” price for Medicare? (Trick question.)

Just like we can't agree on an actual number of the "real" federal budget, we'll never agree on the real cost of Medicare. I'm guessing you want to selectively count all kinds of presumed second order effects.

My definition of the cost is simple: (a) take the amount spent on regular paying customers, (b) divide by the number of regular paying customers. It is a moving target and will need to be adjusted. The subsidized are not in the equation because they are going to get paid for some other way, under any system where they get treated at all.

[Sarcastr0]

In a city of 100,000, with 23% under the poverty line and over 10% undocumented, we’ve got like six standalone emergency rooms plus two in hospitals. The waiting time at the standalones is usually under 5 minutes. I’m not worried anymore about EMTALA and the concern about ERs is factually false.

I submit this is not a universal experience when it comes to our health care infrastructure.

[Reallynotbob]

It's presumably because the "standalones" are actually urgent care clinics not bound by EMTALA. And if they are actual ERs, it may have to do with their habitual price gouging. Tends to drive down demand.

For exmaple:
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/03/freestanding-emergency-centers-bills-legislature/

[ducksalad]

"I submit this is not a universal experience"

And yet, your other comments here seem to advocate a universal one-size-fits-all solution through single payer. Or at least threaten it as a consequence if private solutions aren't regimented and unified to your satisfaction.

I'm not buying into a policy where only your experiences count.

[Sarcastr0]

I do not understand this post. I'm not making an argument based on my own personal experience at all.

[Longtobefree]

Just for the record:
After paying premiums (aka taxes) for decades with NO coverage, you still pay $165 or so dollars a month in premium.
It only pays 80% of covered expenses, with NO annual cap or lifetime cap on your 20% payments.
There are deductibles on some things.
It has NO drug coverage.
It has NO dental coverage.
It has NO vision coverage.

[Krayt]

No one’s favorite insurance is “none”, when they have a heart attack or cancer. Or broken bone.

Unfortunately most “solutions” to this involve something like Social Security for retirement, but if the government banned saving and spending on your own retirement beyond what the government provided.

[Randy Sax]

I am aging out of my father’s health insurance this month, (I’m turning 26), and rather than opt into my employer’s plan I will be foregoing insurance. I’m not paying ~$60 a month for a plan that I’d still have to spend thousands of dollars of my own money before I would see any savings. I haven’t been to a hospital in a decade, I’m not obese, I don’t have a heart problem or anything like that. At the end of this month, my favorite health insurance will be none. (I'm not poor enough for Medicaid)

[ducksalad]

What I'm hearing here is "people make choices they later regret; therefore, those choices need to be taken away from them."

JFTR, your "no one" is incorrect. I know many people who take responsibility for their own choices without complaining.

[Sarcastr0]

Should the uninsured sicken and die if they cannot afford health care?

Methinks your sense of choice ignores a lot of Americans not situated as you are.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're very generous with other people's money, and you think this makes you morally superior, rather than a thief.

[M L]

"an actually good plan"

I have it right here: Health care shall be a free market.

That's it. That's the bill.

[Reallynotbob]

So... repeal EMTALA too?

And repeal patent protections for pharmaceuticals? Oh wait, THAT can't be a free market because then nobody will do research. (But the free market gods will fix that, surely!)

And open up licensure for the practice of medicine? Can't give the AMA a monopoly on providing services any barber could provide, right?

Come to think of it, how about we just abandon healthcare regulation entirely? People can just Google which daycares have recent good ratings for clean delivery technique while they drive their pregnant wife who's in labor.

Yes, all hail the utterly free market.

[M L]

https://media.tenor.com/6yRNqcoveW8AAAAC/yes-yes-chad.gif

[Moderation4ever]

The question is why don't Republican run on this instead of Repeal and Replace?

[M L]

Because they are a big government, nanny state party. Just slightly less big government than the other party is all.

[Sarcastr0]

Even if you are correct (you are not) parties reflect voters preferences.

You are on the fringe of American opinion; you will not find electoral politics very satisfying.

You have choices
1) Stay local
2) Do nonpolitical things; charity work, free legal assistance and the like
3) Try for a revolution, or advocate for one.
4) Write some big manifesto.
5) Civil disobedience, if you think observers can be woken up

Or of course 6) post hot takes on the Internet until you die unsatisfied.

[M L]

Interesting list of activites, I could stay at Holiday inn Express last night as well. But I have better things to do.

No, the parties don't reflect voter preferences. They pander to voters, they play upon voter sentiments, they seize upon divisive issues du jour. In terms of actual policies and acts of government, they'll follow donors or ideologues, but mostly just be swept up by bureaucratic and geopolitical inertia and systemic dysfunction and not do a whole lot of anything. Voter preferences tend to set boundaries on a few issues but generally, most voters are unaware of most things and don't have preferences until someone tells them, whether by hoodwinking or enlightening. But to the extent they do, the problem is even worse because the more diverse sets of preferences that exist grouped into a large jurisdiction, and the more involved the government gets in the details of their lives, the more inherently absurd it becomes to pretend that that such preferences can be reflected in such a necessarily reductive binary choice.

Anyway, Reason.com as a whole is on the fringe of American opinion too, as are countless other voices and just everyday people. Fringe can be a pretty big place, meanwhile the notion of a monolithic mainstream middle is shrinking.

[Frank Drackman]

What a bunch of Poindexters,
62 comments and none on the College Foo-bawl Playoffs??
Which again is a formality, a participation trophy for the non SEC teams, but it's good for ratings to pretend Washington or Michigan has a chance.
And I know Texas beat Alabama, they're an SEC team now, and probably would have finished 4th or 5th in the conference this year.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

The only time I ever cared about Football was when I was a kid. Star Trek was on at the same time, I actually had to use my Jr. Electronics kit to build a jammer to ruin reception on the channel my Dad was going to watch football on, in order to get to see Star Trek.

If he'd ever found out WHY reception was so terrible on that channel every Saturday morning, I might not have lived to graduate from elementary school... I feel a bit bad about having done it, now. Kids can be jerks.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, if your dad was watching Foo-bawl Saturday mornings, you must have been on the West Coast, or at least Mountain Time Zone. Must have been Star Trek Reruns, because even I don't remember watching it during it's original run, or ever on Saturday Morning.
But if you could jam the TV signal, means your dad was using an Antenna, and before 1983 there were only a few networks showing Football, so your story is plausible.
But c-c-c-c-c-can't we just get along?, I like Star Trek (Original Series and Movies with Shatner) and College Foobawl

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, this would have been early reruns, Detroit area, about '72. It wasn't a terribly fancy jammer, just an RF noise generator with a filter sparing the UHF frequency band.

[Magister]

It could have been the animated Star Trek series which aired on Saturday mornings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Animated_Series

[Brett Bellmore]

I might have seen a couple of episodes of that, but from what I recall, I sure wouldn't have risked the wrath of Dad to be able to watch it. The live series was vastly better.

[Randy Sax]

Never seen any Star Trek, but my grandfather did introduce me to Firefly and Fallout 2 at a relatively young age.

[Bwaaah]

It was Saturday afternoons, and my father, already tired from his morning activities, would put Star Trek on the tube and set back in his recliner. At the opening scene, he'd look at me and declare excitedly, "I've never seen this one!" (even though they were all reruns by then)

By the second commercial, he was fast asleep and snoring. The next Saturday, it was rinse, repeat.

[Krayt]

A lawyer’s superpower is the ability to turn everything into a question about process.

A nerd’s superpower is the ability to turn every subject into a discussion about Star Trek.

[Krayt]

For the record, that's a good thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I tried to turn it into a discussion of RF jamming, but the rest of you weren't nerdy enough.

[bernard11]

Nice initiative and good work, Brett. (seriously).

My niece once told me my grand-niece (her daughter) got in trouble in school for doing a puzzle in Games Magazine instead of the classroom assignment.

I told her I was proud of her.

[Commenter_XY]

FSU being undefeated and left out is pretty rough. FL politicos are not being very restrained in saying what they think. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

I thought the same thing, as an Auburn fan I'm not usually rooting for Texas or Alabama (unless they're playing some Yankee team) but FSU's schedule sucked, they'd be lucky to finish 4th in the SEC East, and they're down to their 3rd string QB (who sucks, that's why he's 3rd string)
and nobody likes FSU, people remember Bobby Bowen, and they're bigger cheaters than even Michigan, Alabama, or Auburn, which is saying something, and how's it going to look having thousands of fans doing the Tomahawk Chop?? Chief Osceola driving his flaming spear into midfield at the Rose bowl?? Texas has a docile Steer and Alabama a guy in an Elephant suit.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

I would very much like to see that = Chief Osceola driving his flaming spear into midfield at the Rose bowl?? or ...how’s it going to look having thousands of fans doing the Tomahawk Chop??

Could you imagine the collective case of 'the vapors'? Hilarious.

[Bob from Ohio]

"none on the College Foo-bawl Playoffs?"

AAA baseball also has playoffs, no one comments on those.

College football is also minor league.

[Frank Drackman]

the Big 10?? (which apparently can't count) you're right! Which is why Michigan gets to be the Washington Generals.

[Moderation4ever]

If you are like me this time of year your mailbox is always filled with mail from charities. Every charity I ever gave a dollar to sends me mail, even those I have not donated to in years. This is also the time of year I sit down and do my big giving to groups I support. I am a strong believer in private charities. I like that I can give and support charities on my choice. I also think that charities can do things that government programs cannot, be more targeted and innovative. All that said, I do support the government safety net and see government and private charities not as competitors but rather as complementary.

