Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No.

[Randal]

I think I know... I mean, ah... yes! But it's all wrong. That is... I think I disagree.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Always, no sometimes, think it's me...

[Sarcastr0]

Let me pull you down, 'cause I'm going through
Gravity fields
They are ideal
Continuous and additive!

Gravity fields forever.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The part most applicable to here: Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

[Randal]

I guess we have to give self-determination -- in other words, a country -- to the Baluch people... that's how it's working now, right? Everyone gets a country who wants one or else it's genocide. Better not advocate for the genocide of the Baluchis by denying them a nation of their own!

[Martinned]

If only there was case law on that question!

[Michael P]

Just for the record, is the right to "self-determination" a "puppies are great" level of idea given that almost nobody agrees on any of the relevant details: how to identify what groups get self-determination, how they exercise self-determination, what the exercise thereof means for existing borders and governments and legal rights, etc.?

[Martinned]

I think there's quite a bit of agreement about what puppies are...

But self-determination is highly controversial. Why do you think so few countries have recognised Kosovo as an independent state? It's not that they necessarily like Serbia so much, but that they don't want to set a precedent.

[Nige]

You live in a country that, like many others, violently acheived its right to self-determination. So without some sort of international framework, it’s more about drowning puppies for independence.

[Krayt]

Freedom with democracy gets it. All else is unethical large-scale hostage situations, and should be treated as such.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Self-determination, as applied, is a bid for ethnic uniformity. I think most people here would agree that leads to some bad outcomes.

[Martinned]

I think you're optimistic about the number of VC commenters who are enthusiastic fans of ethnic uniformity...

[Aubrey LaVentana]

I was not saying that. Please reread my comment.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I think your reading comprehension skills are essentially non-existent.

[John F. Carr]

You say Baluchi, I say Balochi, let's call the whole thing off!

[Randal]

Done.

[Don Nico]

If you were serious, we should start with the Kurds. That way the Iraqi, Iranians and the Turks would all be pissed with us.

[Randal]

I agree completely. I am an avowed Zuronist. Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is antikurditic and therefore doesn't deserve free speech.

[Kazinski]

Lets rehash some old news on Hunters laptop. Things everyone knew except dozens of CIA analysts and Biden sycophants everywhere.

The DOJ said they verified the contents of Hunters laptop by comparing it to his icloud backups:

“In the filing, Weiss wrote that in September 2019 Apple provided digital backups of Hunter’s data in response to a search warrant and the laptop was “largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple investigators had already.”

That of course blows up Hunter and his lawyers story: “”At least some of the data that Defendants obtained, copied, and proceeded to hack into and tamper with belongs to Plaintiff,” Hunter’s lawyer’s wrote in a lawsuit last fall suing Giuliani.”

And the Russian disinformation story.

Now I do realize that this will be dismissed as old news, which is of course part of the strategy deny, deny, deny, suppress the story, accuse Russia, and then as the complete story dribbles out over a 3 year period, and turns out to be 100% true the entire time, the response will be: ‘that’s old news’.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter-biden-laptop-justice-department

[Randal]

What? Can you read?

”At least some of the data that Defendants obtained, copied, and proceeded to hack into and tamper with belongs to Plaintiff,” Hunter’s lawyer’s wrote in a lawsuit last fall suing Giuliani.

That means Hunter already acknowledged — in court — that the data “belongs to Plaintiff” — him. Nothing is “blown up,” to the contrary, it’s confirmed.

[Kazinski]

'At least some of the data... hack[ed] into and tamper[ed] with belongs to plaintiff'

That's still claiming that at least some if not most of it was not Hunters.

But I'm glad at least you are acknowledging the truth now, too late to save any credibility whatsoever however.

And of course ignoring the "experts" claiming it was Russian disinformation.

[Randal]

It’s leaving open the possibility that some of the data was not Hunter’s. As did your “revelation” with the use of the word “largely.”

And that’s even assuming the iCloud backup was clean. Normally if you plant some data on a hacked device, that data will get backed up too.

The real reason no one cares is that there wasn’t anything there anyway. Just some dick pics and innuendos.

[Michael P]

"At least some" of the data was Hunter's. "At least some" of Hunter's art was bought by major Democrat donors. "At least some" of the J6 and Trump prosecutions are politically motivated. "At least some" of the people saying "Let's go Brandon" mean something else entirely.

[Nige]

And that's good enough for you!

[Aubrey LaVentana]

“It’s leaving open the possibility that some of the data was not Hunter’s. ”

It’s also leaving open the possibility that Apple’s backup of the drive contains older or newer content than on the physical drive itself. That does not necessarily challenge that all of the content in both of the sources is not, ahem, Hunter’s.

Metadata does not count, as it is created by the computer so it can find content, show the last time content was accessed or modified, and so forth.

A detailed inventory with date stamps may be necessary to resolve what seems to be your central question, “did any party alter Hunter’s content on one or the other source?”.

[Kazinski]

The FBI verified the content of Hunter's laptop with the backups on his icloud account. Both of the sets of files have timestamps. The time and date that Hunter dropped off his laptop to be repaired is known, so there isn't any possibility that the FBI wouldn't know if content were added to the icloud backup after the laptop left Hunter's possession.

While the metadata on the laptop could possibly be compromised, the metadata on the icloud cannot be so your theory is absurd.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

With analytical skills like that, I sure hope you're a practicing lawyer, on the other side of my next case.

The "experts" clearly limited what they were claiming, using the following no doubt very puzzling words:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.".

[Michael P]

I want to emphasize that I do not know if the accusations, made in court by President Trump’s campaign attorneys, are well-founded or not and that I do not have evidence of election fraud — just that my experience makes me deeply suspicious that procedural irregularities played a significant role in this election.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

my experience makes me deeply suspicious that procedural irregularities played a significant role in this election

Are you a lawyer who has represented candidates or political parties?

Have you ever litigated an election case or appeared (other than as a spectator examining flag fringe) in election court?

Are you an election official?

Do you teach classes on election law, election rules, election day operations, or anything similar?

Have you been a candidate with respect to an election above the municipal level?

Do you work for an election services or equipment provider?

Are you relying entirely on your experience as a disaffected, delusional, gullible right-wing crank?

[Frank Drackman]

Have you quit buggering young boys?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Does this blog still claim its muzzling of liberals and libertarians constitutes enforcement of alleged "civility standards" rather than imposition of viewpoint-driven, partisan, hypocritical censorship?

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, they meant to imply that the explosive stuff in the laptop was fake, without actually coming out and lying about it. They knew that if they did that much, compliant media outlets would pretend they'd actually declared it fake.

[Nige]

There was no explosive stuff on the laptop, though, and it's better that the media treat claims from ratfucking efforts with extreme skepticism than not. The funny thing is the confusion and ambiguity that surrounds such an effort is supposed to work in the ratfucker's favour and they're so mad that it just provoked hilarity and eye-rolling. It's the Four Seasons press conference of ratfucks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, it was such a wet squib that multiple social media platforms had to embargo it to protect Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, that story sure didn't get out.

As has been explained to you many, many, times:

One story was flagged,
Because of doxxing concerns,
Which Twitter later found to be not quite right

Records were kept of this whole process. Taking down stories for one or another concern was a common thing; it happened before this story and until the recent trash fire on 'x' happened after as well.

A moment's thought shows what happened is not really how you would go about preventing a story from getting out.

But you, you love the conspiracies!

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, Sarcastr0, not being 100% effective at something is NOT the same thing as not doing it. Several platforms embargoed the laptop story. That their efforts were not completely successful isn't the same thing as their not having tried. They tried like hell, and apparently enough to shift the election outcome, if subsequent polling is right.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither you, nor these platforms, are so ignorant of the current medial landscape to for a moment think blocking this one story would do anything.
You're being ridiculous.

Plus *there are records of the evaluation* which show the reasoning, and which you ignore so you can insert a conspiracy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your argument is that nothing short of 100% effective censorship moves the needle at all. Simply to state it clearly is to refute it!

[Sarcastr0]

My argument is that you need to assume twitter is extremely dumb, and also that there is no evidence for anything you said.

You take a transparent (but later said to be incorrect) decision by twitter about one story from one outlet and spin it into a whole thing with zero support.
And the thing you spin it into is ridiculous to anyone who has lived in the modern world.

This might be your dumbest conspiracy theory ever.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : “…not being 100% effective at something…”

1. For the record, scandal-wise the laptop went off like a squib soaked in a bucket of water overnight. There was no there there. By the second week of laptop coverage, Rudy and his buds at Fox were already reduced to promising explosive new allegations that never arrived.

2. Laptop coverage was everywhere : TV and radio, print and the internet, the subject of scores of politicians bloviating. There were hundreds upon hundreds of stories. Every glimmer of laptop info was relentlessly reported in the media. That Brett focuses on a few hours of Twitter isn’t because it affected coverage, but due to his obsession need to be the “victim” of deep dark conspiracies.

3. We knew very shortly after the laptop was released that most – if not all – of its contents were legit. Why? Because many were confirmed by other sources, the non-denial denials from the Biden camp, and (most importantly) the triviality of its “scandals”.

4. But who here is gullible enough to swallow the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman origin story? Particularly after Rudy had spent the previous two years trying to buy Hunter dirt in Ukraine. Remember when the CIA warned the White House he was negotiating with Russian spies? So all that effort and he just happened to have the BTFCR dump the laptop in his hands just days before the election ?!? Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me?

5. The chain of custody for the laptop stinked to high heavens. It was definitely a dirty trick and I bet acquired from the Russians. Probably given to Giuliani as a gift between friends….

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/cia-other-spy-agencies-told-white-house-about-rudy-giuliani-n1243718

[Nige]

'Your argument is that nothing short of 100% effective censorship moves the needle at all'

Odd thing from Trump supporters, who argue that nothing short of a 100% succesful coup counts as an insurrection.

[Life of Brian]

2. Laptop coverage was everywhere : TV and radio, print and the internet, the subject of scores of politicians bloviating. There were hundreds upon hundreds of stories. Every glimmer of laptop info was relentlessly reported in the media. That Brett focuses on a few hours of Twitter isn’t because it affected coverage, but due to his obsession need to be the “victim” of deep dark conspiracies.

3. We knew very shortly after the laptop was released that most – if not all – of its contents were legit. Why? Because many were confirmed by other sources, the non-denial denials from the Biden camp, and (most importantly) the triviality of its “scandals”.

This is gaslighting to what should be an embarrassing degree.

The major-media-outlet “coverage everywhere” was generally discrediting the Post for getting suckered in to a Russian hacker misinformation campaign, and anything out there that was supportive you yuks smugly informed us was “not from credible sources.”

Similarly, no major media outlet that I’m aware of broke ranks on the legitimacy of the contents (and/or “the bad stuff was planted” — same difference for political purposes) until well after the election.

[grb]

Life of Brian : “…. gaslighting …. (gibberish)”

Try and keep up, Brian :

1. Not a single laptop story wasn’t reported hundreds of times in the weeks following its emergence. You can’t point to any “revelation” that wasn’t beaten to death by the media. It’s not their fault there was no there there.

2. Skepticism was part of the story because skepticism was warranted. We’d been thru this Russian-engineered October surprise the previous presidential election and the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman origin story was (and is) a freak’n joke.

3. I knew most (if not all) of the contents were legit for the reasons listed above : (1) The limited nature of the Biden denials. (2) The confirmation of some laptop contents by other sources. (3) The nothingburger status of its paltry scandalettes. I knew these things because they too were relentlessly reported by the media.

Of course somehow you didn’t see those scores & scores of stories. Why? Probably because you were hermetically sealed in your isolation bubble of pet media. Your handlers kept telling you the laptop was Yuge but everyone was against you. And you believed this! Despite everything going on around you!

But out in the real world, Brian, every single fact about the laptop was obsessively hammered into the ground.

[Life of Brian]

Just continuing to repeat your points doesn't make them any less of a history rewrite.

The fundamental, incontestable, no-memory-hole-deep-enough truth you just can't handwave away is that the Post had its entire Twitter account frozen during nearly the entire early voting period, due to its initial article about the laptop. Nobody else did -- other than, of course, those that retweeted or linked to the Post article! We'll leave it to the more intellectually honest folks in the crowd to work out how that could possibly be if everyone was out there "beating it to death" as you laughably claim.

[Randal]

Lol. You've been reduced to parroting Brett's sad little Twitter conspiracy theory that Sarcastr0 already destroyed. Heartbreaking.

[Life of Brian]

“Destroyed” as in ran away from? You’re funny!

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that story sure didn’t get out.

Hey, aren’t you that “it doesn’t matter how stupid the plan was -- it's still an attempt” guy?

[Sarcastr0]

Right but *you need to establish that intent*

The J6 people wrote about it on social media before and after they went, talked to the press about it, and the Trump admin wrote their plan down. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBdGOrcUEg8)

By contrast, the allegation here is that this grand conspiracy between twitter and the Federal Government and the Democratic campaign apparatus thinks that the media outfits don't report stories.
Beyond having to believe that level of ignorance, there is no proof at all of such a plan, or of this huge coordinated conspiracy at all.

It's very dumb, and very Brett.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, he is much much that guy = Hey, aren’t you that “it doesn’t matter how stupid the plan was — it’s still an attempt” guy?

[Life of Brian]

So your position is that if a reasonable person couldn't realistically think they could suppress every last scrap of unflattering coverage of the story, actively working to suppress one particularly visible piece of coverage (and from a source at least marginally harder to cordon off as unreliable) just can't show intent? About as ridiculous a double standard as I would have expected.

And zooming back out to your original proposition, the rest of the major outlets that I'm aware of issued token and highly skeptical articles, crapping on the Post's rendition. So where exactly is the exception you're claiming shows that the suppression wasn't largely successful?

[Sarcastr0]

My position is that you're not characterizing what happened accurately, and 'one particularly visible piece of coverage' is some nice retrospective work.

Brett postulates a whole plan of which the only evidence he has is one story was briefly blocked, and not very effectively.
The process by which that decision was arrived at is on the record, Brett just thinks it's a lie.

There is no evidence to support Brett's whole conspiracy at all.

Your support based on your general memory of the coverage absolutely nonfactual assumption that 'major outlets' have any kind of control of the media landscape is also devoid of actual evidence. Just your usual jumping in to defend an unsupported right-wing bit of nonsense.

Do YOU, LoB, think that there was a coordinated agenda between the Democratic campaign apparatus, Twitter, and the federal government, to spike the Hunter Biden laptop story? Or are you just being a contrarian?

[Life of Brian]

‘one particularly visible piece of coverage’ is some nice retrospective work.

Um, the Post is the one that broke the story, and as I said the only mainstream media source I'm aware of that gave it any credence before the election. As is typical, you're just making noise rather than presenting anything affirmative to the contrary.

Do YOU, LoB, think that there was a coordinated agenda between the Democratic campaign apparatus, Twitter, and the federal government, to spike the Hunter Biden laptop story?

I already linked to unambiguous evidence of coordination between the FBI and the media, which as usual you also ignored. Here's some specific language from that article for you to try to squirm around:

On Aug. 11, 2020, Chan shared information with [Yoel] Roth “relating to the Russian hacking organization, APT28.” The following month, Roth took part in the “tabletop exercise” — a term used by the Department of Homeland Security to describe planning for emergencies — gaming out a potential “Hack-and-Dump” operation relating to Hunter Biden.”

“The goal was to shape how the media covered it — and how social media carried it,” the author said.

The event was organized, reports Shellenberger, by Vivian Schiller, a former top executive at media organizations such as NPR, the New York Times and NBC News, in addition to Twitter. Attendees included Facebook’s head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher; and David Sanger and Ellen Nakashima, top national security reporters for The Times and the Washington Post, Shellenberger said.

[Nige]

Wait, so national security agencies were formulating strategies for dealing with Russian hacking and disinformation campaigns? Interference! Don't they know that's half Trump's campaign?

[Randal]

Since you seem to desire more punishment...

Nice try with the rhetorical swings between the brief Twitter block and your idea of what constitutes "credence." But no. Sarcastr0 already covered the Twitter block. Nothing there. So let's look at your "credence" claim.

Firstly, it's an admission, as Sarcastr0 and grb have said, that the laptop was extensively covered before the election.

So really your whole beef is that those millions of stories didn't come with enough "credence." Let's dig into that.

Should the media have suppressed its reporting on the dubious chain of custody?

Should the media have suppressed its reporting on the involvement of Rudy Giulani?

The media did report, prior to the election, that at least some of the data on the laptop had been confirmed as Hunter's by additional sources, in particular Hunter's emails (which is where all the dirt was... apart from the dick pics, although those were obviously Hunter's for other reasons).

So what exactly "credence" do you think the media was insufficiently demonstrating? Or is this just perhaps more of your empty rhetoric cribbed off Newsmax?

[Life of Brian]

Wow, this is a lot of effort for a theory that Sarc supposedly already "destroyed"!

What is painfully obvious is that you too don't have a cogent word to say in response to the clear and, to my knowledge, uncontested evidence of the coordinated effort between media and government agencies (to "shape" coverage, in so many words!) that Sarc vehemently and pompously declared not to exist. You're just opting to stick around and throw confetti to try to distract from it instead of running away with tail tucked like he did.

[Nige]

*Trump’s* government agencies.

Your quote describes some people 'gaming' something. Nothing whatsoever about them making any actual real-world effort.

[Randal]

Ok you’ve abandoned “credence.” Good call.

Sarcastr0 declared Brett’s theory of secret negotiations between Twitter and Biden’s campaign and “mainstream media” (whoever that is) to “spike” the story not to exist. Which they don’t.

Nobody’s denying that the FBI’s public advisories exist.

It’s of course a ridiculously dumb piece of spin to call a public advisory a “coordinated effort.” The FBI issues public advisories all the time, and the media dutifully reports on them. Again, do you think the media should’ve suppressed the FBI’s public advisory?

Maybe what this boils down to is just that you think Trump’s FBI was intentionally issuing advisories to help Biden win the election?

Ok, you can believe that if you want to. But that has nothing to do with the media or Twitter or Biden’s campaign. It’s just yet another tale of FBI election meddling.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Maybe what this boils down to is just that you think Trump’s FBI was intentionally issuing advisories to help Biden win the election?"

That's the reality of government in today's America: Most of the bureaucracy work for the Democratic party regardless of which party nominally controls the executive branch.

[Life of Brian]

Ok you’ve abandoned “credence.” Good call.

You're taking up NG's "adoptive admission" shtick now? LOL. I'll address your distractive pivot, if needed, after we get done discussing the actual point in this thread you barged into.

Sarcastr0 declared Brett’s theory of secret negotiations between Twitter and Biden’s campaign and “mainstream media” (whoever that is) to “spike” the story not to exist. Which they don’t.

My link/quote clearly discusses such behind-the-scenes meetings. Again, this is what turned Sarc into a ghost, and what you're trying to distract from while pretending you're still engaging.

advisory this, advisory that, advisory advisory advisory

Curiously, the article I linked doesn't use the word "advisory" or any derivative, so it's not clear why you're so in love with it. It does, on the other hand, use the term "tabletop exercise" where the government and media sat down together and gamed out how to "sculpt" media coverage in the event of a "a potential “Hack-and-Dump” operation relating to Hunter Biden" -- wow, what are the odds of THAT random tile coming out of the bag?

Address that or not -- I don't care. But that's the topic on the table here, your chess-playing pigeon act notwithstanding.

[Randal]

what are the odds of THAT random tile coming out of the bag?

You mean, the thing that happened in the previous election + the thing that Trump just got impeached over? Pretty high I would think.

Haha I just read your self-serving NYP link. Have you? There's nothing damning in it at all. It's all circumstantial innuendo.

The "tabletop exercise" happened months earlier and wasn't about the laptop.

An FBI agent sent an email with unknown contents to Twitter on the day the NYP published an article. Evidence of... nefariousness, no doubt!

And that's... it, really.

Look, the NYP is a tabloid and we all know how tabloids work... except you, it seems. Here's a clue: lots of hot air, little substance.

[Life of Brian]

You mean, the thing that happened in the previous election + the thing that Trump just got impeached over? Pretty high I would think.

There was a Hunter Biden hack/data dump in the previous election, and Trump got impeached over it? I've truly landed in a parallel universe. Links, please!

The “tabletop exercise” happened months earlier and wasn’t about the laptop.

I know you're generally unserious, but you usually try a bit harder. We now know the FBI subpoenaed Isaac for Hunter's laptop in December 2019, which he immediately turned over. Then, mystically, magically, and totally coincidentally of course, a few months later "a potential “Hack-and-Dump” operation relating to Hunter Biden” pops up. The FBI then KEPT beating that drum in weekly meetings afterward:

The FBI warned Twitter during “weekly” meetings before the 2020 election to expect “hack-and-leak operations’’ by “state actors” involving Hunter Biden, and “likely” in October, according to a sworn declaration by Twitter’s former head of site integrity, Yoel Roth.

The warnings were so specific that Twitter immediately censored The Post’s scoop about Hunter Biden’s laptop on Oct. 14, 2020, citing its “hacked materials” policy

So feel free to go find some other far more gullible person and solemnly explain to them all that wasn't about the laptop. Those of us with both gray matter and intellectual honesty will watch and chuckle.

Look, the NYP is a tabloid and we all know how tabloids work

Right, right. Thanks for reconfirming the "no true media outlet" game that I've mentioned several times now.

[Randal]

Then, mystically, magically, and totally coincidentally of course, a few months later “a potential “Hack-and-Dump” operation relating to Hunter Biden” pops up.

Like I said already, if you want to believe that the FBI was acting in bad faith here, I don't care. I have no love for the FBI. But that has nothing to do with the media, the Biden campaign, or Twitter. It's not a "coordinated effort." It's just the FBI behaving badly.

There was a Hunter Biden hack/data dump in the previous election, and Trump got impeached over it? I’ve truly landed in a parallel universe. Links, please!

As per usual, with nothing coherent left to say, you've descended into intentional ignorance. I know that you'll continue in this vein forever, but I also know it's not for the benefit of either of us, since neither of us is that ignorant. So feel free to go on lathering up your perceived audience of rubes, I have no desire to stick around and watch.

