Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

For the second time in less than a week, Judge Aileen Loose Cannon issued a pissy order backing off from a position she had previously taken. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.438.0.pdf Each such order followed aggressive filings by the Special Counsel explaining to the Court where the bear went through the buckwheat as to how the Court's prior orders, unless abandoned, were appropriate for mandamus relief from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

[NvEric]

So, your constant pissyness is OK ?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, leaving aside your personal view on Judge Cannon, did she get it right with this ruling?

The bear went through the buckwheat...Ok, what an interesting turn of phrase. Where does that come from, NG? Is it a regional idiomatic English phrase (like in TN only, or the southeast generally). How did you learn this phrase?

[not guilty]

The phrase “where the bear went through the buckwheat” is a colloquial expression that alludes to something obvious or self-evident. It’s akin to saying, “You don’t have to tell me where the bear went through the buckwheat.” In other words, it implies that the situation or fact is so clear that it doesn’t need further explanation. So, next time you encounter something blatantly obvious, feel free to exclaim, “That’s where the bear went through the buckwheat!” https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=675&q=where+the+bear+went+through+the+buckwheat&cvid=76a38580853f46069bd5e5a11ff65288&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhA0gEJMjgyNjVqMGoxqAIAsAIA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=HCTS I learned the phrase when an old girlfriend used it.

Judge Cannon, after initially having applied an incorrect standard, basically capitulated to what the Special Counsel's motion for reconsideration told her that the law regarding sealing documents is. So she got that right.

[Commenter_XY]

I learn new things all the time here.

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously missed the Total Eclipse Monday, because if you'd seen it you'd still be basking in the Post Totality Euphoria to worry about some bullshit legal case that's probably helping "45" more than hurting him.
Was bummed that the next one in Amurica isn't until 2044, but there's one in Australia in 2028, going coast to coast and right over Sydney. Won't even have to rent a car. Delta flies Non-Stop from LAX.

Frank "Look! Venus! oh wait, that's a Drone"

[Brett Bellmore]

There will be an annular eclipse in October of this year, but it's down in South America. You could visit Easter Island, and see it...

[Frank Drackman]

Annular Eclipse is like kissing your sister, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Bwaaah]

I drove 7 hours (and 11 hours back), and slept in the car the night before, just to accommodate my wife's desire to witness what they call "the totality." The New York Times, her primary news source, was all over it for weeks, and that made me feel like I was chasing much ado about very little.

Quite unexpectedly, I found the fade to darkness, followed by the glistening circle of aurora light, to be a uniquely radiant, enchanting, exquisite scene. I was giddily excited by it. (In the old days, I imagine it could only have been understood as a sign from god.)

For me, it's an iconic image now added to my many memories that will all disappear when I die.

Not Guilty said what?

[Commenter_XY]

But the real question is: Did you hit a Chik-Fil-a while you were on the road? The entire world awaits your answer! 🙂

[Bwaaah]

There we were driving up the New York State Thruway on Sunday when my wife noticed the upcoming service area had a Chick-Fil-A. She had never been to one, but was in the know about my recent visit. She excitedly said, "Let's go to Chick-Fil-A!"

Ahh! Uhh. Err. Sunday. No.

By daybreak Monday, we were roughly nowhere in Northern Vermont, far away from any fast food chains. We jumped back into the car to head home at 3:39, about 7 minutes after "totality." It was stop-and-go traffic on the Thruway (and side roads) for the first 5 hours of the drive, and we had only covered 150 of our 350 mile trip by then. By then, I was pushing too hard to get home to contemplate a chicken sandwich.

Chick-Fil-A will be another day. And my wife's in for it too.

All my dreams can't be realized in just one day. And there's still a point to tomorrow.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Watching it, I wondered how on earth could people not believe the earth was round?

[not guilty]

Where are the four corners of the earth? Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1.

[Bwaaah]

I thought the same thing...how do flat earthers explain this? But then I remembered that there's no round earth theory in a flat earther's worldview. (They probably updated their explanations well before the eclipse.)

[Zarniwoop]

I'm very definitely in the "Earth is an oblate spheroid" camp myself. Science FTW!

But, that said: a spheroid [i.e., the Moon] would cast a round shadow onto a planar object [i.e., the "flat" Earth].