I have noted that while I am not a libertarian, I appreciate the libertarian view and believe it has a place in a moderate view. I hope that those of you who are libertarian support the idea of private charities and take this time to support them.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, have you contributed to the Reason begathon?

[Sarcastr0]

All, charity fundraising is begging.

[Commenter_XY]

Reason should have T-shirts by editor...Liz Wolfe would be the runaway winner. Hands down.

VC really ought to do the same, with Reason branding much less prominent. It would be a blast. Team Kerr? Team Post? Team Blackman? Team E-Volokh (as opposed to Team S-Volokh).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Liz Wolfe would be the runaway winner.

What makes her the incel dreamgirl?

[Frank Drackman]

Love Coach Sandusky pretending he's still relevant and recruiting, using the "Incel" word.
I'm proud to say I don't even know what it means, like "paradigm" (for years I thought "Pair of Dimes"?) "On the Spectrum", "Autistic" (for years thought people were saying "Artistic", OK, your kid's Artistic, who gives a (redacted)??"
Funny, haven't heard of Coach Sandusky getting the Chauvin treatment, I guess Coach does some certain "Favors" for his fellow prisoners.

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is your target audience, Prof. Volokh.

And the reason you are packing your bags.

[Moderation4ever]

I contributed to Reason last year and plan to do it again this year.

[Frank Drackman]

I offered my 2 cents, they turned me down.

[Sarcastr0]

I give to four sets of charities a year, trying to keep local.

International utilitarian
National politics
National utilitarian
Art or culture I have enjoyed.

Only the last one doesn’t spam me. Even the smaller local ones find it worth the money to keep records and mass mail every year.

[Commenter_XY]

It is that time of year....end of year tax planning and giving. Commenter_XY has a few favored charities.

Top of list: My shul's Tzadekah fund. This is the lion's share.

Next on the list: Canary Mission. They have done outstanding work helping antisemites get the word out (/sarc - they expose antisemites and helpfully publish their pictures and social media posting). No one listed there will ever work for Commenter_XY.

I also want to put a plug out for Easterseals. I am living proof that the work they do has a long reaching impact. As a very young child in the late 60's, my parents brought me there for speech therapy (years later, jokingly, both parents said they regretted that) -- today, my livelihood depends on verbal skill. Easterseals was there for Commenter_XY. There was no cost. There is no income requirement. Specifically, Easterseals programs for the hard of hearing make a difference. Look into it for yourself...and if you can, donate.

[Moderation4ever]

I not Jewish but isn't a Tzadekah more of an obligation that a person doing well has to help the poor rather than just giving out of goodness?

[Commenter_XY]

It is both.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mostly SENS foundation for me, aside from the funds I send to the Philippines, to various causes in my wife's barangay. Dental supplies for the local school to hand out, putting a concrete floor and walls in for the local church, helping this person or that with their educational or medical expenses.

[ReaderY]

If the Sacklers can get away with using the bankruptcy system to keep billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains while getting a full release from legal liability for their own fraud and misconduct, we should stop pretending there is anything even remotely resembling equal protection of the law in this country. We should stop pretending we don’t have a de facto nobility which is de facto immune from commoners and de facto able to anything it wants with them.

What the Sacklers did to ordinary people in this country, the way they screwed them, is a lot worse than the droit de seigneur of medieval times.

And the idea of getting a complete release from deliberate fraud and intentional misconduct without even having to declare oneself bankrupt is outrageous. As is a legal system that enables billionaires to put up having to pay anything until ordinary people are so desperate they settle for peanuts.

It’s bad enough that no Sackler has even been prosecuted by the United States or by any state. They got a sweetheart deal with the Department of Justice, essentially buying them off. It speaks volumes about the state of justice, or more accurately the lack thereof, in our country.

But to abuse the bankruptcy system to buy their way out of any civil liability without even having to declare themselves bankrupt? Outrageous.

[Michael P]

The wonderful thing about formal logic is that "if X then Y" is that it's true when both X and Y are false.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I've always wondered exactly what the Sacklers were guilty of.

They didn't license MDs, They didn't license pharmacists. What did they do that the people profiting off the sale of sex change hormones aren't doing now? It was the arrival of cheap heroin in the 1990s that caused the actual problem, I remember the Boston Globe reporting that heroin was now cheaper than beer.

And now pain patients -- people with real pain -- are denied effective medication because of the hysteria. For example, a woman dying of terminal cancer is denied relief in her final days because she might get addicted -- she won't live long enough for that....

[Martinned]

You mean, except for fraud by misrepresenting the properties of their products?

[Dr. Ed 2]

To licensed MDs & pharmacists?
People who are supposed to know what opiates are?

[Martinned]

Yes, because one of the ways that MDs and pharmacists find out about the specific properties of a medical product is through the warranties and other statements made by the seller.

[ReaderY]

The oral argument strongly suggests Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers will lose. It was interesting to hear conservative Justices angling to use the case as a vehicle to deploy their favorite new doctrines. Both the Major Questions Doctrine and a robust 7th Amendment got considerable airplay.

It may not be a unanimous verdict. But it looks likely to be a supermajority.

[Michael P]

https://twitter.com/thatJVG/status/1731440158363222485

The Hamas fans are re-enacting early-1930s Germany here in the US, sadly.

[ThePublius]

Yes, that occurred to me as well, and yes, it is sad.

I confess I'm a bit emotionally overwhelmed by what's going on. I had no idea antisemitism and anti-Israeli sentiment was so widespread, nor that the 'protesters' would be so violent.

A book that made a huge impact on me was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William Shirer. He was there! One thing that struck me was the role the newspapers played, and the parallels to that today; and how people, how the German population, went along with all of this.

[Brett Bellmore]

I had no problem believing they'd be that violent, I am a bit amazed at the extent to which they're being allowed to get away with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, I'm amazed at neither -- this stuff was happening at places like UMass 30 years ago and now has overflowed into the larger society.

I have been drawing references to the Wiemar Republic for years. And like Germany in the early 1930s, the US is dependent on borrowing money from China, a country with a growing fiscal crisis of its own. And like Germany with Hindenburg, we have Biden -- both men too old to be running a country.

This is why Israel needs to win a *decisive* victory over Hamas -- and why the US Hamas need to be treated like Klansmen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The reason you missed the increasing objections to Israel's government and conduct among educated, younger, modern Americans is that you consider superstition-laced, violent, immoral, right-wing belligerence a positive rather than a disqualifier.

What's unfortunate for Israel is that your views are culture war roadkill in modern, improving, reasoning, successful America.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yup, another fellow traveler to raping women and beheading infants. What a swell guy RAK is. He thinks "modern improving" means supporting barbarity that Genghis Kahn would be proud of.

But don’t worry, they will come for you in the end. Your blasphemous posts about God are enough to earn you death in their eyes. You will miss the days where all it got you was scorn and derision.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Hamas is despicable.

That does not provide a pass for Israeli conduct, whether with respect to the most recent decade or the most recent couple of months.

I object to right-wing assholes wherever they might be found, including Israel. As Americans continue to increasingly agree with me, Israel may come to regret (albeit too late) its recent trajectory.

Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit, of course.

[Bored Lawyer]

Betters = people like you who support brown-shirt like behavior as we just saw in Philadelphia.
What a joke you are.
As I said, they will get to you, sooner or later.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, we agree: Hamas is despicable.

Since Hamas violated the terms of the humanitarian pause, the ceasefire is over. Israel will now hunt down and kill every Hamas member they can lay their hands on. The sooner Israel kills them, the sooner every Jew in the world will be safer.

BL is right, btw. Although BL and I are first on the Hamas hit list, I promise, you won't be far behind. They'll happily kill you too.

The sad part is the level of support Hamas enjoys with palestinian civilians, who are perfectly fine with Judeocide. And say so, loudly and proudly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Safer?

Remember those thoughts when Israel is attempting to operate without American skirts to hide behind.

And when you are begging better Americans to reconsider their decision to stop subsidizing Israel.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Hamas is despicable.
That does not provide a pass for Israeli conduct, whether with respect to the most recent decade or the most recent couple of months."

Huh? Sure it does. If Hamas weren't despicable, there wouldn't be any reason to attack them, right?

[Bored Lawyer]

I think he means that just because the enemy is despicable, is not a free pass to do anything and everything. That's what the laws of war all about.
Which Israel has observed, and Hamas has not. Hamas deliberately uses civilians as human shields, and cynically exploits them for propaganda when there are large numbers of civilian deaths. Israel tries to avoid it, but under those circumstances, a large number of civilian deaths are unavoidable. The US Natl. Security Advisor just recognized that fact: https://www.jpost.com/international/article-776386

[Bored Lawyer]

They have learned they can get away with violence. The strongest reaction is the governor of Pennsylvania, who condemned them, but so far has done nothing more. That is the future -- small organized mobs, and an establishment too scared to deal with it.

Meanwhile, the Columbia School of Social Work is planning a "teach-in" whose purpose is to justify the acts of October 7:

A student group at Columbia University's School of Social Work in New York will host an on-campus 'teach-in' about what it calls the 'October 7 counteroffensive,' students from 'Columbia Social Workers 4 Palestine' announced online.
"We will discuss the significance of the Palestinian counteroffensive on October 7th," the group said in a post on X, "and the centrality of revolutionary violence to anti-imperialism. See y'all there!" The army-green poster for the event depicts a machine gun shooting a flower through a broken chain, as a dove looks on. The event is to take place on Wednesday.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-776466

The downward spiral continues.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-776407

Williamsburg VA canceling the Menorah lighting....unless the Jews agreed to do the ceremony while calling for a ceasefire. Unreal.