[Life of Brian]

Aw, how cute. You put my first sarcastic bit (in response to your nonsensical statement) last so you could throw it over your shoulder as an excuse to bail.

But that has nothing to do with the media, the Biden campaign, or Twitter. It’s not a “coordinated effort.” It’s just the FBI behaving badly.

Twitter and other major media outlets were in the meetings, as I quoted from the beginning. You just can't deal with that, so you're ignoring it. Very sad you can't just admit you came in too hot before understanding what you were blindly rebutting.

[Randal]

Going to a meeting doesn't imply coordination or collusion. Didn't we learn that from Russiagate?

Your own article describes how Twitter wasn't buying it.

[Bwaaah]

Thanks, LoB. You nail the facts in this thread. The counter-arguments here, though somewhat wordy, are completely unserious and dismissive of the essential central facts that you present, and which they do not actually dispute (other than with something like, "you're an idiot, your sources are idiots, and everyone you agree with is an idiot").

[Nige]

And yet absolutely no evidence or indication of a co-ordinated effort to kill the story.

[grb]

Life of Brian : “…. history rewrite …. (gibberish)”

The NY Post getting its Twitter account frozen doesn’t change the fact laptop reporting was as ubiquitous across the media as Xmas songs on the radio in late December.

It’s strange to see you claim otherwise, though God alone knows what you’re trying to claim. I doubt you know yourself. Let’s make this simple : What single laptop fact wasn’t reported hundreds & hundreds of times across TV, radio, print media and internet?

Answer : None. Every single factoid scrapped from the laptop was obsessively reported, including all the associative stuff about Hunter’s sordid life history and his business partner’s claims. Care to deny that? Or will you just go on pretending your little peeve about one Twitter account means jack-shit, big picture-wise?

[Life of Brian]

I know from long experience you're not here to discuss this in good faith. You understand that a story appearing about a subject has not jack squat to do with the actual perspective or content of that story, so just continuing to yelp that stories existed shows nothing.

As to your puffed-up challenge:

Answer : None. Every single factoid scrapped from the laptop was obsessively reported, including all the associative stuff about Hunter’s sordid life history and his business partner’s claims. Care to deny that?

In the ~3 weeks before the election (much less the handful of days before most early voting occurred), by anything you'd consider a credible source, with even the slightest perspective that it might actually be true? Absolutely. Best of luck showing otherwise.

[Randal]

I know from long experience you’re not here to discuss this in good faith.

Nor are you.

The problem with your timeline is that Fox News and the WSJ had already debunked the existence of any smoking guns from the laptop before the election. Giulani hadn't even given the files to any other media outlets by then.

So... what were you expecting exactly? It's not surprising to me that the Post was the only outlet willing to print the Trump campaign's spin as fact without any fact-checking.

[Life of Brian]

The problem with your timeline is that Fox News and the WSJ had already debunked the existence of any smoking guns from the laptop before the election. Giulani hadn’t even given the files to any other media outlets by then.

Even setting aside your quiet eliding of the early voting period where 70+% of Biden votes had already been cast, do you ever step back and listen to your shoot-from-the-hip wishful thinking? If "Giulani hadn’t even given the files to any other media outlets by then," Fox/WSJ of course could not have "already debunked the existence of any smoking guns from the laptop before the election."

If you happen to come across any actual articles that say anything to the contrary, I'm happy to read them. Otherwise, please stop wasting both our time trying to rewrite history by the seat of your pants.

[Randal]

If “Giulani hadn’t even given the files to any other media outlets by then,” Fox/WSJ of course could not have “already debunked the existence of any smoking guns from the laptop before the election.”

Other as in other than Fox News, the WSJ, and NYP. Guliani was trying to siphon it through friendly outlets, but only the NYP was willing to oblige. Fox News and WSJ went ahead and debunked it, much to the Trump campaign's chagrin.

[Randal]

... the main thing digging through the October 2020 media landscape has reminded me is how little the Hunter Biden story has progressed since then. I guess we got the dick pics and tax problems... but other than those shiny baubles, we haven't learned anything new in the last 3+ years. Yet you guys are still beating the nothingburger to death... reminds me of Benghazi... and Whitewater before that. Pretty sad and stupid.

Anyway, cat toy, here's a conundrum for you. Do you discredit Fox News, or admit that there was pre-election reporting that the laptop was real?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ratcliffe-hunter-biden-laptop-emails-not-russian-disinformation-campaign

[Life of Brian]

Other as in other than Fox News, the WSJ, and NYP.

Provide a cite that any of those but the NYP actually had the contents of the laptop before the election at all, much less in enough time to be able to fully analyze it so as to be able to “debunk the existence of any smoking guns" as you claimed. Just one.

You can’t, and you know it. The one you smugly heaved up clearly says the FBI had it, and didn’t claim that Fox or any other media outlet had access to anything but a selective handful of its contents.

So I fully expect you to now find some weak excuse to buzz off from this thread too.

[Randal]

I don't know if they had all the files, nor did I say they did. I think it's a safe assumption though that Guliani gave out the juiciest bits. Why would he hold back the smoking gun?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-happened-when-nbc-news-tried-report-alleged-n1245533

I'm two for two on your demands for articles. Wanna go another round?

[Don Nico]

Why is every idea that you disagree with a conspiracy theory?

[Randal]

That is an amazingly astute observation. It sure was nice when the other side had actual policy ideas and principles to engage with, instead of nothing but conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.

[Sarcastr0]

You want to support Brett's unsupported insistence that there was a massive coordinated plan to cover for Hunter Biden, then argue in it's favor.

Commit or GTFO.
Ad hominem at the edges is not useful.

[Nige]

There was no embargo, by anyone. Fuck's sake, didn't you used to not be a fucking liar?

[Stella Link the dog]

Nige: "There was no embargo . . ."

I'm sure that your observation was cogent and well-considered, but I can't figure out for sure where it fits into the conversation. It may have been directed at Brettmore, but because of the way that the software nests comments, I can't figure it out for sure.

If it was directed at Brettmore, I think the answer to the question, "didn’t you used to not be a fucking liar?" is "fuck, no."

[David Nieporent]

Right, they meant to imply that the explosive stuff in the laptop was fake, without actually coming out and lying about it. They knew that if they did that much, compliant media outlets would pretend they’d actually declared it fake.

Brett can clearly understand the “implications” of what everyone is saying… except Donald Trump. When Donald Trump says to attack the Capitol, and then people attack the Capitol and say that it was because Trump told them to, Brett equates this to David Berkowitz (a/k/a “Son of Sam”) hearing instructions from his dog.

[Michael Ejercito]

These "experts" should perform seppuku, for they are without honor!

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, dear, this is a fail of basic logic.

The only thing 'at least some of the data' contradicts is 'none of the data,'

This not only doesn't contradict what Hunter's lawyers have said, I've not seen anyone at all claim *none* of the data was Hunter's, have you?

[Michael P]

Disingenuous shits don't come out and say anything directly or clearly, they leave it all to innuendo and implication. Statements like "at least some of the data" are dishonest implication. Claims like "our experience makes us deeply suspicious" are unfounded innuendo.

Congratulations on allying yourself with disingenuous shits.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think saying 'at least some of the data' is hard to understand or trying to fool you at all, actually.

It certainly doesn't seem like you were fooled. Seems more like you just wanna be mad.

I'm not even sure you're actually unhappy at all; you're so performative all the time.

Kaz is wrong; fooled yet again, just like always. You aren't even engaging enough to be fooled.

[Michael P]

DARVO harder, Gaslight0.

[Sarcastr0]

Lazy. As expected.

[Michael P]

Psychological abuse doesn't deserve detailed engagement.

[Sarcastr0]

Psychological abuse

Bwahahahaha.

[Michael P]

Abusers often think their behavior is funny.

[Sarcastr0]

It is ridiculous to say I'm psychologically abusing you.

Bad-faith deployment of therapy speech is not going to be very effective around here.

[OtisAH]

Michael P, weak *and* pathetic. A double threat!

[Randal]

Psychological abuse...

Oh my god! I thought you just didn't know what gaslighting was and were inadvertently making yourself look weak-minded. Turns out you were totally advertently making yourself look weak-minded this whole time! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Sarcastr0 is presenting you with facts and ideas. The only way facts and ideas can possibly constitute psychological abuse is if you've been so fully brainwashed and indoctrinated that even being exposed to concepts contrary to your programming is painful to you, because your whole and identity is intertwined with the brainwashing. Facts and ideas become a threat to your psyche.

Wow that sucks man! You're in dire need of an intervention. Get therapy!

[OtisAH]

What had happened was, the fbi confirmed *the laptop* belongs to Hunter Biden but cannot confirm that all the *content* was put there by him. So these dopes, as is their way, wrote the latter part out of the story and pretend the fbi has verified that all of the contents of the laptop belong to Biden, which again they have not and it seems they cannot. But again again, that is an inconvenient matter that is easily side-stepped by the bad faith disseminators and genuine dipshits here and elsewhere.

[cue: Ooo, he just said “the fbi has verified that all the contents of the laptop belong to Biden!”]

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Let's not forget what a total prick this "Mac" Isaac guy was. He knew explicitly who the laptop and its data belonged to, but decided to send it to Rudy Giuliani. All so he could "interfere with an election", as I believe it is known these days.

[Michael P]

The FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac, and still has it. At the time of the seizure, Mac Isaac owned it because the former owner abandoned it. Are you from some other timestream than this one?

[Nige]

He didn't own the data, though. Unless he put it there himself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who owns abandoned property?

[David Nieporent]

It wasn't abandoned property. And who owns it is a question of state law. (Not "finders keepers.")

[Armchair]

Tell me... If you sign a contract leaving a piece of equipment at a store. And that contract says "If you leave the equipment here for 60 days after notice that the repairs have been completed, it will be treated as abandoned".

How does that contract hold up?

[Sarcastr0]

We'll see how the court rules, but statute generally trumps contract.

Delaware seems to have a law on point.

[Armchair]

and what law is that?

How would such a law trump a contract with more strict terms?

Please be specific.

[Sarcastr0]

From the claims in the case: "Delaware law provides that tangible personal property is deemed abandoned" when the rightful owner has failed to "assert or declare property rights to the property for a period of 1 year."

No, you generally can't contract around black letter law.

I don't know this particular case, or Delaware's particular legal landscape enough to give you specifics, so this is anything but slam dunk. But that's the general push I see.

[Armchair]

We asked for the law in question. You haven't provided it.

The law you cite typically refers to items in a renter's house, not a business. This is why the specific law is important.

Automobiles typically fall under a different section of the law, for example.

[Life of Brian]

No, you generally can’t contract around black letter law.

Parties contract to stricter terms than the statutory defaults (or even waive them) all the time. What special meaning are you imparting to “black letter” that you feel like renders that impossible here?

[Sarcastr0]

Armchair, quit picking a fight. I don't know Delaware code, and made no claim I did. I'd wager Hunter's lawyer does. If you want the specific statute, look it y yourself.

LoB - contracting *around* the law, is not contracting for something more stringent, don't play stupid. Your pedantry is bad and fails.

[Life of Brian]

LoB – contracting *around* the law, is not contracting for something more stringent, don’t play stupid.

Et tu? Here, contracting for a shorter pre-abandonment term most certainly would be more stringent than the statutory default. What’s your beef?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc v1: "Delaware law provides that tangible personal property is deemed abandoned"

Sarc v2: "I don’t know Delaware code, and made no claim I did."

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaaah doesn't know how quotes work.

[David Nieporent]

From the claims in the case: “Delaware law provides that tangible personal property is deemed abandoned” when the rightful owner has failed to “assert or declare property rights to the property for a period of 1 year.”

It's worse than that, because not only does Delaware law not say that you can just call property abandoned whenever you feel like it, but even if it were abandoned the repair shop owner didn't have the legal right to it. Delaware law allows someone in possession of abandoned property the right to apply to a court for title to the property — not to just take it. There's a formal process, which includes an attempt to notify the owner, that must be undertaken after such an application.

[Absaroka]

David, I kind of hate to wade into a political hot button where I don't really care about the outcome, but I'm curious: is that the default process for abandoned property, which could be superseded if the customer agrees to other terms?

Hotels, rent-a-car places, gyms, yadda yadda can't have customer agreements for a more abbreviated process?

Certainly in the places I'm familiar with (which excludes Delaware!) schools, gyms, various businesses, etc all have pretty informal lost-n-found policies, as in 'we toss it on a shelf. If it's been there a while we just discard it, give it to the next person who forgot a towel, whatever'. I can't imagine going in 11 months after leaving something and expecting to get it back. And while it wouldn't surprise me that many businesses would just be ignorant of the law, you'd think that e.g. schools would not just flaunt such a law.

[David Nieporent]

We asked for the law in question. You haven’t provided it.

Del. Code tit. 25 § 4001, et seq.

The law you cite typically refers to items in a renter’s house, not a business. This is why the specific law is important.

That statute does not apply to items in a renter's house.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Delaware law allows someone in possession of abandoned property the right to apply to a court for title to the property — not to just take it."

But this would, as I understand it, govern cases where there wasn't any prior arrangement between the parties. It's perfectly ordinary for contractual agreements to override default legal rules.

In the case of the repair shop, there was an explicit contractual provision governing when the computers left for repair would be deemed abandoned.

[Randal]

None of this matters anyway since it wouldn't apply to the data any more than a renter leaving behind a Bambi DVD would give the landlord the rights to Disney's IP.

[David Nieporent]

David, I kind of hate to wade into a political hot button where I don’t really care about the outcome, but I’m curious: is that the default process for abandoned property, which could be superseded if the customer agrees to other terms?

There are some laws that can be contracted around, but (a) generally not consumer protection statutes; and (b) it's irrelevant here because the document in question does not attempt to contract around the statute. It would be a tougher case if the contract said something along the lines of "Computer owner agrees that title to the computer shall transfer to the computer repair shop if the owner does not retrieve his property within 90 days of notification," but all this invoice said was that the property would be "treated as" "abandoned." But I reiterate: even if one could deem it abandoned in a shorter period of time, that would still trigger the other provisions of the relevant Delaware law, which describe how property that is abandoned must be treated.

Given the rest of that sentence on the invoice, it's clear that what the shop owner was doing was not trying to claim ownership of such property, but to avoid liability if he decided to toss it rather than keep it around.

Certainly in the places I’m familiar with (which excludes Delaware!) schools, gyms, various businesses, etc all have pretty informal lost-n-found policies, as in ‘we toss it on a shelf. If it’s been there a while we just discard it, give it to the next person who forgot a towel, whatever’. I can’t imagine going in 11 months after leaving something and expecting to get it back. And while it wouldn’t surprise me that many businesses would just be ignorant of the law, you’d think that e.g. schools would not just flaunt such a law.

Note that nothing in this statute requires the person/business/institution in possession of the property to keep it for a year! Tossing it out would not violate this statute. All this law does is regulate when the possessor can claim title to the property for himself. If the possessor does throw it out, he is potentially subject to liability to the owner just like anyone who causes any loss or damage to someone else's property, but he wouldn't have broken this law. Obviously nobody is going to file a lawsuit over a lost towel, so that risk of liability is effectively irrelevant. (But expensive property — nobody is going to just throw out a laptop, or a Rolex, or whatever.)

[not guilty]

"That statute does not apply to items in a renter’s house."

David, do you mean to say that Armchair is simply making shit up?

In true Claude Rains fashion, I am shocked! Shocked!!

[Bwaaah]

David Nieporent: Thanks for the citation. See statute here:
https://casetext.com/statute/delaware-code/title-25-property/part-ii-mortgages-and-other-liens/chapter-40-rights-and-title-to-abandoned-personal-property/section-4001-definition-of-abandoned-personal-property

[Joe_dallas]

LoB is more likely correct - The lap top was probably not abandoned under Delaware law. By contract, Hunter agreed to forfeit ownership which would mean it wasnt abandoned.

[Randal]

By contract, Hunter agreed to forfeit ownership which would mean it wasnt abandoned.

Maybe try reading the thread before replying?

The contract said “treat as abandoned” not “forfeit ownership.”

[Armchair]

NG,

It's certainly a...unique....interpretation of the law to say it doesn't apply to items in a renter's house (ie, the items left behind when the renter moves out and the owner of the house takes possession). I find it interesting that it somehow wouldn't apply if a renter left a laptop behind, but would if someone dropped off a laptop for repair at a business.

Do you agree with David's analysis here, that the law doesn't apply to items a renter leaves behind at the property they were previously renting?

Feel free to dodge the question. But if this is a typical example of David's legal scholarship, I would be wary of the entirety of it.

[not guilty]

Armchair, I don't always agree with David Nieporent, but I generally find his description of the law to be accurate. You, not so much, to put it politely.

You asserted upthread "The law you cite typically refers to items in a renter’s house, not a business. This is why the specific law is important." The relevant definitional statute states:

(a) For the purposes of this chapter "abandoned personal property" shall be deemed to be tangible personal property which the rightful owner has left in the care or custody of another person and has failed to maintain, pay for the storage of, exercise dominion or control over, and has failed to otherwise assert or declare the ownership rights to the tangible personal property for a period of 1 year.

Subsection (b) of the statute lists seven categories of personal property shall not be deemed to be "abandoned personal property".

Contrary to your assertion upthread, the statute nowhere distinguishes between property left at a residence and property left with a bailee at a business.

[Armchair]

Dodging the question it is.

Never change NG, never change.

[Sarcastr0]

Like four different people have answered your question Armchair, just not with the answer you want to hear.

[David Nieporent]

How does that contract hold up?

It doesn't. Now, one might be able to write a contract that would — for example, a contract that transfers title from the owner to the repair shop after a period of time. But Mac Isaac's contract does not purport to do that. It just says that property left after 90 days will be "treated as abandoned."

[Nige]

When it comes to data, the original owner.

[Michael P]

Do you think that copying or distributing that data constituted a crime or tort? If so, which specific crime or tort? Most of the laws that might cover it -- whether common or statutory -- such as pubic disclosure of private facts or copyright law also have explicit exceptions for disclosures that are of legitimate public interest. The corrupt dealings of a presidential candidate's family are of legitimate public interest, especially when they show arrangements for the candidate to benefit without being directly named in the influence sales.

[Mr. Bumble]

I believe Hunter's busy bee lawyers have a suit against Mac Issac for copying and or disseminating the information.

[Nige]

'The corrupt dealings of a presidential candidate’s family are of legitimate public interest,'

His dick pics?

[windycityattorney]

Perhaps invasion of privacy and related torts to releasing dick picks [some of the revenge porn statutes are written broadly enough to encompass this although i am not familiar with deleware law on the subject]...perhaps some type of conversion...

I think intent can matter here. If it is assumed that the repair man specifically provided the harddrive copy or backup to Guillani with the specific knowledge that Guillani would/planned to disseminate its contents to a much larger national audience then its possible some other torts could get triggered. I don't practice civil law so am just spit balling. But i think a good civil attorney could find multiple torts involved in this ordeal.

[David Nieporent]

At the time of the seizure, Mac Isaac did not own it, because that's not how law works. Are you from some other country where it works the way you think it does? (Maybe Alina Habba is from the same place; that would explain why she kept humiliating herself in court yesterday by not knowing basic stuff that one learns at one's first trial if not before.)

It is true that the FBI had seized it, though, which is why there was no reason to take the NYP story at face value: they didn't have the laptop they were reporting on. And of course the experts were commenting on the NYP story, not the laptop.

[Michael P]

Gish gallops are another trademark of disingenuous shittery.

[Sarcastr0]

You learned a new term!

Now apply it to the post here; how did DMN gallop? Walk me through it, because to me it seems like he stuck to addressing the incorrect thesis in your post he was replying to.

[Michael P]

Unbacked assertion of how the law works. Random analogy with lawyer in a case between entirely different parties. NYT reported on the content of the laptop, so DMN decided the right standard was whether they had physical possession of the original laptop.

It’s nothing more than his usual hodgepodge of misdirections, personal attacks and unbacked assertions.

[Sarcastr0]

On the issue of what is a gallop, you've pretty much shown that's not a gallop - all of those things you dispute go directly at your thesis.

You should learn terms before you use them.

Your accusations of bad faith and attempts to shift the burden...well, that's just you being lazy again, eh? Refusing to do your homework and attacking everyone who points out you're not coming in with substance.

[Michael P]

How the fuck does what Alina Habba did "go directly at [my] thesis"?

How does possession of the physical laptop go to what the NY Post reported on, or what I said?

You're just blithely asserting bullshit, and it's transparently wrong. Projecting your bad faith onto me is similarly transparent.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know the function of parentheticals?

[Michael P]

No new goalposts. You said "all of those things you dispute go directly at your thesis", now you're complaining that I pointed out his parenthetical didn't go to anything I said.

[Nige]

Look at you, pounding the table.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever, dude.
did not include the clear aside put in parentheses as part of ‘all of the things.’

No, adding snarky parentheticals does not make something a gish gallop.

My bad for treating you like you weren’t really dumb. I should know better by now.

[David Nieporent]

How the fuck does what Alina Habba did “go directly at [my] thesis”?

It doesn't; it just mocks you.

How does possession of the physical laptop go to what the NY Post reported on, or what I said?

Explained in a post I made a moment ago. You are merely assuming that the NYP had, and was reporting on, an exact duplicate of the laptop.

[Nige]

'Unbacked assertion of how the law works.'

You've been commenting on this issue long enough - how come you don't know, as a matter of fact, whether the law works like that or not?

[David Nieporent]

Unbacked assertion of how the law works. Random analogy with lawyer in a case between entirely different parties. NYT reported on the content of the laptop, so DMN decided the right standard was whether they had physical possession of the original laptop.

None of that is what a Gish gallop is; you should look up the term before using it.