So if one willfully ignores all evidence and believes the Earth is generally planar, the [spheroid] Moon casting a round shadow onto the Earth isn't going to move the bat-sheet-crazy needle much.

[Frank Drackman]

There's alot of "Flat Earthers" who don't realize they're Flat Earthers. Amazing how many peoples don't know that Australians see an inverted image of the Moon we see in North Amurica (check it out on AlGores Interwebs) Or just draw yourself a Diaphragm with a stick figure at the North Pole, and one at the South Pole, and it's pretty obvious.
OTOH, the Coriolis affect (or is it effect?) isn't sufficient at small scale to cause sinks/toilets to drain the opposite way, but most people swear it is.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

There ya go. I thought the toilets were reversed down under there. I think my father told me that when I was a kid. He’s been dead for a long time now, but his misinformation has been alive and kicking, in me. I probably repeated the false fact a few times. Nobody knew otherwise, but if they knew nothing at all, they knew wrong after my take on the matter. This is how knowledge propagates through the generations.

My father set me wrong. Frank Drackman set me straight. My life has new, unexpected, context. (I'm practicing swallowing now.)

For the mere fact that it took this long for me to correct such a simple wrong fact suggests I’ll be going to my grave somewhat stupid, in the spirit of flat earthers. But nobody will be able to say I didn’t have a somewhat informed take on toilet water spin. This is progress.

[Frank Drackman]

The Toilet thing was tested on the (great) TV show "Pole to Pole with Michael Palin" Episode "Crossing the Line"

[Bwaaah]

Palin demonstrating the coriolis effect, at the equator, in a way that I can understand: https://youtu.be/soy7d0VO07E?t=93

[Riva]

No she issued an order in response to the tantrum thrown by that unconstitutionally appointed “special counsel,” in the first of his political prosecutions against the political opponent of that corrupt reptile in the WH. That clown Smith can probably expect an order of dismissal sometime in the future.

[not guilty]

I hope against hope that Judge Loose Cannon will order dismissal of the indictment, in whole or in part, prior to trial. That order would be appealable as of right by the government under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

The Eleventh Circuit has twice reversed Judge Cannon at the investigative stage of this prosecution. In several cases where the Court of Appeals has reversed the same trial court on multiple occasions, that court has ordered reassignment upon remand. United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). See also, United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir. 1988).

[Riva]

Really? I hope its dismissed because it's a gross, sick abuse of prosecutorial power for political purposes. But I guess if I had zero respect for due process and constitutional rule of law, I'd probably agree with budding little liberal fascists like you.

[not guilty]

Whoosh!!

[not guilty]

It is difficult for me to figure whether Riva is genuinely stupid or instead is a Poe's Law parody of a MAGA supporter.

[Riva]

Citations are plastered all over crap briefs every day. Just makes it crap with citations. The broader point is the gross injustice of these lawfare proceedings and the permanent damage they threaten to do to our republic and the rule of law. That is way over the head of those swelling with TDS joy at the thought of inflicting legal punishement on political opponents. Examples of such despicable little f’ers are not lacking in history.

[David Nieporent]

Riva and his ilk masturbate at the thought of rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants, but when someone commits a real crime like Trump did, Riva thinks it's mean to "inflict legal punishments" on "political opponents."

[Riva]

I don't think lawfare is "mean" you ignorant, obnoxious clown. I think it's a grossly corrupt abuse of power that threatens to damage our republic.

[VinniUSMC]

commits a real crime like Trump did

TDS-addled nonsense. 50 cents for David.

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP is now going against the rule of law. Multiple prosecutors and judges state and federal, not bothering to engage with the indictments, and even preemptively going after our jury system.

Trump is getting due process. You will tear down our republic to let him get away with crimes.

Incredible stuff. Wouldn’t believe it if someone put it in a novel.

[not guilty]

Judge Loose Cannon's April 5 order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act suggested that she may revisit the applicability vel non of the PRA in regard to jury instructions. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.431.0.pdf

As I commented last Thursday (just before that order was published), I expect that the Special Counsel will at some point file a pretrial motion in limine pursuant to Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to preclude the defense from suggesting to the jury that the PRA affords a defense to 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) unless and until the defense offers admissible evidence that Trump in fact designated the documents as personal and in fact mistakenly believed that the PRA provided him with authorization to keep and withhold classified records from NARA and the grand jury.