[bernard11]

Williamsburg VA canceling the Menorah lighting…

Just to be clear, XY, the lighting was not cancelled by the city, but by a group which organized the festival the menorah lighting was to be a part of.

According to the Virginia Gazette, the event, which was meant to feature a menorah lighting led by a local community rabbi, was abruptly called off by LoveLight Placemaking, the festival's organizer.

[Commenter_XY]

You're not good with that, right?

[bernard11]

Right.

I was just pointing out that the decision was not made by the city government but by a (presumably) private group.

Let us put blame where it belongs.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, it is happening here. Please (I say this in all sincerity), take measures now to take care of your own.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Commenter_XY is not one who will even acknowledge when he is blatantly wrong, let alone correct his erroneous remarks.

[bernard11]

Just to be clear, BL,

A student group at Columbia University’s School of Social Work in New York is not

the Columbia School of Social Work

It's the student group doing the planning, not the school. (Not that I like it but still.)

[Bored Lawyer]

And the school is giving them space and support to do it.
Sorry, the school does not get a pass. If the KKK wanted to organize a teach-in, do you think Columbia would be so compliant?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Sorry, the school does not get a pass. If the KKK wanted to organize a teach-in, do you think Columbia would be so compliant?

You figure bigots should be unwelcome on campus?

What about Republicans?

Volokh Conspirators?

Federalist Society members or events?

Don't forget: Bigots have rights, too.

[Don Nico]

Fortunately we don't believe in hate speech around here. otherwise the teach-in would be a hate-speech gala

[Bored Lawyer]

Update: Columbia Social Work School cancelled the "teach in." Ostensibly because the promotional materials were not pre-approved. But one might infer that the fierce criticism of the substance had something to do with it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/columbia-shuts-down-campus-event-defending-hamas-atrocities-as-a-counteroffensive/

[Commenter_XY]

Here is more on that story.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/philly-palestine-protest-goldie-center-city-20231203.html

It is happening here.

[VinniUSMC]

“Israel doesn’t stand for all Jews,” she said. “I would hope other Jews recognize they could be safe and free without the apartheid ethnostate.” (from the article XY linked)

Which Jews does Hamas stand for? Only the dead ones. Are dead Jews "safe and free"?

[Commenter_XY]

Which Jews does Hamas stand for? Only the dead ones. Are dead Jews “safe and free”?

None, and dead Jews are not safe, either. Hamas members apparently practice necrophilia, based on evidence collected from the Simchat Torah pogrom.

[Martinned]

Hamas members apparently practice necrophilia

That definitely doesn't sound like propaganda.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Apartheid ethnostate?

My understanding is that the thousands of Arabs living in Israel have more rights than the 136 Jews living in Gaza.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs anywhere in the Arab world.

[Martinned]

That doesn't exactly establish that everything is fine.

[VinniUSMC]

It establishes that your support for Palestine is misplaced, at best. At worst, it establishes you as a Nazi.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know what you mean by "everything is fine." Every country has problems. But if your concern is human rights, one would think your first focus would be where the worst abuses occur, not the least. Otherwise, your professed concern seems hollow at best, pretextual at worst.

[Ben_]

Will anyone do anything?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

"American Jews tend to favor Democratic candidates, with 71% of Jewish voters choosing Democratic candidates on average and 26% choosing Republicans since 1968. "

[Sarcastr0]

So many traitors to Jewishness, as accused by Ben, who is not antisemetic at all he just has serious issues with the vast majority of Jews in America.

[Ben_]

Should people expect help from the red team when they side with the blue team? How much help?

It’s not the red team’s fault the blue team tore down civilization. It’s not the red team's fault the blue team is full of violent terrorists, terrorist allies, criminals and communist revolutionaries.

I wonder if anyone will do anything?

Don’t expect red team help in Philadelphia: no local red team there. Don’t expect much law enforcement help in Philadelphia either. Expect red team help in Texas and Florida, but since civilization is still intact in those places, these incidents won’t happen.

[David Nieporent]

.

Should people expect help from the red team when they side with the blue team?

People should expect help from the government without regard for whom they voted. But I wouldn't expect someone who supports traitors like Donald Trump to understand that.

[Ben_]

"People should expect help from the government without regard for whom they voted."

Too bad it’s Philadelphia then. No one will be coming from government to help.

Maybe the state might have helped, but elections decided by fake ballots probably means the state won’t.

I wonder if anyone regrets normalizing "mostly peaceful protests"?

[Sarcastr0]

Weird pivot to some kinda theory that Philadelphia republicans don’t get police services?

That is nowhere near suggested by the facts here.

[Ben_]

Philadelphia police and Larry Krasner just let crime happen to people in Philadelphia.

[Krayt]

In short, the bottom is anti-semitic, as is the top driving the “guilt free hatred of Israel”, but the middle maintains, as desired by the top, it’s all disinterested judgement of a government that happens to be Israel. Though the world collapse, their conscience is clear.

Nah, I must have had too much to drink. Nevermind.

[Martinned]

The recent debate about the UK government's Rwanda plan is making me wonder: Could a US legislature (Congress or state-level) require the courts to treat something that isn't true as true for the purposes of any litigation?

Presumably this wouldn't be possible if the effect was to let the legislature get away with something unconstitutional. But otherwise?

[Longtobefree]

Ladies and gentlemen (and none others), I give you the US court system, where men can be women by judicial fiat, and telling the truth is defined as referring to men by female pronouns.
Or else!

[Bored Lawyer]

"Could a US legislature (Congress or state-level) require the courts to treat something that isn’t true as true for the purposes of any litigation?"

Can you explain how that relates to the Rwanda plan? As I understand it, the problem was that Rwanda was not promising to return the applicants to their home countries, even if there was danger there. See here: https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866

What does that have to do with your question?

[Martinned]

The proposal is to declare Rwanda safe by statute, thus overruling the judicial finding that it is not.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, Congress could simply change the law so that people could be sent there. But Congress cannot legislate judicial findings; that violates separation of powers.

[Voize]

Unfortunately in 1899 the Indiana senate declined to set the value of pi otherwise we would have a fine precedent to work from.

[John F. Carr]

I don't see why not.

In my state we have a law against paying an "unfair and oppressive" wage. The law goes on to say that what that means is it is illegal to pay less than a certain number of dollars per hour for work. One is not allowed a chance to prove that a wage below that is fair.

In criminal law the legislature needs to take more care. Definitions can easily be read as mandatory presumptions, which are unconstitutional. The law can say "don't do X". If the law instead says "don't do Y, and X is Y" then it might be a due process violation though the result of every trial should be the same.

[John F. Carr]

President Trump has hinted that he will use the Insurrection Act if he is re-elected. In general the Posse Comitatus(*) Act keeps the military out of law enforcement. As an exception, the Insurrection Act, 10 USC 251-255, allows military force to be use to protect constitutional rights. Say, the right to stand up at a School Committee meeting and call Committee members groomers. The right to run a crisis pregnancy center. The president must find that a "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" exists that prevents the state from acting to protect rights. Like state and local officials agreeing that certain conduct is not a law enforcement priority.

You can make your own list of liberal activities that a Democrat could call in the army to protect. The law is non-partisan.

(*) To my generation, the "pussy communist" act. See Tank (1984).

[Martinned]

the right to stand up at a School Committee meeting and call Committee members groomers

I'm sure you know this, but just in case someone takes this example literally: https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/

[John F. Carr]

Calling "groomer" is not really that risky. The word has been overused to the point where it is just another insult like "racist." Normally at a school board meeting the facts underlying the accusation would be known. For example, a speaker calls them groomers for allowing a drag queen story hour. That's an opinion based on disclosed facts. It is protected speech.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your affinity for racists has been noticed. Regularly.

Carry on, clinger. But only so far as your betters permit. Losing a culture war has consequences -- and if the clingers do not become nicer, the culture war's victors could begin to be less magnanimous toward the casualties.

[Martinned]

It sounds like an allegation of a serious felony to me. And the fact that the speaker and the victim might know each other likely makes it worse, not better.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/04/theylied-case-filed-by-elected-official-over-allegations-of-sexual-assault-can-go-forward/

[John F. Carr]

Nebraska politician Megan Hunt got called a groomer and lost her defamation suit against the name callers.

https://webservices.courthousenews.com/sites/Data/AppellateOpinionUploads/2023-28-9--07-57-36-Hunt_Lawsuit_Dismissal.pdf

The non-defamatory statements included a graphic about her with the line "SKILLS: grooming children, including her own".

[John F. Carr]

Specific accusations of sex crimes are legally different from "groomer." The complaint in the Megan Hunt lawsuit included a screenshot of a definition posted by the defendant: "Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them." This does not imply any completed crime, much less a sex crime. If it is meant to imply future intent, that's obviously a matter of opinion and only needs to avoid implying the speaker has some special knowledge beyond what context provides.

[Krayt]

That definition was posted in a reproduced tweet that gave it a context of sex crimes. It's right there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It sounds like an allegation of a serious felony to me. "

What felony?

[John F. Carr]

Two countries divided by a common language. In the UK, or in England and Wales, “groom” is used in more formal contexts and more specifically implies criminal acts.