1) The "analogy" was just an insult.
2) I'm not sure why your unbacked assertion doesn't require backing but mine does. But if you insist: the applicable statute is Del. Code tit. 25 § 4001, et seq.
3) It was the NYP, not the NYT.
4) The point, which you failed to understand, is that the NYP couldn't have been reporting on the contents of the laptop because they didn't have access to it. What they were reporting on was a bunch of files that someone delivered to them and told them, "Hey, this is a copy of the hard drive from a laptop of Hunter Biden's." They had no way to know the provenance of those files. Indeed, you don't have the first fucking clue whether the files given to them are the same as the files on the laptop.

(Indeed, there were/are caches of those files floating around the Internet, and it has been reported by reputable news outlets that at least some of those show obvious signs of tampering, because some files were added/changed/created after the date that Hunter purportedly left the laptop at the repair shop.)

[Michael P]

Clearly, the Gish Galloper cannot be writing about Hunter Biden's laptop because he does not have it.

Or, he's lying while accusing others of doing so.

Probably the latter, because he's pointing to analyses that claimed certain directories ("folders") may have been created or files copied/moved in some of the disk images, after Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop. Nobody reputable has claimed that the things that the NYP reported on were created afterwards. See, for example, https://news.yahoo.com/forensic-analysis-copy-hunter-biden-231418826.html and the WaPo story it links to. Unlike https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/hunter-biden-laptop-justice-department, these corroborations of the NYP story are old.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

That’s a “gish gallop” to you? hahaha. It's remarkable that you would be so easily confused by a handful of sentences in written form, that you could take all the time in the world to carefully read and refute. (If you actually had the capability to do so.)

Tell me: Are you capable of opening child-proof containers, or is that too complicated for you as well?

I don’t mean to overwhelm you, so let’s stop there for now.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Parentheticals leave Michael P scared and confused. Stop psychologically abusing the snowflake.

[David Nieporent]

“In the filing, Weiss wrote that in September 2019 Apple provided digital backups of Hunter’s data in response to a search warrant and the laptop was “largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained from Apple investigators had already.”

That of course blows up Hunter and his lawyers story: “”At least some of the data that Defendants obtained, copied, and proceeded to hack into and tamper with belongs to Plaintiff,” Hunter’s lawyer’s wrote in a lawsuit last fall suing Giuliani.”

How does it "blow up" that story, as opposed to being entirely consistent with it?

And the Russian disinformation story.

Yeah, it doesn't do that either. Though as I've been saying, the fact that the hard drive is a complete nothingburger does in fact suggest that it wasn't Russian disinformation. Surely they'd have actually put something incriminating on there if they were engaged in such efforts, and since there isn't, they didn't.

[Bwaaah]

That’s the second time I’ve heard the word “duplicative” in the past two months. I’ve inferred its meaning from its usage:

duplicative – adj – an acknowledgement that something is a copy of something else without an admission that it’s a copy of something else

[Dr. Ed 2]

If DOJ has Icloud backup on this machine WHAT ABOUT OTHER MACHINES OF HUNTER'S? He had more...

[Michael Ejercito]

Those intelligence agents should perform seppuku immediately, for they are without honor!

[AmosArch]

By some measures, revenue from mobile games. Which if you know the market consists almost entirely of poor quality ‘free to play’ titles, not only exceeds revenue from other forms of computer gaming. It now also exceeds music, streaming, and film. Some mobile gaming titles you’ve probably never heard of pull in more than the biggest vaunted Holyweird blockbusters could ever dream of and have for some time. Honor of Kings for example pulls in more cash than the lifetime earnings of the top 10 grossing movies of all time.

[hobie]

Amos 'Whatabout' Arch. That's quite a scoop you uncovered

[Sarcastr0]

Failing to overestimate the bad taste of the general public once again proves a money maker.

[Martinned]

In terms of more niche topics, I enjoyed this blog post about the US government's work to delineate the outer limits of its continental shelf. Of course, that is only relevant because of Part VI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, which the US hasn't ratified. (It has 169 ratification, and other countries that haven't ratified include Turkey - because of the Bosporus - and Venezuela.)

The US government's workaround is apparently that it claims that the rules about the continental shelf are customary international law, so that the US can still claim its rights in those parts of the high sea, despite not having ratified the treaty. Of course, the traditional solution would have been to ratify the treaty but with a reservation as to Part XI, the bit that deals with the deep seabed. (Republicans in the Senate have historically taken the view that it is communism.) That is generally allowed when ratifying multilateral treaties. (I don't think a reservation with respect to Part XI would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of UNCLOS. The rest of UNCLOS works perfectly well without it.) But the US doesn't ratify treaties anymore unless they are "puppies are great" levels of uncontroversial, so here we are.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unfortunately, might still makes right; treaties, conventions and international law aside.

[Martinned]

Does it?

[Mr. Bumble]

It shouldn't but this is not the best of all possible worlds.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates the UN Charter but what power does the UN have other than to condemn it?

[Frank Drackman]

They can deploy an Army, just takes a unanimous Security Council Vote, US, UK, France, China, Roosh-a.....
and before my time, but I seem to remember the only way they were able to send UN forces to Korea was Roosh-a didn't show up for the vote.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

...and those weren't the blue helmets like those in Lebanon and other places.

[Martinned]

That's an entirely different question. Russia has might, but no one (outside of Russia) is saying it is right.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet no one will stop it.

[Bwaaah]

He said it wrong. What he meant is: Might prevails.

[Bob from Ohio]

"saying it is right."

The idiom does not mean that what the mighty does is legally or morally "right". Nor does it depend on what people say about it.

It simply means that no one is able to do anything about it. Its a shorter version of "the strong do what they will".

Ukraine is not a good example because someone mightier [US and friends] did do something about it.

[Martinned]

It simply means that no one is able to do anything about it. Its a shorter version of “the strong do what they will”.

Yes, that is indeed a problem. Which is why some of us figured that it might be time to do something about that. Over here we started imagining a new way to do international relations in the 1950s. Eventually the rest of the world will catch up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Eventually the rest of the world will catch up."

Not likely.

I understand you guys ruined yourself in two pointless wars but your Uncle Sam is here to keep you safe now. No need for unworkable utopian ideas.

[Martinned]

Seeing Trump on TV you have no idea how safe I feel. It's easy to vote for an incompetent would-be dictator if you have an ocean between you and any conceivable enemy. But for the rest of us, it makes clear that we've deferred to the US for way too long.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we’ve deferred to the US for way too long"

LOL Like you are going to do anything to remedy it.

What countries have done anything to raise defense spending to acceptable levels? You have almost no airlift capacity, limited power projection capability. Unionized Potemkin armies.

Your precious international organizations are dominated internally by the corrupt dictator governed "Global South", they hate you as much as they hate us.

[Commenter_XY]

Martinned...You, people like you, and your political leadership in your country who think like you; feel free to let America know when you want America to bring home the thousands of dead American veterans buried in your country's soil that died to protect you...in two wars.

[Martinned]

@Commenter:

1. One War. You guys did World War 1 without the Dutch. (And mostly without the Americans too.)

2. It was the Polish who liberated my home town. That's why we put up a monument to remember the Polish who died in the process. More generally, much of the Netherlands was liberated by the Canadians. We are very grateful.

3. Off the back of that experience, we are very keen to avoid the need for another such experience. That's why we decided to start doing things differently. Our American friends think that they will always win all wars, and therefore don't see any need to stop starting them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"US can still claim its rights in those parts of the high sea"

Yes we can.

[Longtobefree]

Absolutely.
Our navy has the finest drag shows on the planet; who can oppose us?
Of course, we don't have many ships, and those tend to run aground, but DIVERSITY !!

[Martinned]

In other news, last night the UK House of Commons adopted the Rwanda Bill ('the sky is green'). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68009249

As I understand it, the expectation is still that the House of Lords will vote it down. There is no rule or convention that requires them to adopt it, because there was nothing about this in the Tory manifesto at the last general election, and there isn't enough time remaining until the next general election for the government to force the bill through using the Parliament Acts.

[Martinned]

The bill is here. All amendments in the House of Commons were defeated.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3540/publications

[John F. Carr]

Like Republicans in the United States pushing for abortion restrictions knowing that it was all for show because of Roe v. Wade.

If Tories win the next general election can they pick up where they left off, with the bill having passed once, or do they have to file a new bill and start over?

[Martinned]

In the UK, bills are typically not carried over from one parliament to the next. But then, if the Tories win the next general election they will presumably be too busy buying lottery tickets to take advantage of their extreme luck to worry about things like immigration.

[Michael Ejercito]

Like Republicans in the United States pushing for abortion restrictions knowing that it was all for show because of Roe v. Wade.
I have no doubt that most pro-life politicians are just virtue signalers.

[John F. Carr]

On the theme of anonymous or pseudonymous litigation.

Boston media was abuzz over arrests made at a high end brothel involving clients who were said to be rich and well connected. Under Massachusetts precedent police are not allowed to arrest only the women. They have to go after clients as well or they are discriminating based on sex. (To the best of my knowledge, the cases on prostitution discrimination only contemplated men buying sex from women.)

So we have a bunch of locally famous people and they are going to be outed as paying for sex. News consumers love that stuff. The magistrate agreed to open the show cause hearing to the public so reporters could hear the evidence.

A justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts just postponed the hearing so the clients would not be shamed in public.

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2024/01/17/sjc-delays-hearings-for-alleged-clients-in-high-end-brothel-case/

The Boston Globe has a history of opposing secret show cause hearings. It did not suddenly want them public just for one sexy case.

[Nige]

A nice, quiet, non-rapey sex scandal; it's almost soothing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you say ChiCom Spying?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Aren't these FEDERAL arrests? Would the same MA law apply?
And then wanna bet that there is espinage involved here?
I suspect we will never know who the guys are..

[Noscitur a sociis]

.

Aren’t these FEDERAL arrests?

No.

Thanks for joining us for another round of simple answers to stupid questions.

[John F. Carr]

The federal arrests were for "conspiracy to coerce and entice to travel to engage in illegal sexual activity". In other words, only the sellers were arrested. The buyers are being charged in state court. If they had been arrested their names should have appeared in a police log. So they must have been summonsed to court instead of arrested.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/three-arrested-operating-high-end-brothel-network

[Armchair]

More news out of Hunter’s “Art” scam.

We all know that Hunter’s “art” business was just a way for motivated individuals to pass off large sums of money to Hunter and Joe, without it just looking like a direct bribe. Turns out good ol’ Hunter made a personal request to the art dealer to know who was buying his paintings.

“The art dealer who sold Hunter Biden’s paintings told Congress that President Joe Biden both called and met him at the White House as he was pitching Hunter’s artwork and that the first son also made an unusual request to be informed about who bought his pieces, according to testimony that directly undercuts the White House narrative on the sales."

I’m sure that’s normal though, right?

““I believe in the first contract, he was—he was able to know who the buyers were,” Berges told investigators for the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees in a transcribed interview last week that was reviewed by Just the News. “…I don’t know how it was phrased or—but I remember that there—that that was the difference.””

“Is that normal or unusual, or where’s that? Is it a normal kind of contract?” Berges was asked.

“That part was different. Normally, the gallerist does not let the artist know who the collectors are,” the art dealer answered.

Berges was also asked how many of the 15 artists he represents now – except for Hunter Biden – wanted to know the identity of purchasers. “None,” he answered."

Oh...

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/tueart-dealer-told-congress-joe-biden-called-met-him-while-he-sold

[ThePublius]

And now the partisan, Dem, prog commenters here will reply, saying that it's not a racket. Ha, ha, ha.

[Jerry B.]

"Hey. Hunter's not running for President."

[ThePublius]

Read up on this. Read the article. The art dealer met with Hunter and Joe.

Who would pay that kind of dough for the trash Hunter calls art, or to 'influence' Hunter? Ha, ha, ha.

[Bwaaah]

“Who would pay that kind of dough for the trash Hunter calls art, or to ‘influence’ Hunter?”

Kevin Morris, $875,000, minus the part that was treated as loan forgiveness.

Great art commands big money, and big loan forgiveness.

[billardl]

Hunter and his diaper shitting father are stupid grifters. I think they're also into incest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, they ARE stupid grifters: Joe is actually distinguished from most DC politicians with his kind of experience by being, until very recently, fairly poor. He was really BAD at being a grifter, he's been playing catch up the last few years.

So he was clumsy and cut a lot of corners the people who'd been doing it all along would have navigated better.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, the conclusion to draw from Biden not becoming wealthy in his time as a politician is that he's still corrupt, but bad at it.

No other possible conclusion. No, siree!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Hanlon's razor.

[bernard11]

Hard to believe, but you've beaten your own record for really stupid comments.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

An article by notorious liar John Solomon, without links to a primary source?

I'll pass, thanks. (Though as evidenced by your lies on Monday, it's understandable why you'd be a fan of his.)

[Armchair]

You mean the direct congressional testimony? I mean, it's pretty easy to see if Solomon is lying about what was directly testified about.

But believe what you want... Remember, there's no evidence Hamas raped anyone on October 7th...

https://forward.com/fast-forward/576341/pro-palestinian-protesters-target-memorial-sloan-kettering-cancer-center-accusing-it-of-genocide/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You mean the alleged testimony which was not provided as a primary source? A reputable journalist would have provided a link to the transcript, but then you wouldn't be reading from disgraced 'journalist' John Solomon.

I already schooled you on your Hamas nonsense on Monday. I did not, and have not disputed your claims regarding October 7th. Do I need to remind you of your lies? You alleged that Sarcastr0 denied the events despite evidence being provided from last Thursday's thread, and yet you didn't provide a single piece of evidence until getting your ass handed to you by me on Monday. The only 'evidence' you allegedly provided last Thursday was that it was "widely reported." A lying fuck like you doesn't get to just say "trust me bro" and claim that you've proven your argument.

You lied about having presented evidence.
You lied about Sarcastr0 denying it.
You lied about my involvement entirely.

You ran away like a bitch when I called you out, have you found your testicles yet, or are you just going to run away again?

A man would admit he was wrong and apologize. Clearly you aren't a man.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It looks like you've run away yet again.

Shocking.

[Krychek_2]

Libertarians are so ridiculous:

https://onlysky.media/alee/why-libertarian-cities-fail/

[Michael P]

In my "Pol Pot's Party" series, I mentioned how the philosophy of socialism is best described as cornucopianiam: other people's money never runs out.

With that in mind, let's consider how seriously to take pieces that so loudly start with mood affiliation.

[Krychek_2]

Just to be clear, your argument is that the only two choices are socialism and libertarianism? That's your argument?

[Michael P]

Just to be clear, that's not even remotely like my argument, which is presented in the last sentence of my earlier comment. Did you pass middle school English?

[Krychek_2]

I did, and used to teach high school English. Did you pass basic logic? Your very first sentence, which is the one to which I was responding, introduced socialism, which is only relevant here if you're arguing that it's the only alternative to libertarianism. Otherwise it's just what abouting.

Mood affiliation is also irrelevant. Just because someone is in a bad mood doesn't mean they don't have a sound argument. So, do you have any substantive response to the article itself?

[VinniUSMC]

I did, and used to teach high school English.

I feel sorry for your students. That's awful.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, they seem to have done OK for themselves, at least the ones whose whereabouts are known to me. At least my students were rid of me at the end of the semester, unlike your kids, who are stuck with you for life.

[Bwaaah]

[Bwaaah]

“Just to be clear, your argument is that the only two choices are socialism and libertarianism? That’s your argument?”

Just to be clear: You were being sincere when you implied that that was Michael P’s argument?

[Krychek_2]

I "implied" nothing; I flat out asked him to clarify because, for reasons I've already given, that was a logical reading of what he said.

[Sarcastr0]

To be fair, I don't know his argument.

Or his definition of socialism, which seems narrow in it's function but broad in who it includes.

[SRG2]

I mentioned how the philosophy of socialism is best described as cornucopianiam: other people’s money never runs out.

Yeah, that was Margaret Thatcher's position too, and you're both wrong.

Socialism is not about other people's money. It's about owning the means of production and, related, centralised planning. The experimental evidence is that in general letting the means of production lie in private hands and letting the private market take bets and pick winners and losers is somewhat more effective. But this has nothing to do with OPM.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Socialism is not about other people’s money. It’s about owning the means of production "

Ownership is, famously, a bundle of rights concerning something. The communists were big into seizing the whole bundle. Modern socialists only seize parts of it, leaving the dirty work of actually running the means of production to people who get to retain other parts, and nominal ownership.

[Sarcastr0]

Regulated business is still in fact something the business owners actually own.

IIRC you say regulation is fascism.

[Armchair]

How so?

They're purchasing water from EPCOR.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/water-to-begin-flowing-again-in-the-rio-verde-foothills-a-big-day

[Krychek_2]

Assuming that EPCOR is a long term solution -- which is doubtful since the desert can only sustain so much development, which is the real issue here -- these residents didn't have water for weeks. The fix is for a problem that should never have existed in the first place.

[Krayt]

It's poor planning. Governments wouldn't know about that!

[Krychek_2]

I will wager that for all the poor decisions governments make, not having a government would be even worse.

The standard is not whether government perfectly solves every problem; it doesn't. The question is whether we are better off than we would be otherwise.

[Bwaaah]

So you are arguing that it is better to have a government than no government at all?

With whom are you arguing?

[Krychek_2]

So you don't know the difference between making a statement and having an argument? Are you just in a bad mood or is this your usual state?

[Bwaaah]

You said: "The standard is not whether government perfectly solves every problem; it doesn’t. The question is whether we are better off than we would be otherwise."

The standard isn't whether elections perfectly solve every problem; they don't. The question is whether we are better off with elections than without them.

[Krychek_2]

Agreed. Your point?

[Brett Bellmore]

It shouldn't be a binary analysis, though. It's quite possible to be better off with government than totally without, and it still be the case that you'd be even better off if there were LESS government, short of zero.

[Krychek_2]

And for once I agree with Brett. In between totalitarianism and anarchy there are happy mediums. The question is where the line is to be drawn. My own standard is whether a particular government policy or program leaves us better off than we were before.

I don't think reciting "less government is better" as a mantra is all that helpful, though. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I'm currently waiting two months on a passport renewal (and beginning to be concerned about a March 1 travel date) because the GOP slashed the budget for State, which means laying off employees, which means waiting longer for services. Is the pittance I'm now saving on my taxes as a result really worth having to wait weeks for what should be a routine service? I don't think so, but your mileage may vary.

[Life of Brian]

My own standard is whether a particular government policy or program leaves us better off than we were before.

Can that standard be objectively measured, though? Most government programs by definition leave some people better off by some measure, and others worse off (often by a different measure). Seems to me that much of the disagreement over the usefulness of a given program boils down to the weightings different people assign to who gained and who lost.

Your example perfectly fits that mold -- of course the budget cuts [or just lack of increases? not immediately seeing what actually was enacted] no doubt landed on a lot more heads than just the ones responsible for rubber stamping your passport renewal, and hopefully State didn't do a "firemen first" thing and instead actually cut a bunch of actual cruft before getting to those seats. You're just weighting your individual inconvenience a lot higher than the overall money saved. (And if that weighting results in you being happy to pay more for faster service as you say, that's freely available and known as "expedited renewal" -- win win!)

[Life of Brian]

And in all seriousness: if you're really getting close (within 2 weeks) to your travel date, call the 877 number in the yellow box here and hopefully that will unstick it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Passport renewal is actually running faster than when I got my first one in the 90's. And paying for expedited service actually gets you expedited service.

[Krychek_2]

Life of Brian, your point is well taken that part of politics is taking into account different interests. What's good for billionaires is not often what's good for single mothers living in poverty. But poor people's issues often have a nasty habit of impacting on people who aren't living in poverty; you pay higher food prices because poor people steal groceries. (I know, sometimes rich people steal too.) Libertarianism essentially means there will be large sectors of urban areas that don't have trash collection because either it can't be done at a profit or no one is willing to do it. Part of the reason we have government is the recognition that some social problems create society-wide impacts and need to be dealt with at the societal level.

So, would society be better off if there were shorter lines at government office buildings (think renewing your driver's license) because people were taxed more to pay for more employees? It depends: how much more, and how much shorter are the lines? But asking questions like this requires doing the hard work of actually analyzing, case by case, the costs and the benefits. Which is why I don't find mantras like "the greatest good for the greatest number" or " less government better" or, on the other side of the ledger, "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" to be all that useful. They're a 40 watt solution to a 100 watt world problem.

[Life of Brian]

Agree very much with your overall point that the analysis must be case by case, and as with many things the ideal outcome likely is the one that equally dissatisfies everyone involved. A few specific thoughts:

What’s good for billionaires is not often what’s good for single mothers living in poverty.

I don't know that it's helpful to view this as an excluded middle. I'm in neither camp and suspect that's also true for you, yet when the political posturing dies down and the actual taxing and spending occurs, most social program dollars end up coming out of our hides. Inflamed reporting notwithstanding, the infamous 1% (more like 0.1% for the true multimillionaires/billionaires) just doesn't comprise enough of the total income base. And in the lower income brackets where the lion's share of taxable income lies, "the rich moneygrubbers will never miss it, and look how much [poignantly painted interest group X] will appreciate it" is and should be tougher to use as a club any time the latest and greatest social engineering project is underwater.

Libertarianism essentially means there will be large sectors of urban areas that don’t have trash collection because either it can’t be done at a profit or no one is willing to do it. Part of the reason we have government is the recognition that some social problems create society-wide impacts and need to be dealt with at the societal level.

We agree pure libertarianism is not ideal. But there are substantial portions of the country (not urban, I grant you) where people take the responsibility of hauling their own trash to the nearest landfill or other collection point. So even this sort of service is not inevitable, but just another example on your convenience/cost continuum. I'd personally draw the line at transportation infrastructure and similar areas that are a lot more steeped in classic collective action problems. But that sort of thing is only a minute fraction of the "we're here to help" sprawl these days.

[Krychek_2]

It sounds like we may not actually be all that far apart.