In United States v. Pabon-Cruz, 391 F.3d 86, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2004), the government during the midst of trial sought and obtained a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals regarding a jury instruction that the District Court proposed to give. Even if Judge Loose Cannon defers ruling on the jury instruction until trial, the government may then seek mandamus relief from the Eleventh Circuit during trial.

[tylertusta]

How many of those reassignments have been because the trial court judge was issued mandamus but didn't follow it?

[not guilty]

I haven't reread the opinions today, but I don't think that any of the decisions I cited involved prior mandamus orders. They involved one or more reversals on prior direct appeals.

"Reassignment is appropriate where the trial judge has engaged in conduct that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety or a lack of impartiality in the mind of a reasonable member of the public." United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir. 1989). The Eleventh Circuit considers at least three elements in determining whether to reassign a case to a different judge based on the original judge's actions at trial where there is no indication of actual bias: (1) whether the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside; (2) whether reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice; (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to gains realized from reassignment. Id., at 1447.

[Bob from Ohio]

"explaining to the Court"

The Criminal Rule 29 acquittal is what the egomaniac Smith deserves. Pissing off the judge always works!

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'll put you down for "Against the rule of law." Because of course judges should make rulings based on whether their feelings were hurt for being called out for being wrong. What is wrong with you?

[Riva]

But making rulings based on their personal, biased opinions about President Trump and J6 in general is just fine for Chutkan (and apparently other DC federal judges). Yeah, so much for the rule of law. I guess I have to put you down for "against the rule of law." What is wrong with you?

[NOVA Lawyer]

If you imagine Chutkan's motives and you imagine that I support those motives, then you can come to any conclusion you want.

Meanwhile, back in the world of reality, you're just doing your best to stay employed at a Russian troll farm.

[Riva]

I don't have to "imagine" Chutkan's motives. She expressed her antipathy to President Trump most plainly on the record in J6 sentencing proceedings. I expect that if it were that snake Biden who was the defendant victim, you would miraculously see the bias too. Try to show a little integrity. If it were the snake Biden in similar circumstances, I would concede the bias. But the TDS prevents you from being intellectually honest.

[NOVA Lawyer]

“She expressed her antipathy to President Trump .”

Nope.

Chutkan herself:

“It bears noting that the court has never taken the position the defense ascribes to it: that former ‘President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,’” Chutkan wrote. “And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar.”

The worst Trump’s attorney could come up with was the undisputed fact that the J6 defendants did what they did out of blind loyalty to one person who is a “free man”. I doubt you can come up with better.

But, even if what you think you can divine from those statements about Chutkan is true, you haven’t remotely established that she would rule based on dislike for Trump.*

Even more to the point**, you have zero evidence that I would support or applaud her in disregarding the law to rule against Trump. In fact, I would condemn her. Her personal feelings about Trump or any defendant or litigant before her, particularly including any hurt feelings she has because of something they wrote in a legal brief about the quality of her reasoning, should never form the basis of a legal ruling. So, yeah, you’re just making up what I think so you can accuse me of things. What a piece of shit you are.

So, we’ll have to agree that one of us is not intellectually honest. But the one isn’t me.

*Note: Do you really think every judge who dislikes someone is necessarily disqualified and will ignore the law to rule against them? And the logical corollary would be that anyone who likes someone is necessarily disqualified because they will ignore the law and rule for them. Which would mean nobody could judge anyone about whom they had any opinions. That's a stupid framework you have. In fact, as say NBA referees demonstrate, they can (mostly) set aside personal biases and call fouls without regard to personal like or dislike. Judges do this daily as, undoubtedly, they routinely find they like or dislike particular litigants/defendants/attorneys, but rule according to the law anyway. That's what the fuck the rule of law means. You might want to explain that to your employer, Mr. Putin.

**Note; This subthread started with Bob openly gleeful about the prospect of Cannon ruling against the government because she was mad at Smith.

[Riva]

All I can say is you’re just as much of a lying gaslighter as Chutkan, who frankly should not only be removed from this trial but removed from the federal bench. What did Chutkan actually say, on the record? Regarding jan 6, which she described as “an attempt to overthrow the government,” Chutkan demonstrated her objectivity by noting:  “[The] people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man – not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy…It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” Or more obvious objectivity in another proceeding: “He went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from him. In total disregard of a lawfully conducted election, he went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country or in support of democracy.”
Yeah, clearly no bias or prejudgment there. I mean, what’s the problem if your judge wonders on the record why you haven’t been jailed for inciting an “attempt to overthrow the government”? You’re right NOVA Lawyer, what was I thinking.