For example, the headline of a government press release: New crackdown on child groomers comes into force (2017 law prohibiting sexual communications between adults and children under 16).

It may be that shouting “groomer!” in England would be defamatory even if the UK adopted US style freedom of speech protections.

[Brett Bellmore]

Frankly, he should have invoked the insurrection act in response to all those Antifa/BLM riots, and the various 'autonomous zones'. It would have been a proper application of them, and if he had, he might still be President right now; The riots were wildly unpopular.

If you're not going to invoke it when people are literally taking over parts of cities and declaring them independent territories, when ARE you doing to do it?

[Bored Lawyer]

So you are saying DT is all talk no action? Fits well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is why they are so bound and determined to call the January 6th Frat Party an "Insurrection."

But what they have done is defined any protest on the Capitol grounds as an "Insurrection" and that will come back to bite them, and I'd worry more about a conservative other than Trump being elected because Trump is always more talk than action.

But I can see Trump, if re-elected, having to use it.

[Longtobefree]

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

[Longtobefree]

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10730

[John F. Carr]

A Florida judge has denied summary judgment in a case brought by the widow of a man killed when "Autopilot" didn't notice a truck pulling in front of a Tesla. Tesla promised the world and sought to rely on the usual tech company disclaimers saying our product does not really do anything. The judge didn't buy it. The plaintiff can ask for punitive damages too.

[Krayt]

Punitive will slow development of autopilot, which will kill many by delay.

Nobody wants to be the Guinea pigs dying on experimental stuff. Everybody wishes others risked it so you can benefit. Same as with rolling out drugs a little too quickly. If the net effect of not doing that is delay in prove out, the number dead exceeds the number saved by the precautionary/lawsuit principle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One could argue that anyone dumb enough to rely on a life-or-death device whose final calls on safety are entrusted to Elon Musk may be too stupid to live.

[Randy Sax]

Autopilot driving doesn't have to be prefect and never get into accidents, I just has to be better - on average - than a human.

[John F. Carr]

If I hire a chauffeur who a safer driver than me and he causes an accident while driving my car, I am still liable.

[Randy Sax]

I meant in order to reduce traffic casualties, not necessarily to prevent liability. Thank you for reminding me that this is a law blog, sometimes I forget.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, that, and it has to make traffic flow. Which is the part urban autopilot is likely to fail, absent ground-up reinvention.

[Sarcastr0]

Rationally, Randy is right.

Legally, we treat machines (and animals) as different from people with different levels of error allowed and expected.

I expect we'll get there out of necessity. But socially I think it'll be a while before we normalize self-driving cars making choices, much less errors.

[Brett Bellmore]

The psychological problem is that, even when the self-driving cars are having fewer accidents than humans, they'll be having them under different circumstances, and that will lead to people being unsympathetic.

But I do believe Tesla shouldn't be calling a system which demands continual human monitoring an "auto pilot", let alone "full self driving". Right now they're at that sour spot where you're not doing the driving, but you have to be poised to take over at any instant. Which is actually harder on you than just doing the driving yourself!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually no because driving is hypnotic.

[bernard11]

Actually yes, I think.

Because you don't know when your car is going to do some crazy thing. We are used to driving, and can handle most situations reasonably well, by virtue of experience.

But here you may need to react to something novel, without much warning that it's going to happen.

Besides, what good is it if I have to be constantly attentive anyway?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that depends on the individual. I certainly don't find it so.

But I also don't use cruise control, because I find having to actively control my speed keeps me alert.

[Sarcastr0]

It's sociologically pretty deep. Gets at that concept of dread I bring up occasionally - how much we are concerned about a particular death depends to a huge amount on the circumstances of that death.

Car accidents, being (perceived as) quick, with assumption of the risk, as a regular background tragedy, and being visible, are actually the lowest dread-value of death.

But add in a machine intermediary and suddenly thigs change a lot. The novelty, the assumption of the risk, even the visibility, are all in the air.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The psychological problem is that, even when the self-driving cars are having fewer accidents than humans . . .

Long before that point is reached there will come a time when self-driving cars add safety to the benefit of the worst drivers, while adding risk to the detriment of the best drivers. Naturally, most of the drivers will suppose they number among the very best.

[Randy Sax]

Anybody watch Lady Ballers? From the trailer it doesn't look top tier like Talladega Nights or Team America, more middling to meh like Little Nicky.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://instapundit.com/620018/

Would the Cornell Sun still blur participants' faces, "due to safety and doxxing concerns," if they actually broke into President Pollack's office, dragged her out, assaulted her? They just might...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gotta love the new progressive women's movement, #metoo, unless you're a Jew.

[Commenter_XY]

This entire episode has been revealing. It is through adversity you find out who your friends really are. The murmurs I hear in synagogue from the progs are getting louder. This will have a number of unanticipated effects in 'Prog World'.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, right-wing blog
with vanishingly thin academic veneer
has operated for no more than

SEVENTEEN (17)

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 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 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.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, you really need to add antisemitic to your 4th paragraph. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why?

Is antisemitism twice as bad as racism, superstition-driven gay-bashing, Islamophobia, transphobia, or other listed forms of bigotry?

Any others you recommend I mention more than once?

Or just the one?

Do you have any other comment concerning the incessant bigotry published at the Volokh Conspiracy? Do you figure 40 times a year is just about right for the racial slurs?

Thank you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, if it wouldn't reflect badly on EV, I'd respond with a full page of that word. Not because I usually use it, and definitely not because I support the values it represents, but because it would annoy you.

[Bored Lawyer]

RAK -- supporter of rape and beheadings as a war tactic, and brown-shirt like protests against Jewish businesses. Lectures us about bigotry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I merely point out the volume and degree of bigotry expressed and exhibited by the conservative operators and fans of this blog every day.

That seems to anger some people who wish to have this as a safe space for our society's vestigial racists, gay-bashers, xenophobes, etc.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, you also claimed that the people who smashed a Jewish restaurant in Philadelphia were part of your own group of "modern, improving, reasoning, successful America." So, yes, you support the Keffiyeh-wearing brown shirts.
Bigoted anonymous posts on an obscure legal blog are a lot less worrisome than a mob smashing the windows of a restaurant because the owner is a Jew. So your lectures about bigotry are worthless twaddle. And that's being charitable.

[David Nieporent]

.

No, you also claimed that the people who smashed a Jewish restaurant in Philadelphia were part of your own group of “modern, improving, reasoning, successful America.” So, yes, you support the Keffiyeh-wearing brown shirts.

Look, Kirkland is an antisemite, and these demonstrators are antisemites, but they did not "smash" the restaurant.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're a lying, disaffected culture war casualty.

I don't like right-wing assholes anywhere, including Israel.

You seem to have a special affinity for disaffected right-wing assholes, though, which explains your pathetic attempts to defend them against charges of bigotry, hypocrisy, censorship, and cowardice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

No, you also claimed that the people who smashed a Jewish restaurant in Philadelphia

That is a lie.

[Bored Lawyer]

The record is here. The Internet never forgets.

And if you think that the Federalist Society is the same as the KKK or Hamas, then you are even sicker than I thought.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They're not the same (KKK, Federalist Society, Hamas).

Not nearly.

They all tend to be bigots, though.

[apedad]

Congress should reauthorize Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

In 1978, after congressional hearings exposed that the government had been wiretapping American citizens without warrants on the grounds that they were threats to national security, the Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That act established a special court where judges reviewed evidence in secret that suggested a person in the United States was an agent of a foreign power. Then the judge could issue a warrant for a wiretap.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration pushed the limits of its authority to conduct surveillance without warrants, which, when it became public in 2005, led to over two years of oversight hearings and the modernization of our intelligence laws, including the addition of Section 702 relating to foreigners outside the United States using communications systems inside America.

Unfortunately, when implementing this law, one of the agencies with access to the data collected — the FBI — failed to put training, oversight and access constraints in place to discourage and detect improper use of the database. They were sloppy and, arguably, in a few cases, malevolent. There have been numerous instances of FBI queries on American citizens that were not allowed by the law. The FBI’s conduct undermined public confidence and has jeopardized reauthorization of the statute.

The Congress is right to be concerned about proper implementation of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Restrictions on the FBI, regular audits, and effective oversight by the Director of National Intelligence, the courts and the relevant congressional committees is the right way to go.

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4340556-congress-should-reauthorize-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/

Fully agree - especially with stronger safeguards and Congressional oversight (including strengthening the Whistleblower program, etc.).

(Sorry if TL;DR. I try to balance giving enough info from the story with simply not cut/paste the entire thing.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. A better law is needed.

[Krayt]

Both! Ultimately the (ab)use of the system needs to be reviewed by elected officials, but that's pointless if there are access logging holes, or easy ways to hack the logs without detection.

What they need is a system that records MD5 or something better, hash values of the stored logs, with this stored offsite at several places, so even if someone attempts the Herculean task of editing a log, they'd have to do it at several places -- and those machines themselves could have a similar system for accessing their storage.

[Commenter_XY]

Abolish the FISA Court.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can't a regular Federal District Judge hear evidence in secret and issue a sealed warrant?

[Bored Lawyer]

It is Magistrate Judges who generally handle warrant applications.

[Bored Lawyer]

The problem is that the judges are not giving the applications sufficient scrutiny. Given the revelations of the last year or so, I would give little credibility to any such application.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Boston's MBTA (More Broken Trains, Again) is working on a new automated fare system for its trains, subways, and buses.