One issue that I don't think true leftists grasp is that a significant amount of 1% wealth is imaginary wealth. If I own a $30 million condo in Manhattan, it's only worth 30 million if there is someone with 30 million willing to pay that for it. And, if the income has been completely redistributed, then nobody has 30 million and it's just another apartment. Ditto a million dollar art collection; it's only worth a million dollars if there are people with a million dollars in disposable income willing to buy it. The state can confiscate it and put it in a museum so everyone can enjoy it, but it's not going to feed any hungry children. And even money in brokerage and bank accounts exists, to a certain extent, only in cyberspace. So even if perfect wealth redistribution were to be accomplished tomorrow, I'm not sure how much it would accomplish in real terms.

And yet, it's horrible public policy to allow people to starve or die of treatable illness. Those problems do in fact bleed out into the rest of society. William Booth, in the days of horse-drawn carriages, pointed out that if a horse stumbles and falls, you help it up again, because even if you don't care about the horse, you do care about the traffic backed up behind the horse. Same principle.

On the other side of that, though, is that I view billionaires are the equivalent of the crazy cat lady. It's basically a form of hoarding. If you've got more than you can spend in a hundred lifetimes, and you hold onto it anyway, how is that different from the person who hoards more old newspapers, glass bottles, and cats than they have any real use for? Especially when there are others struggling to survive. I wouldn't appropriate their assets, but I don't see holding onto a billion dollars as something to be proud of.

You're right, I'm not a billionaire, though I do enjoy a standard of living that allows me to vacation in Sri Lanka (assuming my passport shows up before March 1). And I got there by working hard and not doing stupid things. But I also had a lot of help along the way, and I don't think asking me to pay some of it forward is a terrible injustice either.

[Life of Brian]

And yet, it’s horrible public policy to allow people to starve or die of treatable illness. Those problems do in fact bleed out into the rest of society.

Yes, in the extreme sort of cases you mention I completely agree. I do think it's another area that requires a hard and realistic look at whether mass-administered governmental programs are the best tool for that job: how well they can actually target true needs, how much overhead they consume, and what sort of unintended consequences they provoke. As a country we used to be much better at looking out for our neighbors -- that dynamic is still strong in some communities, particularly in rural areas, but in general I fear it's become a bit of a vicious cycle where government programs are set up to fill gaps and then people individually help each other even less because they're paying the taxes so they figure the programs should take care of it. Dollars aside, it seems like we're losing touch with a dynamic that helps bind and personify us.

On the other side of that, though, is that I view billionaires are the equivalent of the crazy cat lady. It’s basically a form of hoarding. If you’ve got more than you can spend in a hundred lifetimes, and you hold onto it anyway, how is that different from the person who hoards more old newspapers, glass bottles, and cats than they have any real use for?

Showtime's "Billions" is actually my current stream-me-to-sleep show, and it feels like they nail the dynamic pretty well: while part of it comes from loss of perspective and cost of living rising to meet income ("We'd only end up with $30 million? How can we get by on THAT?"), eventually uber-wealth just becomes a way of keeping score amongst the uber-wealthy.

But, then, no doubt there's a huge slice of the world that would very similarly view the range of wealth and type of lifestyle that you and I enjoy while rationalizing that we're just comfortably getting by/trying to make sure we're still in the black at the end. Relativity ain't just for physics.

[Absaroka]

"there’s a huge slice of the world that would very similarly view the range of wealth and type of lifestyle that you and I enjoy"

Periodically my wife and I are playing that first world game: where did we put that widget? And then I think of an article once where some woman in Africa was elated because she had come into a 3 gallon plastic jug, because it would make carrying water so much easier. Being so rich that you can't remember where some of your stuff is (i.e. middle class America) is a pretty nice problem to have.

[Life of Brian]

Periodically my wife and I are playing that first world game: where did we put that widget?

Yeah, it's such a blend of frustration and rank embarrassment when we have to face the fact we have too much "stuff" to be able to find it. Even worse is when it's something we actually need in the short term, which sometimes ends in just buying another one... lather/rinse/repeat.

[Armchair]

Plenty of places don't have a constant supply of water. Here's a town in Utah that it occurred to.

https://kslnewsradio.com/1970435/this-southern-utah-town-has-run-out-of-water-in-the-middle-of-june/

Rio Verde Foothills has a number of private residences with water, due to their private wells, and a number that don't have private wells, so were having it trucked in from Scottsdale. Scottsdale cut them off, so they purchased it from EPCOR, a major water company.

[Nige]

Expect lots more of this.

[OtisAH]

There’s no such thing as a “libertarian.”

[Sarcastr0]

They're out there. But actual libertarians are like hothouse flowers, and need a rarified environment. Academia works; as do certain intellectualized businesses (I'm reading about Enron now).

But the moment they leave their bubble *bam* they're just Republicans with a self-image issue.

[SRG2]

I think lots of self-styled libertarians are either asymmetric libertarians - they trust themselves so gubmint should stay away, but they still favour gubmint ruling over "those people", Rand Paul libertarians - Federal gubmint bad, state gubmint good, or cachet libertarians - they think that calling themselves libertarians gives them an intellectual cachet they wouldn't get if they described themselves more accurately. To a first approximation, all these types are, in reality, right-wingers/Republicans.

I like the David Brin approach - forget principles. Does a given policy lead to more freedom as an outcome? For example, if a policy can be shown to produce well-educated and motivated entrepreneurs who set up private businesses which will fuel the economy, it doesn't matter if the policy goes against libertarian principles.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm a functionalist myself, and I see liberty as an inherent good as well. But I also like my liberty to be operational - maximizing the choices people can *actually make*. All people, not just the well-to-do.
So my liberty isn't purely economic.

It turns out, to libertarians, this makes me a statist-Marxian-tyrant.

It's pretty funny, really.

Oh, and don't forget the age of consent thing libertarians keep tripping into!

[Randal]

I wish this post had gotten a response. I think it captures the subtle difference in what the right and the left mean by “liberty” much better than the tired debates about what “socialism” is for versus "libertarianism."

[grb]

To be honest, most of my exposure to libertarians comes from the Reason site on the other side of the fence. Judging by the commentators there, most "libertarians" are probably surly teenage boys still seething with rage because Mommy made them eat their brussels sprouts as a child. Me? I like brussels sprouts. So there isn't a lot of common ground.

[Commenter_XY]

grb, I like brussel sprouts, too. Very healthy for you.

Easy recipe for roasted brussel sprouts for busy lawyers who don't have time to mess around making good food for themselves. Do yourself a favor and buy organic brussel sprouts. I want you to eat well.

https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/67952/roasted-brussels-sprouts/

Enjoy!

[grb]

I cooked a similar recipe at Thanksgiving, but mine had a touch of maple syrup as a glaze.

[Brett Bellmore]

I always get the organic veggies; The ceramic ones are hard on your teeth.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, roasted is the only way to fly IMO -- usually cutting them in half for more browning, and making sure to trim the stems enough to release some individual leaves for an extra crispy treat.

I usually keep 'em clean like your recipe, but I've also dabbled with adders like teriyaki sauce, sliced Fresno chilis, and maple as grb mentioned. Ultimately hard to go badly wrong.

[Nelson]

I love roasted Brussels sprouts, but any cruciferous vegetables tastes great roasted. I highly recommend romanesco. Not only is it delicious, it's the coolest looking vegetable ever. Its florets are fractals. And it roasts so well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_broccoli

Tell me that isn't the coolest looking thing ever! My math geek soul and my cooking geek soul have found their perfect throuple partner.

[Nelson]

It's seasonal (early spring/late fall) and I feel like the late fall crop usually has more vibrant flavor than the spring crop.

[SRG2]

There are plenty of fifteen-year-old libertarians of all ages.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

There’s no such thing as a “libertarian.”

That would be a reasonable conclusion for someone whose sole point of reference were The Volokh Conspiracy.

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of Right-Wingers Prancing About in Unconvincing Libertarian Drag

[Frank Drackman]

Go eat a Biscuit Ole Munch

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When people ask whether AI can outperform a human, the most important question is 'which one?'

[Kazinski]

Using a series of micro-communities in the west is hardly the best way to prove a thesis as broad as libertarian cities fail.

This passage reminds me of a rather famous bet: "I mentioned how Ayn Rand holds an attitude best described as “cornucopianism.” She treats every natural resource as inexhaustible. Nothing ever gets scarce or runs out, so nothing needs to be conserved."

"The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich's published claim that "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, "to stake US$10,000 ... on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run."

Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

[SRG2]

Using a series of micro-communities in the west is hardly the best way to prove a thesis as broad as libertarian cities fail.

On the contrary, micro-communities are exactly what you need to test any political idea. At a micro level, socialism works. It doesn't scale up. If something can't even work at a micro-level, it makes no sense to think that it will work when scaled up.

[Sarcastr0]

Ahh yes, the 'True Libertarianism has never been tried' card.

Works on all ideologies, in this imperfect world of ours!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what makes this housing development libertarian?

[Michael P]

Was "at least some of" the cocaine on Hunter Biden's gun pouch Hunter Biden's cocaine?

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/18/legal-blow-hunters-defense-hammered-by-discovery-of-cocaine-on-gun-pouch/

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit everyone I think Hunter Biden is guilty of this gun crime!

What a new development!

This is surely proof Joe Biden is a criminal mastermind.

Tune in next time for a new and important investigation of how big Hunter's hog is, as HunterWatch continues to rehash stuff everyone knows and pretend it's news.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think there's any factual dispute that he's guilty as hell. The only real dispute is whether the law he violated is constitutionally legitimate.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree, though I would also note that the charging choice does seem out of the norm according to folks on here who know federal practice. But them's the breaks in our system.

Michael P and John Turley seems to think that dead horse deserves some whacks though.

[Michael P]

the charging choice does seem out of the norm according to folks on here who know federal practice.

Only if they’re being dishonest. Stories like https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/09/lying-atf-gun-purchase-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/ try to make you think that, but if they’re being even remotely honest eventually admit something like this:

A 1990 Justice Department feasibility study noted how difficult it was to bring cases against people who falsely answer questions on Form 4473. Unlike the rich paper trail that exists for felons, no such record exists for drug abusers, the study said, noting that it is against the law to disclose “the medical records of persons who have been engaged in a drug rehabilitation program funded by the federal government.”

Charges under this statute are rare because it’s rare to have enough evidence to build a solid case. End of story. Most cases don’t have a memoir by the accused detailing the timeline of drug use, timestamped photos of the accused using a crack pipe, or cocaine residue on the pouch that the accused used to carry the gun in question. If they did, charges would be a lot more common.

[loki13]

Michael P,

I will put this nicely; given your tendency to reject (often with bizarre ad hominem accusations) the legal statements of actual attorneys who practice (such as DMN upthread), you do realize that most people will find your statements less credible than either their own experience, or the legal acumen of those with experience in federal criminal practice.

Something to think about.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Charges under this statute are rare because it’s rare to have enough evidence to build a solid case."

Also because most "violations" are typos, when examined.

[Noscitur a sociis]

[citation needed]

[billardl]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow for the federal government to require a 4473 in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's as much the lack of any constitutional power to regulate intra-state transactions, but, yeah.

[loki13]

It is weird, isn't it, that the same people who seem to crawl over every thread demanding that Trump is being mistreated because the prosecution against him is selective, or, um, a bill of attainder (I can't even) break out the popcorn for Hunter Biden.

There is, perhaps, something to be learned there, but the lesson would be lost.

(FWIW, I think that the CIVIL case against Trump in New York that just concluded is legitimate. I think that the criminal case against Biden is legitimat-ish, to the extent that he broke the law, but he is certainly being prosecuted in a manner differently than normal. But, as you say, those are the breaks.)

[Life of Brian]

It is weird, isn’t it, that the same people who seem to crawl over every thread demanding that Trump is being mistreated because the prosecution against him is selective, or, um, a bill of attainder (I can’t even) break out the popcorn for Hunter Biden.

I think to most normal people not captured by tunnel vision over a Very Clever Point they feel compelled to express, it's not even remotely weird that the same people who have an issue with multiple ancient wastebasket laws being dusted off and applied to new fact patterns for the first time in order to "save the Republic" from one particular individual, would also rejoice that finally -- finally -- one of the Untouchable Beautiful People is being prosecuted for under the same laws and for the same knockdown common behavior as that already widely prosecuted among the hoi polloi.

[Sarcastr0]

Normal people sure seem like unprincipled, resentful assholes!

[SRG2]

As there has never before been a president who has attempted to steal an election, and encouraged his supporters to prevent the election of a new president, it is unsurprising that some laws are being examined for the first time.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware of the "must stop the Third Reich no matter how" position -- even explicitly mentioned it in the post you responded to!

But regardless of our disagreement on how overwrought that might be, that has nothing to do with the supposed duplicity Loki was trying to conjure up.

[SRG2]

There is always hypocrisy and duplicity - there are no shortage of Trump supporters who insist "innocent until proven guilty" in Trump's case while chanting "lock her up" about Hillary and insisting on her guilt

But a response to a post doesn't have to stick closely to the main thust of that post. I was pointing out that there is a reason why an "ancient wastebasket" law was being examined anew.

"must stop the Third Reich no matter how" seems a little over-strained. While many Trump supporters would have voted for Hitler - I have no reason to suppose their psychology differs to any great extent from the Germans who did - that doesn't make Trump Hitler. But if one feels that Trump has the potential to be a dictator, or would at least attempt to be one - an incompetent one, IMO - then using legal means to prevent it is not obviously wrong.

This is all of Trump's own making. If he'd accepted the result of the 2020 vote within a week or two of the election, rather than continuing to claim fraud and ginning up his supporters, he would not be having this problem now. So he can fuck right off.

[Michael P]

I think we found out that there's no constitutional right to lie to the government "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United State", even if what you were talking about was clearly legal, and even if the FBI agents interviewing you thought you were being honest.

If a crack addict wants to buy a gun, they need to challenge the laws about that directly, not just lie on a federal form and claim oppression later.

[not guilty]

"If a crack addict wants to buy a gun, they need to challenge the laws about that directly, not just lie on a federal form and claim oppression later."

Think so? In a pre-enforcement challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(3), how would an addict plead and prove a credible threat of prosecution by federal authorities sufficient to confer standing?

[Michael P]

Why do you think a pre-enforcement challenge is necessary? If they completed the form honestly, the law prohibits the FFL from completing the transfer. That’s a freestanding violation of (alleged) rights, especially in states that require even private transfers to go through FFLs.

[not guilty]

Why do I think a pre-enforcement challenge is necessary?

Refresh my memory. Who was it that said, "If a crack addict wants to buy a gun, they need to challenge the laws about that directly, not just lie on a federal form and claim oppression later"?

What do you understand the phrase "pre-enforcement challenge" to mean, Michael P?

[Michael P]

I understand it to mean that you're engaging in your usual insufferably lame shtick again.

Do you contend that filling out the form, being denied a purchase/transfer, and then challenging the law that mandated that denial would be a pre-enforcement challenge? The alleged hypothetical injury to the cocaine addict would have already occurred.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You don't understand your own argument, and complain when called out on your ignorance.

LOL.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like dead EVs are piling up due to the current cold wave gripping a large part of the country like dead armadillos on a Texas highway.

[Frank Drackman]

Electrons are just like people, they don't move so well when it's freezing.

[ThePublius]

That's funny, but it's not actually true. Think superconductivity, which occurs at very low temps. The problem is battery chemistry. First, you can't safely charge these at low temps, they have to be warmed up, by the batteries themselves, or the charging system. Then, apparently, the self-discharge rate is higher in very low temps. And, in low temps the demand on them is higher, due to the resistive cabin heater (or now, only lately, the heat pump heater, which is more efficient than the resistive kind).

Still, I can "recharge" my ICE (ha, ha, no pun intended) car in about 2 minutes. My only worry is that the battery will struggle to start it at low temps. But I can get a jump pretty easily and quickly....

[Mr. Bumble]

I wonder, does AAA offer roadside assistance for EVs out of power?

[ThePublius]

It appears they are running a pilot program: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2023/07/update-electrifying-aaa-member-benefits/

Tesla provides roadside assistance, but it seems they were unresponsive in Chicago and other areas where the cold crippled the cars.

[Mr. Bumble]

It would seem that the only logical response would be to flat bed them out, with a diesel powered truck, to a safe location.

[ThePublius]

That's what they've done, flatbed to the Tesla charging stations, where the cars are refusing to charge. One guy said he'd been plugged in for three hours or so and still nothing.

In the cold you would usually invoke a "preconditioning" mode, which will condition the batteries to charge. I think it's automatically invoked if you're driving and navigate to a charging station, or you can invoke it manually.

I think there's some kind of system design flaw, as you would assume the charger would first heat the batts and then charge. Perhaps it's that the battery heater is inadequate at those temps, especially after cold soaking for some time.

[Krayt]

In Alaska you plug your car in when parked so a heater can keep the engine warm…old gas engines. Clearly then need something like this here, as well as a cold winter mode that estimates power remaining, including keeping the batteries warm (enough) to still charge.

Do people just run them until they are at 0%? How did they get in this state to begin with?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume they develop driving habits during normal weather, failing to realize that, unlike ICE cars where the range is largely unaltered by use of the heater or extreme cold, EVs have dramatically reduced range in cold weather.

[ThePublius]

I think it's that the cold causes the self discharge rate to increase, and/or slows the chemical reaction in the battery.

[ThePublius]

As far as plugging and ICE, I think that's so for diesels, not so much for gas cars. Diesel fuel can turn to sludge in cold temps.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a thing for gas cars, too, in places where the cold gets really extreme. It's not so much that the car categorically won't start, as that you'll be halfway to your destination before the defrosters start working. (Which is why those annual "You don't really need to warm up your car in cold weather!" PSAs are BS.)

Before modern oils, though, even the ICE cars would be in trouble in extreme cold, because an oil that was viscous enough at operating temperature would be pretty much solid at -60.

[Nelson]

I learned about this when I did a clinic in Fairbanks, AK. The heater is more for the oil pan than the engine itself, since in the winter it gets too cold for it to flow.

They also get something called "ice fog". Apparently if it gets cold enough the moisture in the air condenses around the pollution molecules and creates ice crystals. It forms an impenetrable pea-soup fog. Is that crazy or what?

[Don Nico]

The batteries can be Li-ion batteries cnabe dangerous at charge levels below 20%. I expect that the electronics in Tesla's prevent running the batteries down that far.

[Kazinski]

There are unauthorized workarounds for the problem:
"A toaster placed under an electric vehicle by its owner to warm up its battery likely caused a fire that destroyed the car and damaged a nearby house in southern Denmark, police said Monday."
https://www.autoblog.com/2023/12/04/ev-fire-in-carport-was-likely-caused-by-the-toaster-used-to-warm-the-battery/

[ThePublius]

Speaking of which, I have been meaning to get a new car battery. My car is a 2013 model. I put a new battery in it - I don't recall when! Could be five years ago.

A note on lead acid batteries. Buy them by weight, i.e., the heavier, the better (more lead); and buy them as fresh as possible.

There aren't many companies making them, so you can pretty much ignore the label.

The freshness is important because a lead acid battery that's been sitting at less than a full charge will suffer sulfation of the plates, resulting in reduced capacity, and ultimately failure.

WalMart has the freshest batteries, in my experience, and they have a sticker with a date code on them. A 750CCA Group 24 battery (EverStart Maxx) is $140, which is a great deal. I usually install them myself, but my current house's garage isn't heated. Might make an appointment at a WalMart auto center. I don't know what they charge for installation.

[Commenter_XY]

Do yourself a favor, open up the owners manual, and buy the battery the manufacturer recommends. Makes a difference for older cars.

[ThePublius]

They are standardized. Mine takes a BCI Group 24F

[Mr. Bumble]

With most vehicles today you are limited to the Group size your car calls for. If there is a choice I always choose the highest rated CCA.
Bad idea to ever go into winter in a cold climate with an old/weak battery. If in doubt have it load tested.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Powerlines actually work better in cold water because they dissipate heat quicker.

Up North, when it's -35 and the car is outdoors, it's not uncommon to get quick disconnects and take the battery inside overnight.
A warm battery is still warm when put into cold car --- starts right up.

Start in neutral with clutch also down, as vehicle will start to move -- in neutral -- from thick gear oil engaging gears. Seriously...

[Longtobefree]

What is this clutch thing you speak of?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anti-theft device.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, when I was going to college in Michigan's upper Peninsula, I would bring my car battery in every night. This was mostly due to having a hard to trace leak in the electrical system, (That car was a real beater!) that would discharge the battery overnight, but it sure did help with starting.

[Sarcastr0]

Haw haw libs are miserable.

[ThePublius]

Where did that come from?

[Sarcastr0]

The post I replied to.

[ThePublius]

I guess I don't get it, was it sarcastic? I mean, the OP didn't say anything about liberals.

[Sarcastr0]

It's schadenfreude about EVs. The right fucking hates EVs. This is not hard to figure.

[ThePublius]

Well, you're projecting that onto the OP, so who knows. I'm a conservative and not a fan of EVs, but it's not based on politics, it's based on my experience and knowledge as an electrical engineer, and my analysis of the entire auto environment. Surely we don't want to debate that here.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, I didn't fall off the turnup truck.

[ThePublius]

Do you drive an EV?

[ThePublius]

BTW, I wasn't implying that you were ignorant or unintelligent, or anything like that. But if you drive and EV, or promote the use of EVs, I'd like to hear you make the case.

[Frank Drackman]

It's Clean Energy!! Generated by Elves in the wall! Not like the electricity's coming from burning natural gas/coal/oil or splitting Atoms.

[Mr. Bumble]

For a take on the history of EVs:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/01/electric-vehicles-cars-of-the-past.php

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, I was just about to post that link!

Know that I think there are good applications for electric vehicles. The foremost one, in my opinion, is for local postal delivery vehicles. They can go back to the barn at night to charge, and current range is completely adequate for letter carriers. But then, they cost more, weigh more, and unless they change to delivering the mail at night (!), they can't very well charge them via solar power, not without a massive investment in electric storage at the barn.

[ThePublius]

In addition, for postal delivery, if one really buys the CAGW narrative, I think we should go back to horses.