Apparently, everyone is going to have a "personal account" on a central computer as opposed to having value stored on individual RFID cards with it being deducted automatically per ride.

So, apparently, there is going to be a big database of everyone using public transportation in Metro Boston. Am I the only one who considers this a wee bit Orwellian?

[Longtobefree]

Yes, yes you are.

[Krayt]

No he isn't. Human history doesn't give much confidence those in power won't abuse knowledge of where you are and your whereabouts, among other panopticon items.

[John F. Carr]

I thought they could already link your card to your person when you used the most durable form of card. They tend to know who bought the piece of plastic or which credit card was used to charge it up.

I travel rarely enough that I only bought the paper tickets, which are probably anonymous. If I had wanted a plastic card I could never get one at any station I used. I would have to make a pilgrimage.

[bernard11]

Given the MBTA's track record, so to speak, I have little concern that they are going to manage to create any sort of useful database. I mean, they can barely keep the trains running at all, never mind on time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Anyone notice that in all the coverage of the Derek Chovin stabbing there has been no mention of the name of the perp who stabbed him, let alone a picture of the perp?

Doesn't that sort of tell you that he is Black? (Even if Keith Ellison's initial statement didn't?)

Where are the White Lives Matter "mostly peaceful" riots?

[Nige]

Why would White Lives Matter mostly peacefully riot only if the perp was black? Is white on white violence ok?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. And *all* crimes are "hate" crimes as you don't do stuff like that to people whom you love.

I'm just pointing out that some lives matter more than others.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't like all of the instantiated hate crime laws, and find them too broad.

But there are workable definitions - hate crimes have a broader intended target than an individual. They have an intent to go after a demographically connected group.

Hate speech is the one that's slippery.

[Nige]

'I’m just pointing out that some lives matter more than others.'

Why? Because you didn't start another white riot?

[Sarcastr0]

Bootstraping yourself into racism based on nothing!

They're keeping a pretty close hold, prison being prison, but from the reporting I've seen It's a white guy convicted of working with Mexican gangs.

[Krayt]

I notice there’s plenty of sympathy posts for him on deservedly sketchy web sites.

To anger those who feel he got a raw deal, as pushed by foreign troll pooprakers, I suppose.

[Absaroka]

Geez, Ed, are you incapable of checking your facts.

NPR identifies the attacker as 'John Turscak'.

Plugging that into the BoP Inmate Locator shows:

"JOHN TURSCAK
Register Number: 14098-074
Age: 52
Race: White
Sex: Male
Located at: Tucson USP
Release Date: 06/03/2026"

I bet that release date gets updated in a few months...

[Dr. Ed 2]

I stand corrected, but find t interesting that the perp is a "former FBI informant" while a book is coming out about FBI misconduct in Chauvin's trial -- an issue that would be rendered moot were he to die.

I find it interesting....

[Sarcastr0]

So it’s not a media coverup of white death at black hands. Must be a government hit job.

Tin foil does not insulate the dignity when your racist intimations are found to be easily and obviously wrong.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

,

Anyone notice that in all the coverage of the Derek Chovin stabbing there has been no mention of the name of the perp who stabbed him, let alone a picture of the perp?

I didn’t notice that, you bigoted right-wing dumbass, because I read reports that provided his name and photograph days ago, maybe a week ago.

Feel free to resume assisting Prof. Volokh in these efforts to lather this disaffected target audience into a white grievance, male persecution frothing.

[David Nieporent]

.

Anyone notice that in all the coverage of the Derek Chovin stabbing there has been no mention of the name of the perp who stabbed him, let alone a picture of the perp?

Did anyone notice Dr. Ed making some shit up yet again?

Feds: former gang member said he purposely stabbed Derek Chauvin on Black Friday

Federal prosecutors have charged a 52-year-old ex-gang leader in the assault on former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who was reportedly stabbed 22 times last week in an Arizona federal prison.

John Turscak, a former member of the Mexican Mafia…

And he is, of course,¹ white, not black.
​
​
¹"Of course" not because it's inherently obvious but only because Dr. Ed said otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A Mass Supreme Judicial Court justice "retiring" at age 64 (not the mandated age or 70) to become head legal counsel for the UMass system. https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/11/29/massachusetts-high-court-david-lowy-retire

What I noticed, other than that he current general counsel is returning to a vague "private practice", is this: "At the SJC, Lowy co-chairs the Judiciary-Media Committee and chairs its Standing Committee on Substance Use Disorder and Mental Health."

Now that may just be a coincidence, or it may not be -- and UM's greatest legal exposure right now, in my opinion, is UMs secret star chambers and the extra legal manner in which they deal with mental health issues.

[Aunt Teefah]

10/7 was an inside job. The evidence continues to roll in:

"Israel’s military was aware of Hamas ' plan to launch an attack on Israeli soil over a year before the devastating Oct. 7 operation that killed hundreds of people, The New York Times reported Friday.

It was the latest in a series of signs that top Israeli commanders either ignored or played down warnings that Hamas was plotting the attack, which triggered a war against the Islamic militant group that has devastated the Gaza Strip.

The Times said Israeli officials were in possession of a 40-page battle plan, code-named “Jericho Wall,” that detailed a hypothetical Hamas attack on southern Israeli communities."

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-times-hamas-attack-israel-gaza-6088cad78f5e4153d671fe9b5b819308

And as reported today:

"someone took out an enormous short position against Israeli stocks five days before the October 7th attack, orders of magnitude bigger than normal trading activity and big enough to have made billions of shekels when the market crashed."

https://twitter.com/glcarlstrom/status/1731677958593548531

The author speculates that it was a Hamas affiliate who placed the shorts, but something tells me no one will ever get to the bottom of it. Still, inquiring minds would like to know.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So the Jews did 10/7 for money, just like 9/11? Scratch an Aunt Teefah, reveal a Nazi.

[Dr. Ed 2]

She might be right about someone Jewish selling stocks short -- it wouldn't be the first time that people sold out their country to the enemy. Let's start with how the Spartans were defeated.

We've had everything from Benedict Arnold to (just today) a diplomat accused of spying for Cuba. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were disloyal Israeli citizens who betrayed their country -- look at what *some* Jews are doing in the US.

[bernard11]

She might be right about someone Jewish selling stocks short

Yeah, and she might be wrong too. Most likely is.

Anyway, I'm not sure this happened at all. You don't make that kind of transaction without people knowing who you are. You think you can just call up Schwab and say, "I want to short a billion dollars (or shekels) worth of stocks," and they will do it for you, no questions asked?

No. They won't.

[Aunt Teefah]

Yes, yes, anyone who suggests that poor little Israel could ever do anything wrong is a literal Nazi. Do you guys ever tire of being such tedious clowns?

No one is suggesting that it was done for money. But, like 9/11, its starting to look like some people in the government knew it was going to happen in advance, and decided to let it happen, for whatever reason. Almost certainly, this reason geopolitical rather than immediately pecuniary (in both cases, as an excuse for military conquest and to kill a bunch of Muslims) Once you've decided to let an attack go forward though, plenty of people, Gentile or Jew, would see little reason not to take the opportunity to cash in.

[David Nieporent]

After first claiming, in literal Nazi fashion, that the Jews did it, Aunt Teefah provides faux outrage that anyone would call her a Nazi, and then tries to pretend that all she said was that people "knew in advance" rather than what she actually said: "it was an inside job."

Of course, the NYT story does not say that anyone "decided to let it happen," but rather that they assumed it couldn't and wouldn't happen.

The only thing Aunt Teefah hasn't yet done is claimed that Israel arranged the whole thing to harvest the blood of Christian children for matzoh, but I'm sure she'll get there soon.

[Aunt Teefah]

Ahh, David Nieporent, the clown who could never tire of being tedious. I have no "outrage" for right wing zionist genocidaires calling me antisemitic - only bemusement. Go ahead and call me whatever names you like. All it does is show the weakness of your position.

"Of course, the NYT story does not say that anyone “decided to let it happen,” but rather that they assumed it couldn’t and wouldn’t happen."

I never said it did. But consider (and follow me for a second here if you can), maybe I don't have to accept the inferences and biases adopted by the New York Times? The Times is free to give the benefit of the doubt to the Israeli government. Its readers need not. In light of its stated goal to commit genocide against the Palestinian people, I'd argue they should not.

"claiming, in literal Nazi fashion, that the Jews did it"

And there you go, beclowning yourself yet again. I, of course, never said that "the Jews" did anything of the sort. I said the *Israeli government* knew about it in advance and let it happen - a position not the least bit controversial among the Israeli public. In fact, the only people who seem to take issue with this are half-wit American Zionists like yourself.

[Aunt Teefah]

For instance, Benjamin Netanyahu has blamed Israeli intelligence for the attack. Is he an antisemite now too?

"Netanyahu blames security agencies for intelligence failure, then pulls back" https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-hostages-palestine-hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-blames-security-agencies/#:~:text=Israel%2DHamas%20war-,Netanyahu%20blames%20security%20agencies%20for%20intelligence%20failure%2C%20then%20pulls%20back,agencies%20for%20allowing%20Hamas%20attack.

[Bored Lawyer]

Basic logic seems to elude you. Or you have deliberately chosen to ignore the basic logical difference, out of your hatred for Israel.

If you don't understand the difference between charging the intelligence services of your country with incompetence, and deliberately allowing an invasion of your country, then you are a complete moron. That's the charitable take, but I doubt it's true in your case.

[Bored Lawyer]

"In light of its stated goal to commit genocide against the Palestinian people, I’d argue they should not."