When I was in college I worked in a liquor store in the Bronx(!). The owner had had a variety of jobs after WWII, one of which was as a milkman. This was in the '50's, and into the early '60's. They still used horses for the delivery wagons! He liked it, a lot, because the horse quickly learned the route, and would just follow him along as he went down the street delivering the milk. The horse would even pause when he needed to return the empties and pick up new bottles en route, as the horse learned the routine as well. Then, when the route was finished, my boss would climb in and nap as the horse took the wagon back to the barn. When they switched to gas delivery vans he quit!

[Nige]

Been saying it all along. EVs are a dead end/red herring. Public transport, high speed railways, proper biking and walking infrastructure in urban areas.

[ThePublius]

I agree with part one, disagree with part two. The idea that North America can go generally to public transit, high speed rail, biking (I don't know what "proper biking" is), and walking is a misguided utopian perspective. Biking works in some places, like The Netherlands, because it's flat and fairly temperate. You would have to be an Olympic athlete to bike in my former town, which is all hills. And, things aren't as densely packed as they are in Europe, or cities.

High speed rail is a folly here, except along certain corridors, like Boston to D.C. - and they haven't been able to do it, despite a century or more of trying. Plus, the only places it does exist, it's heavily subsidized by the government, as in Japan, France, and China.

Public transit is dangerous. Even in the 1970's, anyone concerned for their safety only used the subway during rush hours. It was very dangerous around the time school let out. In many places it has descended into squalor, people peeing and defecating, in addition to robbing or just outright assaulting you.

The car is king, especially in the U.S. There's no turning back from that. And it's going to be ICE for the foreseeable future, unless someone develops Mr. Fusion.

[Nige]

'Biking works in some places'

It's a huge chunk of continent, the US is, with many types of topography, there are plenty of places where cycling works, plenty where it doesn't, theres no need for a dumb uniformity. Farms will need their tractors and pick-ups. Cities don't.

'Public transit is dangerous'

All forms of transport are dangerous, even walking you can slip and fall, but few match the sheer bloody horror of automobiles.

'The car is king, especially in the U.S.'

It's a fatal design flaw, for sure, doesn't mean it can't be changed. You can have energy independence, or you can have all those cars, there will never, ever be both. And in terms of climate change, it's a suicide pact.

[Frank Drackman]

Nige-bot would make it about 50 yards in Atlanta before the Natives stripped him on anything of value.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Seems like dead EVs are piling up due to the current cold wave gripping a large part of the country like dead armadillos on a Texas highway.

Much like prematurely dead clingers are piling up (in the can't-keep-up conservative communities, especially Appalachia, the Deep South, and the flyover Midwest) due to lousy education, bad judgment, substandard character, stupid conduct, deplorable communities, etc?

In today's America, if you live in a state with a Republican senator, you are moving toward replacement in an expedited manner. Two Republican senators? Well . . . bye!

[Frank Drackman]

you left out the Fent-a-nol (It's pronounced "Fent-a-nill", but I'm tired of fighting the Idiots) and Meth that's largely responsible for the declining life expectancy. And if you really want to talk about a Demographic group that dies prematurely, it ain't the one you're talkin' bout (Willis). How more "Prematurely" can you die when you're killed before being born?

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Addiction and street pills in particular involve poor education, bad judgment, substandard character, stupid conduct, disaffectedness, indolence, deplorable communities, and likely other factors associated (not exclusively, but strongly) with America's desolate, Republican, can't-keep-up rural backwaters.

[Frank Drackman]

Bad judgment, substandard character, stupid conduct, disaffectedness, indolence, deplorable?? You just described Hunter Biden.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He might qualify as at least an honorary clinger if there were some evidence of his bigotry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's actually gross stupidity -- the 12 volt battery goes dead and that prevents the big high-voltage battery from charging because the 12 volt circuit controls it. So you add a $40 12 volt charger to your $4000 charging station. How complicated is that?

It's how stupid this stuff is....

[ThePublius]

No Crisis at the Border, says Biden

"“Mr. President,” one of them asked, “would you call the situation on the southern border a ‘crisis’?”

“No,” said Biden, according to the White House transcript, “but I wish they would react. I’ve been pushing them—my Republican colleagues—since I got into office. I think we have to make major changes at the border. I’ve been pushing it. I’m prepared to make significant alterations at the border. And there are negotiations going on for the last five weeks, so I’m hopeful we’ll get there.”"

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/17/no-crisis-at-border-biden-says/

Wow. Biden called for immigrants to "surge the border" during his campaign for president, and has willfully ignored the torrent of illegals. Now, it's somehow not a crisis, despite even blue cities complaining, but it's also somehow the fault of republicans.

Remember when Trump was in office how the WaPo and other outlets catalogued Trump's (supposed) lies? What about this Biden guy? Someone could publish The Big Book of Biden Big Lies.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden called for a surge of US personnel to hear acylium claims, not of migrants.

Ah yes the eternal evercrisis on the border. Well, there's a deal most of the GOP likes, but the Freedom Caucus doesn't want to give Biden a victory in an election year.
Maybe take it up with the partisan assholes you elected putting party above country.

“Let me tell you, I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating,”
- Rep. Troy Nehls,

[ThePublius]

Are you trying to say that when Biden called for immigrants to come in that presidential debate, that he meant that CBP personnel should surge the border, not the immigrants? Holy cow. Talk about spin!

Here's the video:

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

[Absaroka]

Would you happen to have a vid of that that's longer than 13 seconds, just so I can hear that in context?

[ThePublius]

Here you go.

To hear his unequivocal for for asylum seekers to surge to the border, FF to 1:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEneSVG54HI

This clip is 12 minutes 19 seconds. It's from a 2019 primary candidate debate.

[Absaroka]

Thanks!

To be honest, I'm not sure what he is saying, or who is trying to 'surge'. He fairly often leaves me wondering what he is trying to say, and this is one of those times.

[NOVA Lawyer]

[talking about being proud to have served with Obama] then:

“What I would do as President is several more things, because things have changed. I would, in fact, make sure that there is…that we immediately surge the border. All those people are seeking asylum. They deserve to be heard. That’s who we are.”

So ThePublius’s take is that when Biden says “we immediately surge the border” he is referring to himself and all the other immigrants? Are you serious? Which is to say, are you that unfamiliar with standard English?

Yes, if you look at some subsequent sentences, you can kinda sorta think he also says people “fleeing oppression” (not all would be immigrants, not economic immigrants, but people “fleeing oppression”) in their home countries should come to the U.S., but it’s disingenuous to pretend the “surge the border” is a request to immigrants. (which is how ThePublius represented the statement)

Rather, it’s bleeding obvious, that the “surge the border” was a statement of what “we”, the United States government under President Biden, would do (which, from context, pretty clearly means sending resources to hear the asylum claims because “they deserve to be heard”, though if you want to quibble it isn’t entirely clear what the U.S. would do when surging the border, sure, but it’s clearly “we”, meaning Biden and his future administration, doing the surging, not “them”).

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, if on taking office he'd immediately ramped up border enforcement, no one would doubt that benign interpretation.

The problem is that on taking office, he scaled back border enforcement, and illegal crossings went up about 5 fold in the space of a couple months. And he's actually been putting a lot of effort into actively preventing border enforcement, like suing states that try to pick of the slack, having the border patrol removing border obstacles the states put up.

Making what was probably just Biden's usual foot in mouth phraseology start to look plausibly like an announcement of intent.

[Randal]

You think Biden was able to implement "open borders" in just a couple months?

Or, could it be that all the anti-immigrant messaging and talk of "open borders" under Biden by the Trump campaign encouraged immigrants to wait Trump out and try their luck under Biden?

Your brain knows the answer if you let it!

[Sarcastr0]

Haha Speaker Kevin McCarthy's youtube channel. Good times.

13 second clip that does not say what you think it says. It's not got the clarity of something written, but you're taking an absurd parsing.

"I would make sure there's an immediate surge to the border." You think Biden was talking about his authoritative control of migrants, or maybe was he talking about US policy, as surge has been taken to mean after Iraq?

[ThePublius]

It doesn't matter who posted it, it's Biden in the video, do you not agree?

[Sarcastr0]

No, I don't think it's Biden. I think it's a deep fake Obama in a Biden mask, being directed by aliens via his Covid-19 vaccine.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Are you unfamiliar with the word “we” and that when a person says “we” he refers to himself and people in his group (in this case, the U.S. government or, at least, his then-future administration)?

Did you have home schooling?

[Life of Brian]

Biden called for a surge of US personnel to hear acylium claims, not of migrants.

Hey, your dictation software you don't take time to proofread taught me a new word today!

[Bwaaah]

Democrats, in response to the current 10,000 incoming immigrants per day, tried to cut a deal with Republicans that said that they'd start enforcing border expulsions, but only to get the crossings down to 5,000 per day (based on 7 day trailing average). Once down to 5,000, the proposed law would drop enforcement again to the current non-enforcement level.

So clearly, there isn't an immigration problem for Democrats, and Republicans are creating one, and Joe Biden wants something done about "it."

[Nige]

So Republicans aren't interested in actually tackling the problem at all.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly! Because favoring a policy that for now lowers a rate but does not completely end it means you want the rate to be infinite.

When I find myself adding bonus 'clearly' in what I'm writing, I find that a flag that maybe I don't even really believe it myself.

[Brett Bellmore]

What this makes clear is that the Democratic goal is maintaining illegal immigration at a very substantial level, higher than it was before Biden took office. Otherwise you'd say, "We got it down to 5,000 a day? Great, let's keep this up, it's working!"

But, no, they WANT illegal immigration. They're just haggling over how much they can get away with, and their minimum demand is higher than historical norms.

[Sarcastr0]

Can you think of other reasons why you would want to incrementally deal with the status quo? Anything, perhaps, humanitarian or practical?

No, it's Great Replacement Forever for Brett!

[Brett Bellmore]

You're suggesting we find a way of effectively stopping illegal immigration, and then stop using it when we get the rate down to only 2-3 times historical norms of just a few years ago. And asking if I see any reason for doing that besides wanting illegal immigration.

No, I don't. You DO want illegal immigration. You just want it at levels you think are politically survivable.

[Sarcastr0]

Just a few years ago, Trump was being performatively cruel.

I don't think it's a sign of a secret agenda that Dems don't want to go that rout.

I don't want illegal immigration - I think they're the new peasant class and we treat them like dirt to goose our economy and it sucks.
I've said this many times; you just don't understand any motive but nativism or Great Replacement so you slot me where you would.

I just want to treat them like humans as we unwind the incentives on the business-end.

That you can't see humanitarian or practical reasons for not putting the pedal to the metal on border enforcement is because you don't want to see it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Just a few years ago, Trump was being performatively cruel."

Compared to historical norms like Operation Wetback, Trump wasn't even close enough to performatively cruel to see it with a good set of binoculars.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, that's OK then!
(Though did Eisenhower separate families?)

[Bwaaah]

See how they work? The immigration laws mean one thing when there are more than 5,000 immigrants a day, and another thing when there are fewer. (Actually, laws means little to them every day, as long as they can get away with their manipulations.)

[Sarcastr0]

I can't tell from what you wrote, but this looks like a simple exercise of executive discretion. It's all over the place, and not a sign of bad faith, illegality, or inconsistency.

The discretion in our immigration law is known to be extraordinarily broad.

[Nige]

It's more the difference between trying to deal with the issue in a calm, methodical manner and just screaming and crying hysterically without ever actually doing anything other than scaling up human rights abuses.

[Randal]

Once down to 5,000, the proposed law would drop enforcement again to the current non-enforcement level.

I assume for budget reasons? Biden would stop all illegal immigration if Congress gave him the appropriations to do it. Is he just asking for enough to get the rate down to 5,000 to start with?

Update: yup.

“Well, Republicans have to pass funding,” Biden said. “They have to — I’ve read one Republican said, ‘We don’t want our border fixed, it’ll only help Biden.'”

[loki13]

I was wondering if someone was going to think about writing the way in which supposedly conservative jurisprudence has done a 180 in the past 40 years. I was thinking about this specifically in the context of Chevron (of course). While most of the people who comment here don't understand it (or understand why), Chevron was actually, for the time, part of the attempt by conservatives to wrestle control from the unaccountable judiciary and place it back into the accountable elected branches (even though it was merely ratifying a shift that had been occurring for some time). Which meant, to borrow the phrase, that elections matter.

But of course, it's not just Chevron. It's a number of different areas. I think about this more and more. Mostly when I see whatever the "supposedly" conservative members of the 5th are up to. I have some different ideas, but I wonder if it's just that conservative jurisprudence has simply adopted, sub silentio, its own version of legal realism. The process and the rules aren't important, so much as the result.

Or maybe it's because the jurisprudence is mapped more closely to partisanship than it was in the past.

Well, spitballing there. I should say this before the inevitable "What about the librulz judgez" comes in. Having internally adopted a lot of the viewpoints of conservative jurisprudence (process, rules, standing, careful analysis of text, minimalist rulings, etc.), I find the current approach anathema.*

*By the current approach, I don't mean many of the great judges that remain on the bench, but instead the recent wave of "Ima do what I want" judges.

[Sarcastr0]

https://jabberwocking.com/conservatives-are-taking-yet-another-shot-at-expertise/

Nut graphs:

"The truth, of course, is that overturning Chevron wouldn't rein in the "administrative state." It would simply give more power to judges. Back in 1984 when judges were viewed as too liberal and Ronald Reagan was president, conservatives preferred the administrative state. Today, with a more conservative judiciary, they prefer taking their chances in court.

What's really behind this, of course, is not any real concern with federal agencies per se, or with Congress writing clearer laws. It's the long evolution of the conservative movement against expertise of all stripes. The original justification for Chevron was the simple and obvious observation that modern life is complicated, and in cases of ambiguity it was better to leave things to subject matter experts rather than judges with no relevant knowledge. That's still the case, but movement conservatism has turned so hard to the right that it simply doesn't want to bend to reality anymore. It wants what it wants, full stop. From climate change to environmental rules to labor law to reproductive rights, it knows perfectly well that it can get its way only by a wholesale denial of reality. Nerdy bureaucratic scientists will never go along with that, but judges might. So Chevron has to go."

[Krayt]

What a silly last paragraph. “Starry-eyed” doesn’t cut it, glowing eyes like a Who from Whoville views of unelected people with power to throw you in jail or issue massive fines.

In both cases, executive or judicial, Congress should speak clearly.

Freeing wildcats to regulate so politicians can throw up their hands and say, "I didn't do it!", while waggling fingers to reign it in a tad is just what the corruptions ordered.

[EscherEnigma]

Am I the only one who looks at 40 years of Chevron, and Congress taking no action, to mean that Congress --regardless of who is president or who holds majority in the legislature-- is happy letting civil servants do the hard work?

Face it, Congress has a really big hammer to swing if it doesn't like how some agency is interpreting a law. Take out Chevron, and you're not forcing congress to "do it's job" or to craft better laws or anything, you're just inserting the courts between agencies and congress.

[loki13]

If I had to think of a common thread in all of the various areas, it is this.

The past conservative jurisprudential ideas all had one thing in common- the judiciary is not a legislature, it is certainly not a super-legislature. Maybe saying that they just "call balls and strikes" is too simplistic, but they aren't supposed to be making policy. Largely, this was a response to some of the 1970s overreach (especially some of the cases involving long-term intervention, and restructuring) that the judiciary had been involved in.

More and more, it seems that this foundational principle that animated all of those ideas has been reversed.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm less generous than you are. The 1990s turn towards judicial minimalism and originalism was a political project, not a judicial one.
It wasn't a reaction to the judicial philosophy of the Warren Court, it just used that as cover to excuse their unpopular political plans as though they were dictated by their fidelity to the law. It was never in good faith.

But academia is not easily held to a political agenda, and over time the bad-faith nonsense turned into the mask, and started doing originalist scholarship and adopting judicial minimalism as a paradigm.

So now you have a split personality Federalist Society, one part wants judiciary-as-political weapon, the other wants judiciary-as-robot.
The attacks on Chevron align with both agendas at the moment. The robot faction has wanted this for a while, but couldn't move until the weapon faction came around.

In general for now, it's uneasy bedfellows. But we'll see for how long.

[loki13]

Eh, I would say that this predates the 1990s- it was definitely "in the air" in the 1960s, and gained real traction in the 1970s and '80s.

That said, I think that "minimalism" and "originalism" are very different beasts. While there might have been some concepts that tied originalism to minimalism at the beginning, in practice originalism is a maximalist philosophy, and not (small-c) conservative at all.

[Sarcastr0]

I will admit I wasn't around, and my take on the history is hearsay (some of it from Baude's *other* podcast!)

Fair take on minimalism and originalism. My understanding is that they were both deployed at the same time by the same people for the same political push.
The attack on Chevron is a good example of how they are opposing in most intances.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not quite the same people. You had the originalists, mostly outside the government, who wanted a judiciary that would vigorously do the job they'd actually been given, instead of playing at legislature.

They were dealing with people inside the government that were happy to stop the playing at being a legislature bit, but really wanted the judiciary to just get out of the way.

Political movements outside government always get distorted by the motives of the people actually in positions of power.

[bernard11]

I don't think originalism is a philosophy at all. I think it's a marketing gimmick being used to sell partisan right-wing decisions to the public.

Way back when, the segregationists and their fellow-travelers talked about the need for "strict construction," which was code for "We hate all these pro-civil rights decisions." When that became obvious there was a switch to calling it "originalism," which term proved a powerful marketing device.

[Bwaaah]

"So now you have a split personality Federalist Society, one part wants judiciary-as-political weapon, the other wants judiciary-as-robot."

Have you ever considered the merits of arguing in good faith?

[Sarcastr0]

Good news! my opinion above is in fact offered in good faith, even if it makes you mad!

[Bwaaah]

“Good faith” means you represent the opinions of others as they intended them, not as you conveniently misinterpret them.

Your [bigoted] characterization of what people in the Federalist Society want is laughably false, and typifies your inability to address issues as they are (instead of how you wish they were).

[loki13]

No, that's not what "good faith" means at all.

If he is making his claims in good faith, EVEN IF YOU THINK HE IS WRONG, he still making them in good faith because he believes them.

Let me illustrate-

Imagine you have two people-
Abe thinks that lizard people control the government and are sucking out children's brains.
Bob doesn't believe this, but likes to argue it because it makes other people angry and because nothing matters except politics or something.

Abe might be a loon, but he is arguing in good faith.
Bob isn't.

[Bwaaah]

It would be a bad faith argument for Bob to say that Abe believes normal humans control the government, when Abe believes that "lizard people" control the government.

[loki13]

Um, yeah .... and?

That's the point. The fact that you completely disagree with someone (or their opinions, or their characterizations), doesn't mean that they are arguing in bad faith.

It's entirely possible for people to have good faith (and wrong) opinions and beliefs. Throwing around "bad faith" like a manhole cover doesn't usually help matters.

[Sarcastr0]

No, that's just being wrong, without further information.

[Bwaaah]

In the best of faith, I want to thank you both for having agreed with me.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, bigoted is not the right word to sue.

The Federalist Society is a group of choice that people choose to be in. You can no more be bigoted against the Federalist Society than you could be bigoted against latte drinkers.

I see 2 types of people currently in the Federalist Society
- Trumpists, who want the judiciary to be weaponized, out of revenge
- Hubristic originalists, who think the law must be made to hew to their chosen ideal, other methodologies are all pretexts, and real-world consequences bedamned.

This conflict is well noted in Gorsuch. He's mostly a robot of the second type. And he's excoriated when his mechanistic application of the law doesn't own the libs. But he's not excommunicated...yet.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Public meaning originalism in both theory and practice fits in pretty well with the rejection of expertise formulation.

In theory it believes judges today can definitively determine what a historical society understood a document to mean, even though that society constantly debated the meaning and implications of the document

In practice its even more ridiculous. Judges can simply disregard any expert or prior judge who comes to a different conclusion on original public meaning no matter the evidence or methodology is used. For example Gorsuch are allowed to simply substitute his own views on non-delegation no matter how much work other experts and judges have done to show that the current conservative formulation is wrong.

[bernard11]

No one being sure what "original public meaning" is, if it is even a well-defined term, leads to another question I have.

Millions of people in this country have taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution..."

What the originalists are telling them is that they don't really know what they've sworn to, what it is that they are bound to support and defend, even if they read the document carefully before swearing. If they want to know they have to ask Clarence Thomas or, if he's busy, maybe Josh Blackman.

Doesn't seem right.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So… What do you think they’re swearing to defend?

[gVOR08]

It's simpler than that. Decades ago J. K. Galbraith wrote that the only entities that could countervail the power of big corporations were big unions and the government. They've largely succeeded in eliminating big unions, now they're trying to make it impossible for the government to govern. Requiring that Congress, which can't pass a budget anymore, write every word of regulation ensures that government can't govern. Which would allow them to spill oil freely, dig up every last ton of coal and oil without hindrance, and take whatever financial risks they want. (They will, of course, expect government to bail them out of the consequences.)

[David Nieporent]

You may have read some hysterical leftist commentators argue that abolishing Chevron would mean the end of the regulatory state. It would not. Nothing in these cases would require Congress to "write every word of regulation." The only thing Chevron deference is about is who gets to decide the best interpretation of a statute when it's ambiguous — a court or an agency.

[gVOR08]

And the Koch Bro(s) types are doing their damndest to buy the courts.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

And even under the most deferential reading of Chevron deference, courts must still determine if the agency is making a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

[SimonP]

I think this is 100% what's behind the sudden emergence of interest in "common good" constitutionalism. Originalism and strict constructionism were useful hammers for beating back liberal constitutional and statutory interpretations. But now that they have a solid majority they no longer see any reason to hold back from reading their moral order directly into the Constitution itself.

The challenge, of course, will be responding to all of the comments to the effect of, "deh libz did it FIRST!!!!" Is there any distinction between the modern conservative activist project, and the liberal counseling of restraint and incrementalism? Is this really just about who has power, when?

[loki13]

I think a person could say it's just power. But I think (in terms of the legal profession) it's a bit different.

For the most part, the conservatives won the battle in the 1970s and 1980s in terms of the overall approach to the law re: minimalism and incrementalism. I would argue that many of those philosophies were internalized by the legal mainstream to such an extent that it was the default approach, even for many liberal practitioners and jurists (not all, of course, but many).

If you think about it, "judicial activism" became a pejorative - not just used by conservatives, but in general. Which is why we see all sorts of attempts to dress up what is going on now is various terms, but it is ... judicial activism.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect that what's behind it is the same general phenomenon that led to Trump, at a high level of abstraction, anyway.

You pursue some cause, and while you're succeeding in the pursuit, the people at the top suffer failures of nerve, and start watering it down. To the point that, in your moment of triumph, you find you got... a watered down version of what you'd been fighting against in the first place!

So you recalibrate, and pursue something more extreme, in the hope that by the time it's been watered down, you'll still get what you originally were fighting for.

We got Trump because, every time conservatives 'won', they got Democrat lite. So conservatives decided to stop supporting the 'adults in the room', and switched to the lunatics who, after they crashed into reality, might actually deliver what the 'adults' refused to. And it sorta worked! Trump was embarrassing as hell, but he actually DID some of the stuff other Republicans ran on doing and then couldn't be bothered to do in office. He'd have done a lot more if he hadn't faced a Congress of 'adults' fighting him every inch of the way.

In the same way, it was a long hard fight getting originalism accepted. But all the while conservatives were fighting for originalism, the originalist theorists were suffering failures of nerve, and compromising. Liquidating this, construction zoning that. So in the moment of triumph, when the entire Court makes originalist noises?

There's only one Justice who'll even say that substantive due process is bullshit. Slaughterhouse is secure. Wickard is secure. The rest of them shrink from the implications of the theory they supposedly hold.

So you replace the fuses with pennies, turn the amp up to 11, and try again...

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, is it possible that it was a reaction to the previous 30-40 years before that (thinking of Warren Court influence) that helped develop conservative jurisprudence?

[loki13]

I think that there was a deep strain prior to that. Judicial minimalism has very old roots, of course. 🙂

That said, yes, the specific conservative revival in 1970s was certainly a response, not just to the Warren Court, but more to the overall judicial approach in the 1960s and 1970s which saw judges become much more involved in not just "the big cases" we all think about now, but injecting themselves into micromanaging all sorts of issues and institutions, often for years on in.

Don't get me wrong- often the impulses were good (many starting with getting rid of discrimination after ending Jim Crow, root and branch), but it spread to everywhere- schools, prisons, you name it. From that arose the general issue.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like Pakistan has now attacked what they call terrorist sites in Iran in retaliation for Iran’s recent strike on Pakistan. So glad the “adults” have been in control for the past three years.

[hobie]

Biden's policies regarding a separatist clan in Iran's Mashhad region has clearly been lacking. Lord, the wingnuts today have been grasping at straws

[not guilty]

James Carville posits an interesting suggestion about Donald Trump's hands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2XEg-khkaM

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course that's what you'd expect from the syphilis riddled brain of Carville.

[F.D. Wolf]

I listened to oral arguments in the two Supreme Court cases in which the Court may decide to do away with Chevron deference. Attorney Paul Clement was on fire describing what an epic 40-year disastrous experiment it had been. He seemed to speak uninterrupted for about three minutes. I don't recall the justices allowing anyone to speak so long without interruption. (Granted, I don't exactly listen to a great many oral arguments).

[Bwaaah]

I'm not a lawyer, but I regularly read court decisions. And it seems that whenever I see a government agency implementing either a rule that seems easily outside the meaning of the statute, or an enforcement action that seems easily outside the meaning of their regulations, Chevron deference is their only defense.

Chevron deference: Let the government do whatever it wants as long as it can state what it wants in a semantically valid sentence.

[Sarcastr0]

Chevron actually says that experts in the area are more likely to have a better understanding of the lay of the land than Internet randos who read court decisions, and hand-waiving use ‘easily’ based on their non-expert gut.

Also works for judges who are also non-experts.

Remember, Chevron is a two-part test, and the first part requires a judicial finding of ambiguity. And courts don't just ignore that initial determination. So 'let the government do whatever it wants as long as it can state what it wants in a semantically valid sentence' is not a proper description of Chevron.

[Mr. Bumble]

Here you go again with deferring to experts.
These cases boil down to a simple matter of funding. The agency wants on board monitors of these vessels and wants the fishermen to pay for it.
These are not large corporations and the cost could put them out of business. Fact is they are not opposed to the monitoring but to the source of funding to implement it.

[bernard11]

In this particular case I disagree with both of you. I don't think the fees are "easily outside the meaning of the statute," but neither do I think an expert on herring fishing would be of much help in settling the matter.

Still, given the lack explicit statutory authorization for the fee I'm inclined to go with the fishermen here. Partly I'm influenced by the fact that the cost seems very high to me. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it does affect my attitude.

[Sarcastr0]

An agency is also an expert about it's enabling statute. Agencies have OGCs, you know.

[F.D. Wolf]

One of the great tragedies if Chevron is that it has disturbed the constitutional order. It encourages Congress to be lazy. They seem happy to pass off all their constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch. It gives members of Congress more time to get rich off insider trading and graft, make pointless speeches, and investigate their political opponents.

After the Supreme Court held that Congress had not authorized Biden's student loan forgiveness, a lot of members of Congress condemned the decision. As I saw that, all I thought was, "You're the f*cking Congress! If it's so damned important, pass a law! Or at least propose one." But that would actually mean doing their job. Votes are hard. Votes can be controversial. You might lose your job over one. Why not just leave the work to some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat at the Department of Education?

As another example, it is unbelievable (and unconscionable) that Congress has not legislated on the topic of cryptocurrency, even in the wake of the FTX scandal. Again, why should they bother? Let some kid over at the FTC or the SEC find some obscure section of some statute from the 1930s which he can use to claim ultimate authority over the issue.

[Martinned]

Yes, that's the problem. But it does mean that overturning Chevron creates problems for the legislation that was passed in the meantime. In an ideal world, you'd overturn it but not with retroactive effect.

[F.D. Wolf]

Yes, and presumably the Court would have the sense to say precisely that should it eliminate Chevron deference. The decisions made under the Chevron regime would still be binding precedent.

For example, say a congressional statute had given the Department of Transportation power "to set a reasonable weight limit for trucks". The DoT passed some regulation setting that limit at thirty tons. Someone sued, complaining that was not reasonable. The Court, invoking Chevron held it was reasonable. That holding that the regulation was lawful would still be binding on lower courts.

[David Nieporent]

One of the great tragedies if Chevron is that it has disturbed the constitutional order. It encourages Congress to be lazy. They seem happy to pass off all their constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch.

Abolishing Chevron deference would not require Congress to be any less lazy. It's not a non-delegation doctrine; it's just a question of who decides what statutes mean. If you abolish Chevron, Congress can pass the same sorts of laws, and executive branch agencies can still issue the same sorts of regulations, subject to the APA's requirements of course. All it means is that when someone challenges one of those regulations, or an enforcement action is brought against them for violating those regulations, the courts would ask, "Is this regulation based on the best interpretation of the statute?" rather than "Is this regulation based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute?"

[F.D. Wolf]

Legislating is hard. Crafting compromises to get a majority vote is hard. It's easier just to call your buddy over in the executive branch who can get you everything you want just by issuing a regulation based on some "ambiguity" in a statute (a vague term with far from clear and consistent definition or usage by the courts). This option is all the more attractive because, under Chevron, the government almost always wins. (I might add, on skewing the constitutional order, not only is the legislative branch ceding its responsibilities to the executive branch, so is the judicial branch, by ceding its ultimate interpretive responsibilities to the executive.)

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the Administrative Procedures Act.

Regulating is also hard, as it turns out!

[F.D. Wolf]

Perhaps the Supreme Court should have checked out the Administrative Procedures Act before it decided Chevron, but it apparently deemed it not worthy of a single mention in its opinion.

[Sarcastr0]

You're taking a very narrow view.

Getting a rulemaking out is not just 'lets do it, courts can't tell us what to do!'

It takes like 2 years to get a rule out, including 2 rounds of public comment.
And then there are in most agencies independent internal processes to challenge a rule as it applies and as it was procedurally promulgated.

And if the interpretation is unambiguously wrong, it still dies under Chevron.

This wild west idea of administrative agencies is a complete misunderstanding of basic rules of beurocracy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This anachronistically white,
odds-defyingly male, right-wing
blog has operated for

THREE (3)

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

THREE (3)

occasion (so far) during 2024
(that’s at least three discussions
that have included a racial slur,
not necessarily just three racial
slurs; many of this blog’s
discussions include multiple
racial slurs,)

This blog is more than matching
its deplorable pace of 2023, when
the Volokh Conspiracy published
disgusting racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.

It is likely these numbers miss
some of the racial slurs
published regularly by this blog;
it would be unreasonable to
expect anyone to catch all
of them.

This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
gay-bashing, misogynistic, Islamophobic,
antisemitic, racist, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, and immigrant-hating slurs
(and other bigoted content) published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding, disrespected right-wing fringe
of modern legal academia by members
of the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog’s stale, ugly right-wing thinking, here is something worthwhile.

This is a good one, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones pointers:

First, Keith and Willie tag-team a standard. If you like this one, check the version from Willie's 90th birthday bash.

Next, Charlie chugging in open G; don't miss the final ten seconds.

[BrotherMovesOn]

A drummer and a gentleman!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bespoke, the final time I saw him.

[bernard11]

Starts off great, but the audio starts breaking up at 1:30.

Was it OK when you watched it?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Yes

[Reallynotbob]

Virginia found thousands of missing votes from the 2020 presidential election!

https://26d73768-aba6-4644-905b-6ea5efbfc5d6.filesusr.com/ugd/d8ec42_4838ad7c950247ae9cf010d85b4654c1.pdf

TL;DR: Trump got fake votes and Biden got shorted by a net of about 4,000 votes. (But the margin was way larger.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, we now know what sort of vote fraud it's actually permissible to take note of...

[grb]

Well, Brett, if it helps you have my permission to report on any voting fraud you can find. Please feel free to go at it! And given the right-wing obsession with finding any “evidence” of fraud, I’m sure you can come up with something, right?

Strange that you can’t. Strange that Trump can only produce jokey evidence disproven over and over. Of course deep state machinations has to be the explanation! In a nation where half the states are run by the GOP (which is wholly in the bag on their voting fraud lie) the Truth is still Hidden because They won’t permit it to be Exposed.

In short, another Brett-style conspiracy. Or a day ending in “Y”.

[SimonP]

There's this notion called "God of the gaps," where the divine ambit is always found just beyond the reach of human knowledge and understanding. We stop believing in a natural world that acts according to the whims of the gods as we start to understand meteorology and seismology; we stop believing that the gods are in the stars when we start understanding that they are actually balls of gas light-years away; and so on.

Brett's conspiracy-mongering follows a reliably similar pattern. The election fraud always occurs precisely where we do not, and cannot, prove that it isn't occurring. Once we prove that it is not here, then logically it must be there, and so on.

[David Nieporent]

Did you bother to read the story? There was no fraud.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Birther Brett Bellmore and the Volokh Conspiracy's right-wing commentariat don't need to read no stinkin' story.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who said anything about fraud (other than delusional, autistic, antisocial, disaffected, gullible, backwater, right-wing losers?)

[Nige]

Well now we know the sort of fraud you think is irrelevant.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Reports indicate Alina Habba might be the worst lawyer we have observed yet from Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force.

You know seems to agree? Alina Habba: "I don't know how to try this case, Your Honor."

Related: Anyone know whether disciplinary authorities have begun to address Alina Habba's alleged conduct concerning that golf course worker?

[billardl]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/us/attorney-general-garland-uvalde-victims-thursday/index.html

Contrast this to the response to the Christian school shooting by the tranny in Nashville. The difference? In Nashville, brave white men were the cops.

In Uvalde, they were all of Mexican descent.

[David Nieporent]

When MAGA sends us racist trolls, they're not sending their best.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

MAGA doesn't send them so much as a bunch of Federalist Society law professors summon them.

[Frank Drackman]

That Homo who pussied out at the Parkland Shooting was a Honky.

[billardl]

But his boss was a Jew, so not surprising.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Because your right-wing cred has been vividly established, the Volokh Conspirators -- Volokh, Bernstein, and Blackman in particular -- are going to issue a pass to you for that one.

And, the record indicates, for any others you wish to contribute.

Ackman Passes, to be specific.

[Reallynotbob]

You mean famous "mexican" DPS director Steve McCraw, who covered up for the police response?

Or did you mean "mexican" Ryan Kindell of the Texas Rangers who decided the guy shooting kids wasn't an active shooter?

[billardl]

The police chief and most of the SWAT officers were Mexicans. Look at their brown hues.

[ThePublius]

A lighter topic.

A few years ago sales of vinyl records surpassed those of CDs. Of course, digital downloads have passed all of that by miles, but generally, the quality is poorer.

Since I moved and retired I'm revisiting my interest in Hi-Fi, and resurrecting some of my vintage Hi-Fi gear.

I had revisited Hi-Fi about 12 years ago, and then I bought some high quality digital downloads, and had a hi definition digital to analog converter. Sounded so much better!

But now I've discovered that there's a company that's been in existence since about 1977 that makes vinyl directly from master tapes. They are not cheap, and the process is such that they are limited production. But, holy cow, you would not believe how good they sound! The company is Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs.

I found out about these by visiting a local vinyl records store. I was amazed at how many such stores there are nearby! A nice guy on one demonstrated one of these Mobile Fidelity records for me, an Elvis record, and I was blown away. Wow.

I'm restoring some Marantz components from the 1970's - I recently set up my electronics lab in what was my office - and I can't wait to fully deploy this system, and acquire a couple of those recordings.

Anyone else into Hi-Fi? Familiar with Mobile Fidelity?

[Bwaaah]

You need to hook all that stuff up with gold-plated Monster cables. That way your sound doesn't get degraded down to digital-level fidelity. (Sorry...I couldn't avoid being sarcastic.)

It seems to me that even "direct to disc" is a process of sampling and then degrading to disc. I get the nostalgic quality of vinyl, but the whole sound quality pitch reminds me of when CDs first came out and vinyl lovers insisted, "Vinyl has such a warm sound, while CDs are cold and inanimate."

I miss [pop] the [hiss] warm sound of records.

[bernard11]

I miss [pop] the [hiss] warm sound of records.

Don't forget the fun of cleaning the records, and flipping them every 20 minutes or so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, vinyl is noisy, while CD's (can be) digitally compressed, and so lossy, and I suppose noisy and lossy don't quite sound the same.

The problem with the CD's is that most CD manufacturing techniques produce CDs with a finite shelf life. Oxygen gradually diffuses through the plastic, combines with the ultra-thin reflective aluminum layer, and when enough of it has been transformed into transparent aluminum oxide, standard CD players can't read them anymore. Even though the data is still there. Unless you're buying archival quality CDs, of course.

The shelf life for the vinyl is that the shelf life is great, but it's direct contact read, so they gradually wear out. The answer to that, of course, is a non-contact laser turntable.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"A few years ago sales of vinyl records surpassed those of CDs. Of course, digital downloads have passed all of that by miles, but generally, the quality is poorer."

You're not trying to say vinyl is more accurate, are you? LOL.

[Bwaaah]

No...he meant he meant he meant he meant

(sorry...that's my imitation of a repeating record skip)

[ThePublius]

Well, regardless of LOL, it depends. Some CDs are highly compressed, which results in loss of fidelity. Some vinyl is poorly produced and pressed, which results in loss of fidelity. But, a superb vinyl record, as from Mobile Fidelity, for example, can far exceed the fidelity of a run of the mill CD. SACDs are very good, don't get me wrong! But many "regular" CDs suck. And, a lot of difital downloads are highly compressed, and suck ,too. I have purchased some hi-def digital, and with good reproducers they can sound great. As I said, it depends.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's right, it very much depends. It also depends a lot on the quality of your other equipment, particularly your amp and speakers. Frankly with the vast majority of inexpensive equipment, you won't be able to hear much of a difference.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

CDs are a lossless version of the original audio. All things being equal, vinyl is not going to be 'better' than that.

[ThePublius]

That's just not so, Jason. Digital sampling and reproduction are inherently and practically lossy. Why do you think SACDs were developed?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It is true, actually.

CDs cover the entire range of (safe) human hearing in both frequency and SNR.

SACDs, aside from multi-channel audio, are for people who think gold-plated RCA cables sound better than regular ones.

If you'd like to argue against the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem and Fourier Transformations, you're welcome to do so, but I suspect a lot of mathematicians will be extremely interested in checking your work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

[not guilty]

For those whose tastes run to sniffing bedsheets, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and several other media outlets have sued to unseal records in Nathan Wade's pending divorce. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24362457/motion-to-unseal-wade-v-wade-1.pdf

I hope the motion is granted. The more transparency, the better.

[not guilty]

Fani Willis has filed a motion in Cobb County, Georgia seeking a protective order in regard to the deposition subpoena served upon her by Nathan Wade's estranged wife. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24367013/fani-willis-emergency-motion-in-nathan-wade-divorce-case.pdf It makes for interesting reading.

[Kazinski]

As I predicted a few days ago the judge has scheduled hearings on the allegations against Willis, and ordered her to respond to the allegations, not ordering Roman’s lawyers to prove the allegations, at least not yet:

“The Washington Post has a more detailed report explaining that Judge Scott McAfee has ordered Willis to respond in writing to the allegations by Feb. 2, and he has called a hearing about the accusations and scheduled it for Feb. 15.

McAfee is also presiding over the RICO case involving Trump and 18 other co-defendants. Willis is alleged to be in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, an attorney with little experience in corruption cases whom the DA hired to serve as a special counsel in the Trump case.

"Willis has declined to address the accusations directly so far," reports the Washington Post's Amy Gardner and Holly Bailey. "McAfee’s order appears to be forcing her to do so in televised court proceedings, a development that could at the least be embarrassing for the district attorney and at worst derail the investigation completely."

https://pjmedia.com/chris-queen/2024/01/18/breaking-judge-orders-hearing-on-fani-willis-investigations-n4925615#google_vignette

[not guilty]

The judge has ordered a response by February 2 and has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for February 15. https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-trump-judge-schedules-february-hearing-on-willis-allegations/VCDYL4JFGNE4VKPNDYR26POXQU/

It is called an evidentiary hearing because the burden of production (and usually the burden of persuasion) is on the party seeking an order from the court. By scheduling that hearing, Judge McAfee has ordered Roman’s lawyers to prove the allegations of the motion. The DA's response may or may not narrow the scope of the issues, but the burden here is on the movant.

As Ron White is fond of saying, you can't fix stupid.

[Kazinski]

"Willis has not directly addressed the allegations, and a spokesperson has said it would all be addressed in court filings."

Doesn't sound like she's planning to stonewall the judge.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/18/fani-willis-misconduct-hearing-nathan-wade-relationship-trump-georgia

But we're going to just agree to disagree, at least until the hearing in February, because that will settle the question.

[not guilty]

What does that have to do with who bears the burden of production at an evidentiary hearing on a pretrial motion?

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed, every man is entitled to his own opinion -- but not to his own facts.

[not guilty]

If the allegations of Fani Willis's motion for protective order are true, it would appear that the deposition subpoena is an abuse of process. If counsel for Mrs. Wade in the divorce action and counsel for Mr. Roman in the criminal proceeding are trifling with the courts, that may have some collateral consequences.

[Kazinski]

Actually it seems that the evidence of the trips Wade made, and paid for, with Willis come from documents obtained filed in the divorce. The soon to be ex-wife got discovery on Wades financial statements, and thus the proof Wade paid for Willis' trips.

[not guilty]

Where do you get your information? The file in the divorce case is sealed, and counsel for Mr. Roman attached no such documents to her unsworn motion.

[Bwaaah]

The Right talks about what's wrong with our government's policies, while the Left talks about what's wrong with the Right. Unsurprisingly, Joe Biden is now trying to run on an ad hominem platform. "Why should you re-elect me? Because I'm not that other guy." (Economy: not a problem. Crime: not a problem. Immigration: not a problem. The Right: *that's* a problem.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Maybe they should run on "My Body, My Choice".

After all, which side required women to take one vaccine just to work at a place with fifty or more employees?

[Reallynotbob]

That shouldn't bother Republicans these days.

[Nige]

The government trying to manage a deadly pandemic. Everybody else's right to bodily integrity was a major issue.

[Martinned]

Externalities is still a difficult concept to grasp, I see.

[Sarcastr0]

The Right talks about what’s wrong with our government’s policies, while the Left talks about what’s wrong with the Right.

Holy wow. The evil of the Democrats and making them suffer is TRUMP’S ENTIRE PLATFORM!

[Bwaaah]

Economy: not a problem. Crime: not a problem. Immigration: not a problem. The Right: *that’s* a problem.

[David Nieporent]

Correct on each of those points, yes. The economy, crime, and immigration are not problems; the economy is strong, crime is low, and immigration is good. The fact that the right rejects basic norms of democratic governance is a problem.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The economy is remarkably strong.

Clingers whine about whatever they can. They complain about grocery prices, which are still a bargain and constitute less than 10 percent (or perhaps less than five percent) of most household budgets. They moan about gasoline prices, which at $2.87 are roughly where they were 15 or 20 years ago.

Unemployment is at historic (half-century) lows despite the pandemic, particularly among Blacks, women, and Hispanics. Jobs are being added at a steady and strong pace. In general, if you want and deserve a job it is readily available. GDP growth is similarly sustained and strong. Business formation also is exceptionally strong. Inflation (3.4% during 2023) has eased substantially, enabling forecasted interest rate reductions.

Or, as Republicans depict it, a flaming hellscape.

[Sarcastr0]

I am aware that you prefer to trust your personal local experience, generalized across the US without much thinking.

That doesn't say a lot about Democratic politics, just says a lot about you being too self-oriented.

[Ed Grinberg]

you: "The economy is collapsing. Crime is out of control. Illegal immigration is totally out of control."
Sarcastr0: "You're just being selfish."