Do tell. Please prove your assertion that such is the Israeli government's "stated goal."

[Aunt Teefah]

Sure thing! You can read up here: https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/fighting-amalek-in-gaza-what-israelis

But be warned, the numerous instances of top Israeli officials using genocidal rhetoric make the document quite lengthy. A few representative examples include:

"They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world”

"There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”

"Remember what Amalek did to you’ … This is a war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness”

"“Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf … The entire population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the Gulf”

"“the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy”

"t’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true."

[Bored Lawyer]

Not a single one of these quotes means that Israel wants genocide. They all mean that the populace of Gaza has chosen war, and it will get war, with all its devastation. Exactly as Germany got when it elected the chief Nazi as its head.
Or as an ancient Jew put it well: “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Hosea 8:7

______________________
It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.

And is this untrue? Hamas is overwhelmingly popular, and supported. If free elections were held in the West Bank tomorrow, Hamas would win in a landslide. A nation went to war, not a small terrorist group.

I know you view brown people as children with no agency, who must be insulated from the consequences of their own childish actions. Others view it differently, especially when those actions equal massacring your neighbors.

As my cousin told the Germans in the 1950s, next time don't start a war.

[David Nieporent]

.

. I said the *Israeli government* knew about it in advance and let it happen – a position not the least bit controversial among the Israeli public.

You presumably got this insight from the same place you got the notion that Israel is losing on the battlefield — from the same place Dr. Ed gets all his facts. It's not the least bit controversial because it's so insane that nobody at all thinks this. Nobody in Israel — no matter how much they hate Netanyahu (and there are large swathes of the Israeli public that do) — is suggesting any such thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, *I* am not willing to say that there wasn't Israeli treason also involved -- we just don't know yet....

[David Nieporent]

QED.

[ReaderY]

It’s well-known that there were reports of an impending Japanese attack in late 1941 that members of the Roosevelt Administration dismissed.

Is it your position that this proves Pearl Harbor was an inside job?

There’s a huge, huge, huge difference between making a mistake while defending your country and working for the enemy. Nobody can predict the future. Mistakes are inevitable for anybody who actually seeks to accomplish anything. Only people who do nothing but sit on their asses and blame others all day can hope to avoid them.

Assuming the report of someone selling stocks isn’t just fake news - Twitter is hardly a reliable source for anything and the reality is hardly established - there doesn’t seem to be even an allegation that the person who allegedly shorted Israeli stocks was Israeli. Or that it wasn’t part of some investment strategy rather than based on insider information.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, it was more than just reports -- it is very interesting that all of the aircraft carriers were at sea. Now it may have been a fortuitous storm that kept them out a day later than planned, but no one mentions that. And while it is true that the Japanese planes were seen on radar, radar was a primitive toy at the time and the brass dismissed it as a flight of US bombers expected to arrive from California.

The untold story of October 7th is just how vulnerable a networked digital system can be to sabotage. It appears that Hamas hit key hubs and thus blinded the entire IDF.

Now analog radios can suck, but as long as everyone is on the same frequency and someone actually is transmitting, you will either sorta hear the person or realize you can't (i.e. jamming) and either will tell you that something is likely wrong and worth checking out.

I also think the IDF got sloppy.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Is it your position that this proves Pearl Harbor was an inside job?"

I don't know enough about that incident to say. And to be clear, I don't think this *proves* that 10/7 was a false flag attack. But coupled with the lengthy history of Israeli intelligence working with Hamas and treating Hamas as an asset, these indicia of foreknowledge of the attack are more than enough to at least warrant a serious investigation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it's entirely possible that the CIA f*cked up with Lee Harvey Oswald, who they at least ought to have been watching. Could the Mossad have f*cked up -- absolutely and it really does look like they did. It's entirely possible for a double agent to really be a triple agent, it's entirely possible to trust the wrong person, and people often are wrong in hindsight.

But the flip side of this is how many false positives were there? How many OTHER times were there indications of a possible Hamas attack? Remember what the US Government thought about the car crash up to Niagara Falls a while back? And it wasn't terrorism....

[David Nieporent]

.

And to be clear, I don’t think this *proves* that 10/7 was a false flag attack.

"10/7 was an inside job."

[Krayt]

The Times said Israeli officials were in possession of a 40-page battle plan, code-named “Jericho Wall,” that detailed a hypothetical Hamas attack on southern Israeli communities.”

Wow! A 40 page battle plan! And they did nothing!

Oh, wait. I just read the second half of the sentence. It was wargaming strategizing of one of a thousand scenarios such people think up for a living.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Our military had War Plan Orange that was war with the Japanese...

[Commenter_XY]

AT, one thing for sure: There will be a vigorous investigation, post war. No one will be spared. It is clear that the IDF commander in Southern Israel along with the intelligence chief totally dropped the ball, wrt operational readiness and not taking seriously the intelligence it was receiving. Caroline Glick has done a few podcasts on that specific topic. I will say as an observer that Israeli politicians (and military leadership) are far more forthcoming, transparent and direct about taking responsibility (and accountability) for their failures and shortcomings than their American counterparts.

For decades, Israeli politicians across the spectrum bought into the policies of Oslo, disengagement and conflict management. It is a massive failure in terms of policy too, AT. All of those policies have been swept away in the tsunami of the Simchat Torah pogrom. There has been a massive change in the Israeli electorate.

Banks and brokerage houses have records, hopefully. The money trail should absolutely be followed.

But first, the IDF has to hunt down and kill every Hamas member in Gaza. The sooner that happens, the sooner the war ends.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Blustering right-wing dumbasses who expect to kill their way into a solution are among my favorite doomed, worthless, counterproductive culture war casualties.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess if I was the disgraced Former Coach at a Mediocre Foo-Bawl Program in a Mediocre Conference (which former PAC-12 team do you think will run away with the Big-10 next year? I'm thinking USC) I'd have time to have "Favorite Culture War Casualties"
but Coach, I mean "Rev", what the eff is up with S-S-S-S-S-tuttering John Fetterman and your Commutation? He's obviously got somebody advising him on the Israel Sitch-U-Asian, so why's he stalling on your case??
Oh, probably because he's got somebody advising him on your Case

Frank

[Aunt Teefah]

"one thing for sure: There will be a vigorous investigation, post war. No one will be spared."
"Banks and brokerage houses have records, hopefully. The money trail should absolutely be followed."

I hope you're right, but I'm afraid your confidence is very much misplaced. We still have no clue who profited from the highly-suspicious shorts placed in advance of 9/11. And no one in the American security establishment has ever faced any negative consequence of any kind for 9/11. Quite to the contrary, they were given everything they ever wanted - the Patriot Act and carte blanche for military expansion in the Middle East.

I see no reason to think Israel will be any more interested in accountability and introspection. If anything, they may be even more out for blood than the US was. All this attack has done is further empower far right elements whose goal is to wipe the Palestinians off the map to make way for their fascistic project of a "greater Israel." Just as intended.

"For decades, Israeli politicians across the spectrum bought into the policies of Oslo"

Literally what the fuck are you even talking about here? Oslo has been a dead letter in Israeli politics for more than 20 years. There is no viable political party or movement in Israel that is pushing for a two-state solution, and it's been that way for decades. Were it otherwise, Netanyahu would not have been prime minister all that time.

[David Nieporent]

.

We still have no clue who profited from the highly-suspicious shorts placed in advance of 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission looked into this, and found that the options trading was not in fact suspicious at all. (Or, I suppose, by definition it was suspicious, but that there were innocent explanations for it.)

[Aunt Teefah]

They did nothing of the sort. They said they could not connect the trades to al-Qaeda, so ipso facto they were irrelevant and needed not be investigated further. No innocent (or otherwise) explanation was ever given by any official body.

[David Nieporent]

False.

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options— investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face.Yet, further investiga- tion has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence exam- ined by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enor- mous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners,“Pre-September 11,2001Trading Review,”May 15,2002;Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

That's the 9/11 commission report I'm quoting.

[Aunt Teefah]

What part of this do you think contradicts what I said?

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10."

Who is that investor? Who profited from the trades? We still do not know. There was no documented follow-up, and no answer, simply because there was "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda." Just as I said.

[bernard11]

We still do not know.

So what. I think the commission does. And why does this supposedly shady character buy 110,000 shares of American Airlines the day before?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Glick was military -- she was involved the last time.

[Nige]

'The sooner that happens, the sooner the war ends.'

Netanyahu is probably keeping that very much in mind.

[ThePublius]

AT doesn't know what "inside job" means. It would mean, in this case, that someone in Israel, in the Israeli government, or the IDF actually committed the atrocities of Oct. 7. That obviously didn't happen. Knowing it might occur and ignoring that does not constitute an "inside job."

[Aunt Teefah]

If you know a robbery is going to occur and you leave the door unlocked to help facilitate it, is that not an inside job?

"It would mean, in this case, that someone in Israel, in the Israeli government, or the IDF actually committed the atrocities of Oct. 7."

It does not. It means that they knew it was going to happen and rather than take steps to prevent it, they chose to let it happen in order to reap the benefits.

[ThePublius]

That's not an inside job. You are making my point.

"An inside job is a crime committed by a person in a position of trust, or with the help of someone either employed by the victim or entrusted with access to the victim's affairs or premises."

So, how is a Hamas murderer a person in a position of trust, or how were they helped by the victim, or how were they entrusted with access to the victim's affairs or premises?

You don't understand what "inside job" means.