[Sarcastr0]

I just trust statistics rather than instantiating my personal experience as the universal truth.

The number around here who oppose that on principle is pretty shocking.

[Nige]

The right tried to overturn an election and install Trump as president. Which is a problem.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a conversation I participated in on Threads.

https://www.threads.net/@mejercit/post/C2P_cYxRxtZ

"The belief that women should be grateful ‘men built the world’ while historically excluding us from several professions and most systems of education is as laughable as it is ahistorical.
You don’t get to claim you won the race after you shot the other contestant in the feet before it started, and then even when they managed to crawl to the finish line, you pretend it never happened."- katiejgln

"It does raise this question.
How were they able to exclude you "from several professions and most systems of education", instead of you doing it to them?"- Me

How would you answer my question?

[Sarcastr0]

I'd say women were pregnant a lot of their adult lives for a lot of history, and that cut down on their ability to make as much of a footprint in business and politics.
Men, left to their own devices, instantiated this exclusion to a greater or lesser extent depending on where you look and when.

It was, in the end, men who gave women the vote.

But now we have The Pill, and women get to have some control over their lives. Turns out they're humans with desires, who knew?!

Are you arguing against the 19th Amendment?

[Michael Ejercito]

No

[David Nieporent]

I'd tell you to stop trolling.

[SimonP]

How were they able to exclude you “from several professions and most systems of education”, instead of you doing it to them?

Conservatives often seem to believe that women and BIPOC are, indeed, turning the tables on white men today - excluding them from professions, higher education, etc. How do you think they've managed that?

If your answer is: political, economic and social changes have put women and BIPOC people on a sufficiently equal footing with white men that, perhaps with the cooperation of a minority of white men, they are able to re-write the rules in their favor - then you may have an inkling of how male patriarchy has been established and maintained in the past.

[Bwaaah]

"Conservatives often seem to believe that women and BIPOC are, indeed, turning the tables on white men today – excluding them from professions, higher education, etc. How do you think they’ve managed that?"

Have you considered the recruiting practices of elite schools? They've managed exactly that, without any secrets. They're even pissed that they've been told to cut it out (by SCOTUS).

[Sarcastr0]

There are plenty of white people in elite schools.

I think the real solution is to broaden what our higher-ups count as an 'elite school.' The gatekeeping via Harvard/Yale/Stanford on your resume has called all sorts of degenerate effects.

[Bwaaah]

Black people: please step forward to the head of the line. Other BIPOCS: you're next. Women: you're third now. White males and Asians, no need to do anything. This doesn't affect you.

(Note the look on the faces of "the Asians.")

[Sarcastr0]

You have 2 teams play one another in sportsball. One you don't let train for a month; the other you give the best of training facilities and opportunities.

Then you have them compete.

And you call it a meritocracy.

[Bwaaah]

You have 2 candidates: one who trained more and performs the targeted function better, and another who trained less and performs the targeted function worse.

You pick the Black one, and complain about what?

[Sarcastr0]

The point is that your test for merit is flawed. At least if your test for merit is looking for potential and talent, and pretends to be anything like fair.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the basis for claiming the test for merit is flawed?

Just that it's not producing the race mix you demand?

[Sarcastr0]

We're talking about the analogy above.

I don't have a preferred race mix. Though you and your stubborn adherence to the debunked The Bell Curve seem like you have one!

[Don Nico]

Nice excuse. But it the end is is just another prejudice.

[Nige]

What's the prejudice?

[Bwaaah]

Of course, Claudine Gay was selected for her scholarship and fundraising experience.

Nothing going on here. Just DEI committees at work. No personal preferences. None of that right wing conspiracy about discrimination.

[SimonP]

Bwah, I don't understand why you felt the need to leave these comments. I was asking Michael how he thought women/BIPOC managed to turn the tables on white men, and you offered no explanation.

Unless, of course, your intention was to demonstrate that they've gotten the upper hand because white men tend to be total morons.

[Bwaaah]

DEI committees perform that function of "turning the tables" (your phrase, not mine). But they don't "turn the tables" on anybody; they simply apply a list of preferences based [mainly] on immutable characteristics such a race, sex (previously treated as being immutable), ethnicity, and sexual preferences. (I forgot to include "LGBT..." people off my DEI preferencing list, but they're on there.)

[SimonP]

Yes, Bwah, I understand that you're a fucking retard. What I was asking Michael was how he thought this situation managed to come about, if (as he was intending to imply) white men are inherently superior to the DEI brigades. Are you having a hard time understanding the point, or are you just responding to text prompts?

[Sarcastr0]

Assuming every black person in a position of authority doesn't deserve to be there is exactly what you are decrying.

You claim to want to treat people like individuals, but you see a black woman and can't get past the color of her skin to even *look* at her resume or merit.

Affirmative Action existing forced you to become virulently racist. A shame, really.

[Bwaaah]

"Affirmative Action existing forced you to become virulently racist. A shame, really."

No. What got me angry was vindictive woke people, who consider it immoral and sanctionable to hold a position that opposes theirs. What got me angry is the fear they successfully instilled in the people around them, normal not-very-political people, such that self-censorship of mainstream ideas became necessary to avoid retribution.

DEI committees and news media organizations are their primary centers of organization and power. Democrats, especially including politicians, are terrified of the angry vindictive woke people, and are mostly silent about this.

I was not only in favor of affirmative action, but an active practitioner of it for decades. Then angry bigots like you, who actually started changing rules and laws to DISADVANTAGE various peoples, came into the picture. And that's not what it was about for me. I was trying to promote disadvantaged people, not demote normal people for their lack of disadvantage.

So keep your lists and preferences of who deserves and who doesn't, and call it "affirmative." In my case, it was nothing but affirmative. In DEI practice, it's downright punitive.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you have some very bad, emotionally-based arguments against a DEI that you've largely made up and does not comport with what is in reality a broad range of people, missions, etc.

Yeah, I'm going to call you out on that. Not because you're against DEI, but because you are way attached to a strawman so your counterarguments are bad and dumb.

Dunno why you'd think I hated your or anything. I hang out with Republicans on a pretty regular basis. You seem pretty sensitive to your comments ad opinions being criticized, and take it personally. But that's on you.

As for the rest of your comment, blaming others for you becoming less tolerant...I know you just hate to do this.

YOU have the agency to not treat third parties like dicks to get at liberals who made you mad; blaming others is a weak-sauce pretense.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

What got me angry was vindictive woke people, who consider it immoral and sanctionable to hold a position that opposes theirs.

If this is another attempt to argue that gay-bashing is not bigotry if the bigot is religious, it will fail.

Superstition does not improve bigotry. Superstition does not transform bigotry into anything other than bigotry. Gay-bashers are bigots. Disgusting, deplorable, obsolete, ready-for-replacement bigots. And a core element of this blog's target audience.

Wait . . . are you trying to defend Nikki Haley's 'this country has never been racist' bullshit? Really? You want to try that one, clinger?

[Don Nico]

There you go again. Extreme exaggeration and distortion of another commenter's comments, just so you can call it racism.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Automatically assuming a black person in any position of authority was an affirmative action hire isn't racist? That's what Bwaaah is doing, and it seems pretty racist to me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ejercito, have you noticed how in the U.S., as religion has become less influential, women have begun to surge toward equality in professions and education? You might want to reflect on that; it might have explanatory value.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is little to nothing in our world superstition can't make worse.

Adult-onset superstition is particularly deplorable. Until age 12 or so, childhood indoctrination is a reasonable excuse for gullibility, backwardness, sacred ignorance, and dogmatic intolerance.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's how I'd answer her comment:
Well, the "good" news is that now women are fully participating in all areas of our economy, government, professions, systems of education, etc. In fact, in many instances they're edging out men. And our world is ... collapsing. (Like that bridge in Miami.)

[Nige]

Yes, it's a bit like when a black man finally got elected president, only after white men had sent the world into a global economic collapse and white people tried to blame the black man for it. If given the chance women might fix the fucking mess men have made.

[nystateofmind]

Interesting, and somewhat unexpected, decision from Judge Willett of the Fifth Circuit yesterday in Book People, Inc. et al. v. Wong.

[Sarcastr0]

Prof Volokh, perhaps unexpectedly, disagrees with this decision: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/17/can-the-government-say-if-you-want-to-sell-us-these-products-you-must-answer-our-questions-about-them/

Comments are still cookin'!

[Michael Ejercito]

Jack Marshall wrote about Brittany C. Pietsch.

https://groups.google.com/g/Talk.Politics.Guns/c/aKbE5e1O8so/m/Ra-8KJrCAAAJ

Ethics Dunce, Life Competence and Workplace Division: Brittany Pietsch
JANUARY 17, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL

My first reaction was to have sympathy for Brittany Pietsch, the
Cloudfare account executive who somehow thought recording her Zoomed
firing and posting it on social media would be a good idea. Then I
learned she was 27. That’s much too old to behave like she did, much
less to be self-righteous about it. Her experience ended up on every
social media platform and was covered by media outlets from the New York
Post to the The Wall Street Journal, and now she is the official “poster
girl” for deluded and entitled young workers who don’t get the
capitalist system and the competitive workplace.

You can see her nine-minute clip here. If you don’t wince through it,
you may need a refresher course in workplace ethics yourself. An at-will
employee, Brittany argues with the HR staff who were assigned to dismiss
her. Here’s a typical exchange:

PIETSCH: “I disagree that my performance hasn’t been– I haven’t met
performance expectations, when I certainly have, just because haven’t
closed anything officially.”

HR REP: “I hear you. Thank you.”

PIETSCH: “Also, why are you doing this and not my manager? We’ve never
met, so this seems a little odd… Yeah, I would love like an explanation
that makes sense…”

HR REP: “Just for clarification, you are not being singled out in this.
Your peers are also being collectively assessed on performance. This is
a collective calibration for Cloudfare…”

PIETSCH: “Well, yeah, no, can you explain for me why Brittany Pietsch if
getting let go?”

HR REP: “I won’t be able to go into specifics or numbers.”

PIETSCH: “Wait, why though? I just started. I’ve been working extremely
hard. Just because I haven’t closed anything, that has nothing to do
with my performance… And so I really need an answer and an explanation
as to why Brittany Pietsch is getting let go not why Cloudflare decided
to hire too many people then are now actually realizing that they can’t
afford this many people and they’re letting that go. If that’s the real
answer, I would rather just you tell me that instead of making up some
bullshit… It’s just very, very shocking. Very, very shocking. I have
like really given my whole energy and life over the last four months to
this job and to be like go for no reason is like a huge slap in the face
from a company that I really wanted to believe in…”

[Quick aside: One of my biases is against people who refer to themselves
in the third person.]

There is only one competent and responsible way to handle the experience
of being fired or laid off, as my father, who was fired almost as often
as I have been, taught me. Accept the news, tell your supervisor that
you enjoyed working for him or her, shake hands, wish them the best, and
leave with your head high. “You never know when you might have an
opportunity to work with the same people, and it is always wise to leave
a good impression as you leave,” Dad said. With the exception of my
first job, every other one before I started my own business ended with
me being told that it was time to go. After I exited the U.S. Chamber oc
Commerce and gave my farewell performance for the organization’s
president, my old boss called me and said, “Whatever it was you did, it
was brilliant. They wondered if they made a terrible mistake by letting
you go!” I always got glowing references from the organizations that
canned me, and that old boss hired me to do a project for him a few
years later.

Megyn Kelly, the ex-Fox News host and a lawyer, was brutal in her
assessment of Brittany’s confrontational exit interview. “You’re not
calling the shots here, Brittany,” she wrote. “You’re an employee. You
don’t get an answer because you’ve demanded it from HR. I am sick of
these young, entitled people trying to play the victim when something
happens to them. This has happened to all of us in the course of our
lives and we used to understand that it sucks, but I go on with my life.”

I wonder how Pietsch got the crack-brained idea that trying to impugn
her former employer this way was a shrewd career move. I wouldn’t hire
her. She told the New York Post that although she hadn’t intended that
the video get the kind of attention it has, she doesn’t regret sharing
it. Yeah, we’ll see about that, kid. I think there is a substantial
likelihood that you will regret it, as Rick Blaine told Ilsa, “maybe not
today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.”

She also told the Post that she has been inundated with messages from
other, out-of-work 20-somthings who wish they had done the same thing.
Yes, and that may explain why a lot of them are unemployed just like
Brittany.

Thanks to the bad publicity, Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, felt
he had to comment on the video on Twitter/X. “We fired [about] 40 sales
people out of over 1,500 in our go-to-market org. That’s a normal
quarter,” he wrote in part. “When we’re doing performance management
right, we can often tell within [three] months or less of a sales hire,
even during the holidays, whether they’re going to be successful or not.
Sadly, we don’t hire perfectly. We try to fire perfectly.” He then
criticized his company for not having Pietsch’s supervisor involved in
the kiss-off meeting. Prince is right about that, but it doesn’t excuse
Brittany. Again, Kelly was brutal.”You’ve invited the company to
publicly humiliate you,” she wrote. “They could tell in your limited
time on the job that you weren’t up to it. You admitted you didn’t close
deals…Go find someplace else where they like you and work harder…Keep
your head down and your mouth shut.”

I’ve had to be the firer far more times than I’ve been the firee: once I
had to fire an entire staff made up substantially of single mothers. As
an artistic director, I’ve had to fire actors in the final week of
rehearsal; once I had to fire a 9-year-old girl. I’ll take getting fired
over being the one doing the firing any day. Once you’ve had that
experience, the Golden Rule should kick in. Most of the time, the person
firing you has no choice in that matter. Don’t make that person feel
worse by acting as if you have been destroyed. He or she usually feels
terrible already.

Come to think of it, that was one way Brittany’s conduct was less
destructive than it might have been. Mostly it hurt her. The HR staff
probably left the encounter thinking, “Boy, are we lucky to be rid of
that woman!”

[Z Crazy]

Here's another video of her.

https://www.tiktok.com/@brittanypeachhh/video/6858677088589745413

she's such a cute white girl! I'd love to marry her and make her preggers!

[Michael Ejercito]

I understand the sentiment.

Still, she took a sales job. Probationary sales agents have quotas to meet.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

she’s such a cute white girl! I’d love to marry her and make her preggers!

Why would anyone expect comments such as this at a white, male, right-wing blog that targets obsolete, on-the-spectrum culture war casualties as a target audience?

[Michael Ejercito]

There is nothing wrong with normal boys and normal men wanting to marry a white girl and "make her preggers".

If you do not want a white girl, you do not have to have one. I do not recall anyone on this blog writing that you have to have a white girl.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

OK. Publicly offer to make Prof. Volokh's daughter "preggers." Let's see some clingers walk the walk after talking the talk.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yeah, that's what I figured.

Replacement can not occur too soon.

[Kazinski]

JP Morgan CEO on Trump and MAGA:

“Jamie Dimon has a warning for Democrats: Don’t dismiss Trump supporters as people who are exclusively attracted to his personality. Former President Donald Trump was right about some critical issues, the JPMorgan CEO says.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/business/jamie-dimon-trump-maga/index.html

It looks like Wall Street is starting to reconcile itself with a second Trump term.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not dismiss Trump supporters as people who are exclusively attracted to his personality.

I dismiss them as half-educated racists, superstitious gay-bashers, economically inadequate losers, disgusting white nationalists, chanting antisemites, obsolete Islamophobes, on-the-spectrum misogynists, worthless immigrant-haters, deplorable transphobes, Federalist Society misfits, backwater dumbasses, and antisocial culture war casualties.

[Bwaaah]

From Mediate: https://www.mediaite.com/election-2024/jamie-dimon-warns-dems-to-go-easy-on-trump-negative-talk-about-maga-will-hurt-biden/

Dimon: I wish the Democrats would think a little more carefully when they talk about MAGA. You know, and if you travel this country. The country’s unbelievable. … People are growing. They’re hungry to grow. They’re innovating. It’s everywhere. It’s not just Silicon Valley. So we’ve got this great hand.

But when people say MAGA, they’re actually looking at people voting for Trump, and they think they’re voting, and they’re basically scapegoating them, that you are like him. But I don’t think they’re voting for Trump because of his family values. If you just take a step back, be honest. He’s kind of right about NATO. Kind of right about immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. I don’t like what he did–

Sorkin: I know he said “China virus.”

Dimon: Yeah, I understand. And I don’t like how he said things about Mexico. But he wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues, and that’s why they’re voting for him. And I think people should be a little more respectful of our fellow citizens. And when you guys have people up here– You should always ask the “Why.” Not like it’s a binary thing, “You’re supporting Trump, you’re not supporting Trump.” Why are you supporting Trump? […] The Democrats have done a pretty good job with the “deplorables,” hugging onto their Bibles and their beer and their guns. I mean, really like, can we just stop that stuff and actually grow up, and treat other people with respect to listen to a little bit? And I do think the economy will affect I think there’s this negative talk about MAGA is going to hurt Biden’s election campaign.

One CEO spoke, and signaled that maybe conservatives (or “right-wingers”, or “Republicans”, or “Trump voters”, …) should not be treated like just a bunch of manufactured MAGA-TOOLS.

Twenty-four hours have passed, and no big blowback at Dimon from the NY Times or Washington Post. (LA Times took a swipe at it.)

It’s almost as if a respected American leader can say that Trump supporters deserve to be treated more respectfully, and get away with that. If respected people can say forgiving things about Trump supporters, it could become acceptable to have a sympathetic view of Trump supporters. I think Dimon's remarks are what are known as “harmful remarks”.

If they don’t punish Dimon quickly, other respected leaders may believe it’s safe to say that, and they may say the same thing (because many already believe it). This is interesting to me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

It’s almost as if a respected American leader can say that Trump supporters deserve to be treated more respectfully, and get away with that.

People say stupid, baseless things all the time and "get away with it."

[Nige]

Wow, concerned centrists, or people acting like concerned centrists, wagging their fingers at Dems, what a novelty. Trump literally tried to steal an election with the full support of his MAGA crowd, but Dems shouldn't be mean about him or his supporters.

[Bwaaah]

Because anyone who would vote for Trump is either stupid, immoral, or both. (That's the current zeitgeist.)

[billardl]

That's my position on someone who supports transgender sodomy.

[Nige]

How else to explain their support for a man who tried to steal an election?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yeah, there's no similar sentiment among those on the right or in MAGA. Particularly here in the comments section.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is Jack Marshall.

https://groups.google.com/g/Talk.Politics.Guns/c/NRefqPkLhS4/m/s4DR01LCAAAJ

So: The Dire Predictions By Anti-Gun Hysterics Turned Out To Be Wrong in
Florida. Now What?
JANUARY 18, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL

The Federalist recounts some of the furious reactions when Florida
became the 26th state to adopt constitutional carry in July 1, 2023:

“Following mass shootings, DeSantis signs permitless carry bill,” one
NBC News headline complained. In the article, the producer of “The
Rachel Maddow Show” sneered at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for trading
what he dubbed “modest gun safeguards” for an “extreme” and
“controversial” law. Forbes [quoted] gun control groups including
Giffords claiming the pro-Second Amendment law is “dangerous” and “will
drive gun violence up and further jeopardize the safety of our families
and communities”…“It is shameful that so soon after another tragic
school shooting, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a
permitless concealed carry bill behind closed doors, which eliminates
the need to get a license to carry a concealed weapon,” White House
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote. “This is the opposite of
common sense gun safety. The people of Florida — who have paid a steep
price for state and Congressional inaction on guns from Parkland to
Pulse Nightclub to Pine Hills — deserve better.”

“Common sense gun safety.” That’s another one of those BS tell-tale
deceitful phrases—like “gender-affirming care” and “reproductive
freedom” that should start your ethics alarms ringing. But I digress..

Well waddya know! Florida’s biggest cities saw a significant decrease in
violent crimes, including shootings, in 2023. Murders and homicides fell
6 percent in 2023 from the previous 2022 in Jacksonville. Miami. had 49
homicides in 2022, nut last year only 31, the least ever on record.
Miami also experienced a 34% in non-fatal shootings 124 fewer
“non-contact” shootings than in 2022.

There are lots of factors that could explain these pleasant
developments, but you can bet that pro-gun advocates will cite the
statistics as “proof” that more legal guns prevent crime and keep
citizens safer, not the other way around. They already estimate that
“good guys with guns”stop an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, which,
of course, depends on who’s doing the estimating.

It would be welcome, and lead to more productive debates about gun
policies and crimes if the gun-hating left would see the Florida
statistics and simply admit, “We were wrong. I guess we don’t understand
the relationship between guns, crime and violence as well as we
thought.” Then there would be more reason to take their arguments seriously.

Nah. Facts don’t matter to activists and ideologues, on either side of
the partisan divide. Nothing will make them change their minds.
Integrity is usually missing from the equation, as is a sincere desire
and an open mind to determine the truth.

And that, as they say, is why we can’t have nice things.

[David Nieporent]

Well waddya know! Florida’s biggest cities saw a significant decrease in violent crimes, including shootings, in 2023.

That can't be! I was assured that crime was spiraling out of control thanks to Joe Biden and Those People.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I’m all for checking data, but there are a number of flaws in taking any broad lessons from this:

1. Constitutional carry went into effect in July 2023 and these stats, at best, show half a year of constitutional carry and half not compared to a full year of not. It’s possible the drop was all in the first half of the year. You’d need to see half yearly or monthly data to actually make a valid comparison.

2. More importantly, homicide rates were falling in most cities. New York, for instance, saw a 35% drop (or thereabouts) in the two years ending January 2024. Crimes rates rise and fall and it is pretty stupid to attribute any change to any single variable to the exclusion of nationwide trends and a multitude of other contributing variables.

3. You’re probably saying in response to #2 that the point is that the drop refutes the assertion (presumed) that homicides/shootings would increase. The data doesn’t actually answer that.

Again, crime rates are influenced by many things, thus, there may be a drop due to some causes that overwhelm an increase due to a particular policy change. The real question is always what would the rate have been without the change versus what it is with the change. That’s not revealed at all in these stats and is actually really difficult to determine given you can’t run both scenarios with only the one change.