[Aunt Teefah]

“with the help of someone . . . entrusted with access to the victim’s affairs or premises.”

Such as when Hamas was (possibly) given access to Israel. By your own definition, this clearly qualifies, at least as the facts currently tend to suggest.

[David Nieporent]

What difference does it make? Aunt Teefah is continuing her raging antisemitism regardless of which definition it is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, we've had spies in our military -- remember John Walker? -- and it's too early to say that Israel doesn't.

Walker cost us a lot of pilots in Vietnam.

[Bored Lawyer]

AT's charge is not that there was a spy or traitor in the Israeli govt. It's that the highest levels of Israel's govt. knew in advance that there was going to be a Hamas invasion/massacre, and deliberately decided to ignore it so they can retaliate and commit genocide. That's her unsupported charge.

[David Nieporent]

.

That’s her unsupported charge.

…and also made money from it, because you know what (((those people))) are like.

[Nige]

'is that not an inside job'

No.

[Bored Lawyer]

What is suspicious is that you link to an AP News summary of the NY Times article, rather than the original article itself, which can be viewed here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html

Here are some salient points:

“Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.”

“The translated document, which was reviewed by The New York Times, did not set a date for the attack, but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases, including a division headquarters.”

“The document circulated widely among Israeli military and intelligence leaders, but experts determined that an attack of that scale and ambition was beyond Hamas’s capabilities, according to documents and officials. It is unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other top political leaders saw the document, as well.”

“Last year, shortly after the document was obtained, officials in the Israeli military’s Gaza division, which is responsible for defending the border with Gaza, said that Hamas’s intentions were unclear. ‘It is not yet possible to determine whether the plan has been fully accepted and how it will be manifested,” read a military assessment reviewed by The Times.'”

“Then, in July, just three months before the attacks, a veteran analyst with Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence agency, warned that Hamas had conducted an intense, daylong training exercise that appeared similar to what was outlined in the blueprint.”
____________________

To summarize, more than one year prior to the Oct. 7 massacre, Israeli military intelligence got possession of a “plan” with no specific date, and which its experts discounted. Then a few months prior, someone suspected the plan was being put into effect, but again it was discounted. Nor is it clear that Israel’s political leadership ever heard of this intelligence.

The notion that this was an “inside job” is absurd and contradicted by the facts in the NY Times report. By “inside job,” of course, I mean that someone in the Israel political leadership knew of the impending massacre, and decided to let it happen for political purposes. That charge is completely unfounded by the NY Times article. There is no "inference" to be made to that effect on those facts.

Whether the facts support a charge of failure of the intelligence services or some other incompetence is another story. But you have not made any such charge.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Failure? Incompetence?

You think . . . maybe?

[Bored Lawyer]

Sure, maybe. But we don't know all the facts, so I am not coming to any conclusions. But given the past history, it's quite likely there was a high-level screw up. It happened before in 1973.

All of which is a far cry from what AT is charging here.

[Nige]

'Whether the facts support a charge of failure of the intelligence services or some other incompetence is another story.'

How could they not? They knew Hamas was considering this plan as a strategy, then got confirmation that they were doing so seriously, and failed to prepare accordingly. They hardly needed the exact date to watch for signs it was being put into action or organise defences and plan responses.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting trend -- an increase in the (statistically small) percentage of people tapping into their retirement funds.
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/more-americans-tapping-retirement-savings-hardship-withdrawals-rise

There were little warnings like this in 1928. Just sayin....

[Krayt]

Seizing part of your stock increase before you sell it will have little effect on the market.

[ThePublius]

I have no idea, at all, what that comment means. What are you talking about? Did you read the cited article?

And even so, what could "seizing part of your stock increase before you sell it" possibly mean? How is that possible?

If you take a 401k distribution you are liable for taxes regardless, and a penalty if you are younger than 59 1/2. And, in order to take a distribution, assets must be converted to cash, by selling funds or stocks or whatever.

So what are you talking about?

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 is diversifying from "predicting civil war" to "predicting civil war and economic collapse".

[apedad]