4. The change only took effect July 2023, it’s not like everyone’s behavior changed overnight. Presumably, if constitutional carry results in more people carrying and more shooting crimes, then that likely will be an incrementally increasing effect until everyone has adjusted to the new law (buying guns, holsters, more people interested as they see more of their peers carrying, etc.). It’s not like, say, changing a speed limit on a particular road. Even there, the effects may not be immediate as drivers adjust, but this is something that would take longer to reach any sort of equilibrium.

Conclusion

My point isn’t that people predicting chaos are right (assuming they exist). It’s that it’s kind of hilarious that the author is smugly chastising others for ignoring data, but he is either data/statistically illiterate or he’s dishonestly pretending data answered anything. If his barb was merely aimed at the tiny subset of people who thought constitutional carry would necessarily result in an upward trend of overall homicide/crime statistics regardless of the influence of national crime trends and other factors, sure. But that opinion didn’t really require statistics to skewer. It’s enough to point out such people are idiots. Just as it’s enough to point out that people who think constitutional carry is responsible for the homicide/crime drop are idiots. It may have contributed to the drop. It may have actually lessened the drop. There’s no way to know with these statistics.

I leave it to you as to what to think of someone who posts this article as a good example of logical reasoning, statistical analysis, or intelligent use of data.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If his barb was merely aimed at the tiny subset of people who thought constitutional carry would necessarily result in an upward trend of overall homicide/crime statistics regardless of the influence of national crime trends and other factors, sure."

I'm not clear how else to interpret all this "blood in the streets" rhetoric. The idea that what they really meant was that you couldn't rule out that constitutional carry would reduce any drop in crime, though not to a degree that was big enough to notice, just can't be squared with the level of hysteria.

Frankly, it's the stammering of somebody who just can't get out the phrase, "I was wrong.".

We've seen this show before. Florida started the original concealed carry reform movement, years ago, to similar hysterical warnings. One state after another reformed their concealed carry laws, every time it was predicted it would cause disaster, every time the prediction was wrong. But they never stopped predicting disaster.

They're still predicting disaster. Why does anybody even listen, at this point?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The idea that what they really meant was that you couldn’t rule out that constitutional carry would reduce any drop in crime, though not to a degree that was big enough to notice, just can’t be squared with the level of hysteria.

Bellmore, what fully justifies the, "level of hysteria," is the status quo. If so-called, "constitutional carry," does not deliver marked reductions in shooting fatalities and injuries combined, then it is not meaningfully contributing to self-defense. Do you cite any other constitutional purpose—except the militia purpose or self-defense—to justify public policies to enable increased gun prevalence?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Do you cite any other constitutional purpose—except the militia purpose or self-defense—to justify public policies to enable increased gun prevalence?"

Look at the preface to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Secure the blessings of liberty: Increasing liberty, by itself, IS a constitutional purpose. While not the solitary aim of the Constitution, it is explicitly among the purposes for which the Constitution was adopted.

Constitutional carry is a case of leaving people the hell alone, and the government should always leave people the hell alone if there's nothing to be gained by getting in their faces. Because leaving people the hell alone IS securing the blessings of liberty to them.

If there is nothing to be gained by an infringement of liberty, ANY liberty, the government should stay out of people's faces, and that's an express purpose for which the Constitution was adopted.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, in context, in founder-speak, the, "liberty," referred to there is specific—it is the right of the jointly-sovereign People to self-government. It is collective liberty, not individual liberty. It is not libertarian in any sense. None of the founders were libertarians. They had never heard of that notion.

The founders did use, "liberty," at times to refer to civil liberties. Sometimes, less often, they used, "liberty," even in connection with property rights. The rarity with regard to property is a bit surprising, because many founders were avid about property rights; they feared British tyranny threatened their personal property. But their response to that fear nevertheless got directed toward collective solutions, not individualistic ones—and especially toward joint popular sovereignty, which they regarded as the effectual basis of other liberties, such as a collective right to organize militias.

Of course any notion that unqualified increase in gun prevalence now, or at the time of the founding, ought to be regarded uncontroversially as an increase in liberty is pure presumption—where much more is needed.

You want federal constitutional protection for guns? As a matter of original understanding, that means the militia right. To that, modern judicial activism has added self-defense. There is nothing else, yet. You want to claim more, you cannot claim support from the federal Constitution to justify it.

[Absaroka]

There are a couple of ways to look at things:

One philosophy is 'if X cannot be unequivocally shown to reduce the murder rate, X should be outlawed'.

Another philosophy is 'if X cannot be unequivocally shown to increase the murder rate, X should be permitted'.

You favor the first approach, at least when X=CCW or permitless carry. But if one is of that mindset, why not apply the same logic when:

X='arrests require probable cause instead of a random hunch'
X='convicting criminals requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt instead of preponderance'
X='police can only send in the SWAT team with a warrant'

All those things might - indeed probably could - reduce the murder rate, and yet we apply rule 2, not rule 1 to those. We are, for example, interested in protecting the innocent from erroneous arrests of SWAT raids, even if that 'makes the police fight crime with one hand tied behind their backs', to use the hackneyed phrase. Generally speaking most of the bill of rights shows society's preference for rule 2. If you want to flip that for part of the BoR, I think you have some convincing to do.

Moreover, I haven't seen comprehensive data on permitless carry yet, but we do have pretty unequivocal data on shall issue CCW, and it doesn't result in any increase in crime. John Lott's/Mary Rosh's misleadingly named 'More Guns/Less Crime' has pretty extensive data that shall issue CCW doesn't affect crime rates much one way or the other. You can find smaller studies with carefully cherry picked data on either side of the debate, of course, if you are into that kind of advocacy.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You favor the first approach, at least when X=CCW or permitless carry.

Please quote where I said that. Otherwise, your discussions will be more productive if you respond to what people say rather than to what you imagine they believe.

[Absaroka]

If you follow the threading, I was responding to Mr. Lathrop's comment, not yours.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Touche!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, the data you refer to were the data I looked into years ago, and gave up on. I was unready to suppose that during millions of man-years of concealed carry, no carrier (or was it some tiny number, I don't remember exactly) committed domestic violence which would have justified license revocation. My formerly-journalistic self recognized a news story to be dug out, but I decided to leave that to journalists from Texas and Florida.

What do the Texas and Florida data show today? Unless you can show revocations statistically in the ballpark of an appreciable fraction of domestic violence convictions per capita generally, I will conclude you are gullibly interpreting cooked books, or lax enforcement.

If you wanted to convince me that concealed carriers are only half as likely as others to be domestic offenders (note I do not say convicted, because that is an obvious nexus for lax reporting, and maybe for plea-bargain laxity as well), I might consider that possible. If instead the data show concealed carriers overwhelmingly less likely than others to commit domestic violence, then I chalk that up as another corrupt effect of allowing too much concealed carry. What are those numbers now? How many concealed carriers? How many annual revocations for domestic violence?

[Absaroka]

You are not, in fact, referring to the same data I am. See Lott/Rosh's book for a comprehensive survey, or cherry pick your favorite smaller study that supports you conclusions; there is no shortage on either side.

You are talking about a separate topic, that shows CCW holders are very, very law abiding. I don't find your 'they can't be that law abiding so the data must be faked' argument to be persuasive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, show the data you refer to. Specifically data which show what percentage of your CCW holders have been revoked for domestic violence, and what the total size of the data set is. Then everyone can decide for themselves whether you are reasonable to assert the degree of law abidingness you claim, or whether it is more likely that tiny revocation numbers are a symptom of unreliable data.

You do have specific data in mind, don't you?

[Absaroka]

Read carefully: you keep talking about your faith that the TX/FL CCW revocation books must be cooked.

I. Am. Not. Talking. About. That. We have discussed that before. If you want to have a discussion about it, you will need to provide some argument better than 'the data contradicts my thesis and so must be wrong'.

I am talking about the topic you originally brought up: shooting fatality increase/reduction with different CCW permitting requirements. And for 'You do have specific data in mind, don’t you', for the third time, the most comprehensive source is 'More Guns/Less Crime' by Lott/Rosh. Or pick any of the smaller studies that provide the conclusion you like - there are many on both sides of the debate - and loudly proclaim it is the only valid one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, keep running.

[Frank Drackman]

If you're going to rape an 80 year old woman, you could do worse than E. Jean Carroll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's 50-50 that Donald Trump or Alina Habba will state that aloud in court before the trial ends.

[Kazinski]

The Judge in Jack Smith's Jan. 6th case has ordered Jack Smith to quit filing any motions in the case until Trump's appeal is resolved, again.

She previously ordered the pause but Smith violated it, but she did decide not to hold Smith in contempt:

"Chutkan said she agreed with the contention by Trump's legal team that pre-trial motions filed by Smith's office imposed a burden of requiring them to determine whether or not they are involved in the appeal and necessitate a timely response.

"While that is not a major burden, it is a cognizable one," she wrote. "Accordingly, the court will adopt Defendant’s recommendation that the parties be forbidden from filing any further substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave from the court."
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-dc-election-contempt-jack-smith-chutkan-order-pause-stay

While that is not a major burden, it is a cognizable one," she wrote. "Accordingly, the court will adopt Defendant’s recommendation that the parties be forbidden from filing any further substantive pretrial motions without first seeking leave from the court."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It’s remarkable that you can’t tell the fucking truth.

“Chutkan said she hadn’t previously “unambiguously forbid” the prosecutors from making filings while the case is paused. Her order on Thursday “does not reflect a determination that the Government has violated any of its clear and unambiguous terms or acted in bad faith,” the judge added.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/politics/special-counsel-trump-contempt

WTF is wrong with you? Are you proud of being a liar?

[not guilty]

There is no substitute for original source materials, Kazinski. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.195.0_8.pdf The Court denied the principal relief that Donald Trump sought.

"The Stay Order did not clearly and unambiguously prohibit the Government actions to which Defendant objects." The Court expressly disagreed with Trump's characterization of the stay order: "Defendant claims it contained an 'explicit holding that "additional discovery" and "briefing" would violate' it. Motion at 11. That is incorrect."

Kazinski, did you read Judge Chutkan's order before falsely characterizing it? If so, you are once again lying. If not, you are merely an ignoramus.

[Bwaaah]

Per your point and the order, it seems pretty unambiguous that the judge had *not* issued any such order to "Jack Smith to quit filing any motions in the case." In that regard, the government had clearly *not* violated the court's intentions, neither in fact nor in spirit. Team Trump appears to have fabricated a notion of impropriety here, and the judge shot it down.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Team Trump appears to have fabricated a notion of impropriety here, and the judge shot it down."

Not before Kazinski and his piss-poor choice of news media opened up and swallowed the whole load.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Kazinski. Did you read Judge Chutkan’s order before falsely characterizing it?

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty, did I misread Judge Chutkan's order? I hope so. The Guardian has reported thus:

In her six-page order prohibiting the special counsel Jack Smith from filing motions pending the appeal, Chutkan affirmed that Trump would get the full seven-month period and that any time that elapsed between December and the end of the appeals process would not count against him.

“Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the court has not and will not set deadlines in this case based on the assumption that he has undertaken preparation when not required to do so,” the judge wrote.

The line marked the first time that Chutkan has acknowledged that the March trial date may no longer be viable. While the DC circuit is expected to issue a decision on the immunity appeal expeditiously after oral arguments last week, it could be weeks until a decision is handed down.

Trump can also continue his appeal efforts – and continue to have the case stayed – by asking the full appeals court to rehear the case “en banc” should the three-judge panel at oral arguments uphold Chutkan’s ruling. En banc means a hearing before an entire bench of judges. Trump could also ultimately appeal to the US supreme court.

The situation reflects the success Trump has had to date with executing his strategy of seeking to delay the case, ideally beyond the 2024 election in the hope that he wins re-election to potentially pardon himself or direct his attorney general to drop the charges.

Does the Guardian have that wrong? If not, what other delay-inducing appeals can Trump line up seriatim?

[not guilty]

I linked to Judge Chutkan's order, which is self-explanatory. She rejected Donald Trump's contention that the government had violated any prior order of the Court. Because the parties had interpreted the stay order differently, the Court clarified what the order does and does not require.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Oh well, reading your link as a non-lawyer, I found it anything but self-explanatory. I did read it the way the Guardian reported it. Maybe you could clarify for me whether you think the Guardian's report is accurate and on point, or whether it needs correction or elaboration.

[mydisplayname]

This Valentine's day, we get to "Focus on the Fani" in Georgia as Prosecutor Willis responds to allegations against her.

It is amazing to that those who suffer from Trump derangement syndrome honestly do not anticipate reprisal to their actions: the Bootless Bulwarks honestly consider themselves morally superior and believe that their actions will be rewarded! That simply isn't the case. Food, shelter, energy, and clothing are necessities of life -- editorials, accounting, and centralized management are not: the New York Times folks would be wise to refrain from biting the hand that literally feeds them.

As we Focus on the Fani, we should be mindful of all those others who have openly declared war on that for which the essential members of society have expressed a preference. Their time is coming... and while we give no aid or comfort to them and to similar insurrectionists, we do forgive all their ceased transgressions against us.

[SimonP]

Take your meds.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is this the elevator pitch for Revenge And Triumph Of The Culture War Casualties?

Whom do you envision as leads for this epic tale, other than the obligatory (Jim Caviezel and Mark Wahlberg)? Jon Voight, Gary Sinese, and Tim Allen could probably use the work. Gina Carano, Candace Cameron Bure, and James Woods certainly need the work.

Steve Mnuchin would love a producer credit. A Dr. Oz/Scott Baio cameo would be a charitable gesture. And Ted Nugent is a natural for the soundtrack (but get Derek St. Holmes for the vocals).

[Nige]

'do not anticipate reprisal'

Hilarious that you think we don't know exactly what you are and what you will do if you think you can get away with it. Why should anyone give in to threats. Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

'the New York Times folks would be wise to refrain from biting the hand that literally feeds them.'

That goes both ways, you realise that, right? Cities are the economic powerhouses of the country.

'on that for which the essential members of society have expressed a preference.'

Nah, they stood back and let the law take its course after Trump and his supporters tried to oust the preferred candidate of the majority of voters in the USA.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Cities are the economic powerhouses of the country."

Bah. Cities used to be the economic powerhouses of the country, at a time when we had lousy transportation and communications technology, and the only way to get anything done was to huddle together as close as possible.

Today cities are just artificial choke points on commerce, not powerhouses. Leveraging the position they got from their former importance to do some heavy duty rent seeking.

[Sarcastr0]

What in the world is your definition of commerce?

[Martinned]

Data from 2019, but still:

The top 25 metro areas make up half of the U.S. GDP. The other 359 smaller cities account for a little over 38 percent of national GDP. It only takes 19 of the biggest powerhouse cities to make up the same percent of total GDP as the other 359 cites.

https://www.statista.com/chart/18684/us-cities-by-gdp/

[EscherEnigma]

[W]e should be mindful of all those others who have openly declared war on that for which the essential members of society have expressed a preference [...]

You mean like how Georgia in 2020 expressed a preference for Biden over Trump, and then Trump tried to get Georgia to ignore that preference?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

None of those Georgia voters were "Essential."

[Stephen Lathrop]

It is amazing to that those who suffer from Trump derangement syndrome honestly do not anticipate reprisal to their actions: the Bootless Bulwarks honestly consider themselves morally superior and believe that their actions will be rewarded! That simply isn’t the case. Food, shelter, energy, and clothing are necessities of life — editorials, accounting, and centralized management are not: the New York Times folks would be wise to refrain from biting the hand that literally feeds them.

Mydisplayname, I anticipate attempted reprisal. I also insist that folks do have a morally superior position who judge judge Trump an insurrectionist disqualified from office.

Thus, I expect legally baseless attempts to disqualify others to fail quickly, and fall flat. Allegations that other candidates committed insurrection—except perhaps for other candidates who participated in the Trump insurrection—will be laughed out of courtrooms wherever they are filed.

That, at least would be the likely practical result. It might not be the originalist response, however. The originalist take would be more like treason trials for any who flagrantly abused constitutional process to prevent election of qualified candidates who were not in fact insurrectionists. On the off-chance that anything like your crackpot revenge fantasy actually materialized, treason charges would remain an option.

As for your notion to empower American heartlanders to starve coastal communities into vassalage, forget it. The coastal communities have ports. Heartlanders depend for their market power on shipping capacity they do not in the least control. Every commodity raised for cash in rural America is sold according to demand in a world-girdling marketplace—from which coastal communities will continue to choose at pleasure to satisfy whatever needs arise.

If Iowans forget where their methanol subsidies come from, the coastal communities will bid them drink it—and then go on to buy less-expensive gasoline on world markets. Those will supply coastal needs via the same conveyances, according to the same schedules as heretofore.

World supply of commodities would be briefly interrupted or diminished. Prices would fluctuate upward fractionally. Coastal communities would notice, but judge such extra costs reasonable, given the alternative. The power of coastal America to outbid any similarly large market on earth would assure that any real discomfiture fell elsewhere.

Facing ruin, sensible heartlanders would beg forgiveness, if not for mercy. Prices would fluctuate back downward, to settle at new lows. That would be the end of it.

[EscherEnigma]

I see I came back 'round just in time to see Volokh support more book-banning legislation.

The guy is really hostile to the written word.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The guy is really hostile to the written word.

I disagree.

He doesn't seem to give a shit one way or the other . . . except for the partisan (Republican-conservative-MAGA-Trump-right-wing-Federalist Society) considerations, which control his positions.

[Stephen Lathrop]

EV has written at length to denigrate the notion of constitutional status for the institutional press. Along with many right-wingers, he seems to suppose internet platforms serve identical purposes, and do it better—or at least that they serve a useful purpose to democratize published opinion at the expense of purported elite opinion. Not much detailed engagement on those topics, however. Even less engagement on the subject of news gathering and dissemination.

[Brett Bellmore]

"EV has written at length to denigrate the notion of constitutional status for the institutional press."

And rightly so, the institutional press has no constitutional status. The 1st amendment is referring to the printing press, the instrumentality, which we all have the right to use, not the self-important industry that started calling itself "the press" to claim that mantle.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, so say you and Volokh—in defiance of words to the contrary uttered by at least Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. I will continue to take that bunch saying what they mean, over you and Volokh making bad guesses to the contrary.

By the way, you word your comment carelessly. It demonstrates you have no notion that the conflict you imagine—between an institutional press and a populist one—is a non-existent delusion. Popular opinion can only be enriched and improved under the influence of a varied, thriving, and mutually competitive institutional press.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

This is demonstrably false. There are many many examples of framers using the word "Press" to mean the newspaper industry in speeches and correspondence. Look online to any searchable database of the letters of whichever framer you choose. There are many.

[Nige]

'The Greenland ice sheet is disappearing much faster than previously thought, possibly affecting the distribution of heat around the world.'

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-17/melting-greenland-has-lost-1-trillion-tons-more-ice-than-thought

This is a potential global tipping point.

https://global-tipping-points.org/section1/1-earth-system-tipping-points/1-2-tipping-points-in-the-cryosphere/

[Frank Drackman]

Now who's the Idiot who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate? Greenland was warm as recently as 10,000 years ago, which I'm sceptical about since the Earth's only 6,000 years old.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nige, stuff like that is why I think it has been unwise to argue climate policy too much on the basis of climate models. The nay-sayers have only one thing right. Long term, those models will prove unreliable—but probably unreliable in more-disturbing ways, not less.

The systems modeled are too complex, and too classically chaotic. Also, compared to normal human expectations, climate systems change at a pace incommensurate with human experience—where stuff happening over decades or centuries is happening suddenly. That implies unanticipated catastrophic news will at some point get noticed only after it is too late for policy correctives to catch up with phenomena already massively pre-determined to change.

For instance, unanticipated disaster could even come in ways opposite what intuition now suggests, or models now anticipate. I suggest the notion of, “warming,” is an inadequate generalization to add wisdom about a phenomenon viewed more accurately as more energetic fluctuation. Baleful cold results might be as likely as baleful warm ones. Globally, both could be observed at once.

The policy focus should be action against climate fluctuation. That should not be measured by models destined to fail, but by measurables which deliver results beyond question—like the disappearing Greenland ice, or the relentless increases in atmospheric carbon measured in Hawaii. Put far more intensive effort into ecological measurements everywhere.

Stop trying to predict what the results will be. Confess instead that folks could broil and suffocate like they now do in southern Iraq, or find themselves living year-round like people now do in Buffalo during the winter.

Craft policy, to the extent possible, to counter whatever measurable fluctuations can be shown to be notably out of line with human historical experience, considered over the longest interval which science can encompass with reasonable assurance of accuracy. Then add far more varied means of measurement, and keep at it, everywhere and all the time. It is the measurement effort which it will be wise to multiply and diversify many times over, not the modeling.

[Nige]

'Long term, those models will prove unreliable—but probably unreliable in more-disturbing ways, not less.'

So, in other words, the opposite of what climate deniers claim. Climate demiers are liars, Stephen you do not, under any circumstances, ever have to hand it to them.

I don't really know why you think people aren't pushing for those things, mitigation and adaptation have been touchpoints for decades, and the central problem that comes with climate change is uncertaintly and unpredictability - we will no longer be able to say with certaintly what the weather will actually do and what the effects will be, hence 'climate chaos.'

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nige, I am not trying to hand it to the climate deniers; I am urging to take it away from them. Down the road, I expect unreliability of the models to deliver, at chaotic random, results the deniers will plausibly claim to be confirmations of their all-along advocacy. If and when that happens, it will be a political setback during an emergency. That will inflict an own-goal it would be wiser to avoid. As I see it, it is not as if the models are proving more useful than the evidence anyway.

Besides, the prospect of an AI-based model demanding AI-controlled climate engineering gives me pause.

[Nige]

Deniers will claim any outcome or eventuality as confirmation of their all-along advocacy. I'm not sure how much impact the effects of cimate change being worse than the models, or at least the more conservative models, will do for their actual credibility, but it isn't as if they care about that anyway.