And in the least surprising news today . . . .

~~~~~~~

Trump to appeal lower appeals court reinstated Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron’s limited gag order last week. Trump’s counsel argued in their request to eliminate the gag order that the trial judge’s enforcement of it “casts serious doubt” on his ability to serve as an “impartial finder of fact” overseeing the former president’s case.

Trump’s legal team on Monday asked permission from the intermediate appeals court to bring their argument to the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4340917-trump-to-appeal-gag-order-in-fraud-case-to-new-yorks-highest-court/

Smart move to just go straight to the top.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then there is magnetic field reversal: https://studyfinds.org/earths-magnetic-field-flip/

The issue I raise with those who blame EVERYTHING on CO2 is that we are way overdue for this to happen, and we don't know it isn't happening. Or if something else is happening.

[Sarcastr0]

"Earth’s magnetic field *could* completely flip soon — Physicist explains what that means"

Ed just got click baited.

[Zarniwoop]

+1

[Dr. Ed 2]

No. Ed knew about this before.

[John F. Carr]

We have been threatened with an imminent magnetic field reversal as long as I can remember. The phenomenon has been known for a century. The prospect of imminent death due to loss of our magnetic field probably became popular in the late 20th century.

[Brett Bellmore]

For some extremely small value of "imminent", anyway. Even if it were happening, it wouldn't finish up for possibly centuries.

And it's technically feasible to artificially replace the Earth's magnetic field. Read a technical study a couple years back on the details, and it's just what you think: Put some honking big superconducting wire loops around the Earth, and pour megawatts in for a few years.

[Bored Lawyer]

So? Just take out your compass (if you still have one) and change N to S and S to N. Easy fix.

[Frank Drackman]

Or just have everyone in the Southern Hemisphere trade their compasses with peoples in the Northern Hemisphere (the Compasses are specific for Hemisphere) once asked an Airline Pilot what they did with the compasses when they crossed the Equator, he told me to shut up.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that there'd be a few hundred years that would really suck. It's not just that we'd all have to live underground but that we'd starve because there would be massive deaths of plants and animals from the radiation a well.

There might be localized magnetic fields, but I don't know how effective they would be.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not THAT bad, actually. Most of the radiation shielding down here is atmosphere, not magnetic field. Radiation levels might go up by 20-30%, and that's it.

The implication for high altitude passenger flights, and radiation hardening for satellites, are a bit bigger, but again, not catastrophic.

[Frank Drackman]

It's been happening since J-Hay created the Universe 6,000 years ago (I'm an "Old Universe" guy) Something to do with Maxwell's Equations.

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

Ed, I suggest you calmTF down and read something from actual geologists:

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-we-about-have-a-magnetic-reversal

Are we about to have a magnetic reversal?

Almost certainly not.

Since the invention of the magnetometer in the 1830s, the average intensity of the magnetic field at the Earth's surface has decreased by about ten percent. We know from paleomagnetic records that the intensity of the magnetic field decreases by as much as ninety percent at the Earth's surface during a reversal. But those same paleomagnetic records also show that the field intensity can vary significantly without resulting in a reversal.

So a reduced intensity in the magnetic field does not necessarily mean that a reversal is about to occur. Moreover, the decrease in intensity is not a dramatic departure from normal. For all we know, the field may actually get stronger at some point in the not-so-distant future.

Predicting the occurrence of a reversal based on the current state of the magnetic field is extremely difficult. Reversals are not instantaneous--they take place over a period of hundreds to thousands of years. We wouldn’t know that a reversal is happening until it was half over.

[Krayt]

McDonald’s is creating a new store, CosMc, “Cosmic”. From screen shots of a screen menu, it might have the theoretical Bacon Egg McMuffin.

[Bored Lawyer]

Why do they need a new name to sell that?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

They're Lizard People from the planet Pluto. When they found out how we disrespected their home world, they vowed revenge. Who knows what's in these new foods.

(just a joke)

[Krayt]

I do have to wonder since McDonaldziz franchises are money printers, and pretty much cover the US. You can see one on the Alaska train ride from Anchorage to Denali national park, as you go over a road. And that was 30 years ago.

So if the current McDonaldziz have the contractual coverages, where could these possibly go? Are they different enough the lawyers think they can get away with it? Will they give the franchisees first dibs?

Or am I imagining that franchise rights include an exclusion zone for new McDonaldziz so no one, aside from perhaps that franchisee, can open another in that zone?

[ThePublius]

I heard they have re-vamped the burgers. But, it will be a long time before it rolls out to the East Coast of the U.S. It was supposedly 7 years in the making. Yikes! How can that be?

[Bored Lawyer]

Sewage takes that long to process?

[Frank Drackman]

1/4 pounders are delicious

[ThePublius]

They should make a "Mega-Mac," a Big Mac with quarter pound patties.

[Frank Drackman]

they make a double quarter pounder

[Krayt]

They do this already, and it's not an awesome-er Big Mac, it tastes different. Maybe different seasonings in the quarter pounder patties, who knows.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Big Mac has more veggies, and I think a different sauce, the quarter pounder is more of just a big regular burger.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given Trump's affinity for McDonald's maybe MAGA-Mac.

[apedad]

And pair it with the old Orange Drink because . . . you know . . . .

[Ben_]

That guy democrats are trying to lynch for making a joke about Hillary is out pending appeal:

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-prison-sentence-of-douglass-mackey-stayed-by-federal-court-pending-appeal

[David Nieporent]

And by "lynch" you mean "prosecute," and by "democrats" you mean the DOJ, and by "joke about Hillary" you mean "trying to trick people into not voting."

[Ben_]

A joke is free speech. You’re not fooling anyone.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Douglass Mackey’s intent, according to the jury, was to trick people into not voting. If you find his efforts funny, that says something about you, but it doesn't mean Mackey’s actions are protected by the First Amendment.

[Ben_]

Democrats on the jury decided to lynch a guy they hated because he’s not like them.

He will probably win on appeal because a joke is obviously first amendment protected.

[Sarcastr0]

And if it’s not overturned it’ll be another Democrats fault I’m sure.

Have you ever admitted being wrong in your entire life?

[David Nieporent]

.

A joke is free speech. You’re not fooling anyone.

Fraud is not free speech. And you're very easily fooled, though mostly you do that to yourself.

[ThePublius]

"He was convicted in March for circulating a satirical meme that encouraged Hillary Clinton voters to cast their votes via text in the lead up to the 2016 election."

Satire. This is reminiscent of Snopes fact-checking Babylon Bee pieces.

How can the jury look into the guy's head and determine his intent?

And, what does this mean for political satire going forward?

[Sarcastr0]

The finder of fact making a determination about intent is extremely common in criminal trials.

The Post Millenial's take aside, not many are concerned about mass trials of satirists.

[Mr. Bumble]

So was it satire and should he have been prosecuted?

[Kenneth Almquist]

Yes, most criminal statutes include an intent requirement, which doesn't mean that nobody is ever convicted of a crime; it just means that prosecutors know ways to prove intent. In this case, the defendant was involved in a criminal conspiracy. The government introduced some of his electronic communications with other conspirators, and one of the other conspirators testified against the defendant.

Anyone contemplating entering into a criminal conspiracy should remember Benjamin Franklin's observation that “three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”

[David Nieporent]

.

How can the jury look into the guy’s head and determine his intent?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, yes, my client pointed a gun at the victim and pulled the trigger. And sure, the guy died. Now, the prosecution wants you to believe this was intentional murder. But how can you possibly look into his head and determine his intent? Maybe he was joking. Maybe it was an involuntary tremor of his hand. Who can say? I submit you can't convict someone of doing something intentionally, because that would require mind-reading."

[John F. Carr]

It is a difficult case. It sure looks like a joke to me. But is it a joke as a matter of law? I doubt that, and if it is not definitely protected speech the jury gets to decide. I looked at the jury instructions and they did not have any case-specific guidance on this point. If he intended to hinder people in voting, he's guilty.

Here is an unusual jury instruction from the case:

You may have seen evidence of instances in which Twitter did or
did not suspend users for violating their terms of service. Twitter is a private company. Neither its internal rules nor its administration of these rules bear on whether those users' conduct, including the defendant's, violated the law.

[Bored Lawyer]

Juries generally don't decide if something is protected speech. They do decide intent.

Many fraud cases turn on intent. And fraud is still fraud, even if 95% of the people think it's a fraud and laugh at it. The fraud is aimed at the 5% who are very gullible.

"My uncle is a Colonel in the Nigerian Air Force, he has $ 10 Million he can't get out of Nigeria, if you send me you bank account number, I can send it to you and we can split the cash." Sounds preposterous to me, and I would bet to most people. But a few have been taken in by it. And it would definitely be prosecutable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Every day Douglass Mackey is in jail will be a good day.

If the consequences of his conduct include unemployability, that seems acceptable, too.

[Nige]

No, no, pretending we were joking is supposed to protect us from consequences!

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty clear to me, from my “Sources” (Ears, Eyes) that Ear-Ron will commit a significant terrorist attack (apparently their 74 attacks since October 7th aren't considered “Significant”). Might even take over an Amurican Embassy and take Hostages, worked out pretty well for them last time we had a DemoKKKrat “President” this weak. There! you’ve been told (and I’ve emailed my prediction, no response from Parkinsonian Joe) so when it happens (I’m guessing an attack in a location with really weak security and high Moose-lum population, like New York, and an embassy taken in a location with really weak security and high Moose-lum population, like New York) you’re all complicit And if there’s a Jay-Hovah (I have my doubts) in the Afterlife, every Ham-Ass Martyr has to rape Priapism Slap-a-jap-a-Pay-Pal

Frank

[apedad]

Here's the FBI tip line: https://tips.fbi.gov/home

If you have real information about a terrorist attack (foreign or domestic), then you better notify them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good idea since they have such a good record of thwarting attacks.

[Martinned]

Speaking of unions (upthread), as Elon Musk prepares to go to war with all of Nordic social democracy, he gave us the quote of the (let's say) month:

Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, has dismissed the strikes as “insane”. “I disagree with the idea of unions. I just don’t like anything which creates a lords and peasants kind of thing,” he said at a New York Times event last week.

https://www.ft.com/content/4143c3ca-e2fd-48bb-b9b7-715454f1d28f

[Mr. Bumble]

Exciting!

[ThePublius]

Our press is remarkably reminiscent of the papers Hitler and the Nazi party came to control in Weimar Germany.

A new campaign has emerged, with a pivot about the nature of Donald Trump. Now he's not a lunatic and a stupid liar, now he's sophisticated. And the prospect of a second term for Trump will lead to a dictatorship.

One need not be the least bit cynical or paranoid to presume that this is coordinated across the media; see stories in the NY Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, etc., etc.

[apedad]

"Our press is remarkably reminiscent of the papers . . . . "

How much "opposition" press was there during that time?

Fox is the #1 cable news network (at least that's what they say).

There are thousands of websites and blogs with a conservative slant with hundreds (thousands) of conservative groups.

The Donald even has HIS OWN blog site (which why am I telling you since I'm sure you're a member).

So no . . . "our press" is NOTHING like the press was then.

[Sarcastr0]

Actually, seeing a secret coordinated plan across the multiple media does indeed require a good bit of paranoia.

Also, I'm not seeing a lot of stories calling Trump sophisticated in the first place.

You're way overtuned.

[John F. Carr]

It's the opposite of the Cheney pivot. For a while supergenius supervillain Darth Cheney was really running the country. And then he was an old man hiding in his basement.

[Sarcastr0]

Cheney was never a genius. He was just not willing to take no for an answer from the intel community while he was the Vice President.

[Martinned]

That's one way of describing policy-based evidence making.

[David Nieporent]

.

Now he’s not a lunatic and a stupid liar, now he’s sophisticated. And the prospect of a second term for Trump will lead to a dictatorship.

Hitler was a lunatic and a stupid liar, and yet, somehow his time in office led to a dictatorship.

[Bored Lawyer]

Trump is not stupid. He is the consummate con-man, has been all his life. He thinks he can BS his way through anything. It worked for him for a long time, but now most don't believe him. Which is why he will bring the GOP down to defeat, unless the Dems do something really, really stupid. Which they well might.

[David Nieporent]

I see no basis for concluding he's not stupid. There's nothing he says or does that indicates intelligence. He's cunning, to be sure, but I have never heard anything said by or about him to indicate he's thoughtful, knowledgeable, or insightful. On any topic.

(Well, I guess he's somewhat knowledgeable about the tactics of real estate development. But I haven't seen anything to indicate that he has any ideas about the subject, beyond "Build something gaudy and hype it.")

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm having trouble figuring out the difference between "cunning" and "smart", except that in your mind the latter implies some kind of approval? So you can't bring yourself to use it for him?

I think we could agree that he's not "wise", maybe. Smart? Of course he's smart. If he were stupid he'd have been in a prison for decades by now, or at least living a much less lavish lifestyle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump inherited that lifestyle. Plenty of fraud and tax evasion appears to have been involved, too.

He is smart in the way every successful peddler of shoddy goods is smart. He knows his downscale, gullible, uninformed target audience -- and how to get those rubes to part with their cash and votes -- with exquisite precision. He also is unburdened by scruples.

If he had not inherited a fortune, he would be a high-end timeshare or condo salesman with a similar string of divorces and bankruptcies; similar shambling children; the same paunch; a similar record of infidelity, lies, and fraud; and an even more hideous thing atop that head.

[Bored Lawyer]

Breaking News:

Bill Cosby Joins Hamas So Feminists Will Stop Condemning Him For Rape

https://babylonbee.com/news/bill-cosby-joins-hamas-so-feminists-will-stop-condemning-him-for-rape

The picture there, which I can't reproduce here, is priceless.

[Sarcastr0]

'you can't be a feminist unless you go after Muslim countries' has been a bad faith take on the right since the early 2000s.

Turns out you can be an activist where you choose and not choosing some cause another person brings up doesn't make you insincere in your activism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're saying that you can be a feminist who opposes rape, and condone the raping perpetrated by Hamas without being insincere?

Wow. Of all the defenses of feminist's behavior I didn't see that one coming.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is condoning rape.

There is a ton of middle ground between 'not making this my dedicated cause' and 'condoning.'

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dude, rape is one of the dedicated causes of feminists.

[Sarcastr0]

Well then, I guess it's extra true one is condoning rape.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Right-wing bigots should avoid attempting humor.

[Martinned]

Today was the last sitting of the (lame duck) lower house of the Dutch parliament. Tomorrow the newly elected parliamentarians will be sworn in. The reason why I mention that is the turnover:

150 seats, 80 members won't return.

(Either because they didn't stand for re-election, or because they weren't re-elected.)

A few might still return when the new government takes office, depending on who will sit in that government. (Any member of parliament who becomes a government minister has to give up their seat. Unlike the UK, we understand what separation of powers means.)