**Note; Who gives an F about any other comments. If you prefer to respond to other comments, be my guest shithead. I’d frankly prefer not reading your lying BS.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're a joke, River. I know it, you know it. Paid or unpaid, you're just a troll.

Accurately noting that people attempted to subvert the constitutional process of transferring executive power doesn't disqualify someone. Noting that they did so in fealty to a person rather than to the Constitution does not disqualify someone from a particular trial or the federal bench. No, there is no prejudgment in noting, as multiple courts, Trump's own AG, and the United States Congress have confirmed, that Biden won the lawfully conducted election and, so, the efforts to stop the counting were, by definition, not in support of the country or in support of democracy.

"Yeah, clearly no bias or prejudgment there."

Glad you recognize that.

if your judge wonders on the record why you haven’t been jailed for inciting an “attempt to overthrow the government”?

Which, of course, she didn't do. But you know this, you just troll.

You’re right NOVA Lawyer, what was I thinking.

I am. And, news flash, you weren't thinking. You were just parroting the lies you were told to.

** *Who gives an F about any other comments. You're the one the entered the thread which implies your response to me had some relation to the conversation. I'd already responded, dumbass Putin bootlicker.

I’d frankly prefer not reading your lying BS.

Clearly not the case. Or, maybe it is, but you're paid by Putin to read it and respond with lies, so you do. My condolences that you don't have better, more fulfilling employment options.

[Riva]

When confronted with the facts, another distracting tantrum. No wonder the public is disgusted with your side. Better ramp up the voter fraud and corrupt lawfare. It's all you've got. Shameful and pathetic.

And you forgot to add one of your little belittling "notes."

[NOVA Lawyer]

When confronted with the facts...

You lie and obfuscate.

And you forgot to add one of your little belittling “notes.”

Awww, you feel belittled when confronted with truth. I cry for you and your tiny ego.

[David Nieporent]

*Note: Do you really think every judge who dislikes someone is necessarily disqualified and will ignore the law to rule against them? And the logical corollary would be that anyone who likes someone is necessarily disqualified because they will ignore the law and rule for them. Which would mean nobody could judge anyone about whom they had any opinions. That’s a stupid framework you have.

But it's literally their framework. They argue that non-MAGA law enforcement investigators can't fairly investigate Trump (or his acolytes). They argue that non-MAGA prosecutors can't fairly prosecute Trump. They argue that non-MAGA judges can't preside over Trump cases. They argue that non-MAGA jurors can't serve on Trump cases.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's a novel concept of immunity. But, you're right, it is the straw they grasp at to avoid the cognitive dissonance of rulings against their cult leader.

[Commenter_XY]

Chutkan? The Red Diaper Baby judge?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected, grievance-consumed, superstition-addled right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

I will enjoy this guy's sputtering when Trump and Israel (his two favorite fanboy genres) get what is coming to them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’ll put you down for “Against the rule of law.”"

There is no rule of law when trump is involved with your side. Its all political hatred all the time. I don't see why I should be "more catholic than the pope".

Smith is not obeying any mythical rule of law. He's a political hit man.

[Sarcastr0]

And thus does Bob rationalize his side not obeying the rule of law.

Angry delusions in service of discarding all integrity.

Hating the libs so hard you become a nihilist.

Bob was into this before it was cool.

[Bob from Ohio]

I'm not angry.

Law is only a servant, I'm not a"rule of law" parrot.

You don't mean it anyway, its just a slogan with you, in your shtick as the Last Reasonable Man.

[Sarcastr0]

You hate the libs so hard you're a nihilist.

And you think everyone else is too, but lies about it. Because otherwise, you'd sure be a piece of shit, eh?

[NOVA Lawyer]

And you think everyone else is too, but lies about it. Because otherwise, you’d sure be a piece of shit, eh?

Exactly this. It's almost like they are itching for excuses to be unprincipled. Bob swears he would be principled if only his perceived enemies would be principled first! What a douche.

[not guilty]

"The Criminal Rule 29 acquittal is what the egomaniac Smith deserves. Pissing off the judge always works!"

Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 comes into play in a jury trial only after the government closes its evidence. Judge Loose Cannon's patron Donald Trump wants desperately to avoid a trial at all. I don't think Cannon will be able to resist making one or more boneheaded pretrial rulings that will give rise to an interlocutory appeal or mandamus relief in the Eleventh Circuit, and the Court of Appeals may well order reassignment to a different district judge upon remand.

[JasonT20]

...Donald Trump wants desperately to avoid a trial at all.

Absolutely. Evidence and testimony presented in court and subject to cross examination is the standard for which guilt or innocence should be judged. People without the financial means to access experienced criminal defense attorneys with sufficient staff to mount a good defense might justifiably fear a trial if they are innocent of the charges. People innocent of the charges with such attorneys might also be justifiably nervous about the outcome if they didn't break any laws, but things that they did "look bad" in a way that might sway a jury to vote based on emotion rather than the facts and the law. But really, Perry Mason and Matlock defended a lot of innocent people (with the means to afford their fees) accused of murder because of contrived circumstances only a scriptwriter could create.

Trump's lawyers have a much tougher job than fictional defense lawyers. They have to defend a guy that has clearly done what he is accused of doing, and he has basically said so in public while offering reasons why he was allowed to do those things despite the law. Because he is Donald J. Trump. Their arguments are going to have to convince a jury (if it gets to one) that they should ignore those facts and acquit him anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

She's way smarter than you. She knows what Smith is trying, she is not falling for it.

[Sarcastr0]

She's hiding her insights so well, cleverly appearing to be granting the motion but being super salty about it.

[not guilty]

Bob, do you really think that Judge Loose Cannon will allow this case to proceed to the prosecution presenting its entire case in chief? Because that is when Rule 29(a) first comes into play.

If that happens, I will be very surprised.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Bob,

Smith wrote in his filings what he’s trying. lol. You are so enamored of secret plots that you apparently feel the need to pretend open and public legal arguments and posturing are secret machinations.

It’s Judge Cannon who appears to be trying to contrive a way to ensure Trump can avoid an actual trial.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I suppose I can’t say if Cannon is “smarter” than any particular person. But as a general matter she’s quite dim. She’s made super dumb errors in other trials. The 11th Circuit was completely baffled by her bizarre special master order to the point that all it had to do was cite court rules with no further explanation. After appointing the special master she interfered in his work. And she’s a terrible writer.

So there are two options. One is that your boosterism is simply in bad faith because she’s on your team. The other is that you actually think she’s smart or a good judge, which suggests you’re also kind of dumb and bad at law (which is a drawback if you’re a lawyer).

For your sake I hope it’s option one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Pissing off the judge always works!

That an intensely strange comment from a Trump fan.

[santamonica811]

Nah. Not strange at all. Oblivious? Absolutely. Dripping in irony? Of course.

But not strange...or even unexpected.

[Kazinski]

I've always thought there are two kinds of liberals, the honest ones, who fairly engage the facts, and the hacks, where the result is what matters not the facts (and yes that's true of conservatives too, including Trump).

Uri Berliner the long time NPR reporter and editor bemoans the the way all things considered put on its blinkers and decided objectivity and facts no longer mattered. There are probably very few things Berliner and I agree with, but I can always respect someone who tries to be honest.

He starts out by discussing how NPR's audience has changed over the last dozen years:

Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.

By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America."

Then he highlights one reason NPR lost the trust of mainstream listeners:

Like many unfortunate things, the rise of advocacy took off with Donald Trump. As in many newsrooms, his election in 2016 was greeted at NPR with a mixture of disbelief, anger, and despair. (Just to note, I eagerly voted against Trump twice but felt we were obliged to cover him fairly.) But what began as tough, straightforward coverage of a belligerent, truth-impaired president veered toward efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.

Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff.

Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.

But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.

It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story.

What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection. Especially when you expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions, but don’t practice those standards yourself. That’s what shatters trust and engenders cynicism about the media."

I'm glad to see Berliner has the integrity to call out his long time employer, he must be close to retirement, because he can't last at NPR much longer.

He goes on to give other examples of NPR ignoring facts to go all in on a partisan narrative suchas Hunter's laptop and he Covid lab leak.

But you should read it all:
I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.
Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Ich bin ein Berliner, und Uri Berliner auch.

[Frank Drackman]

It's just "Ich bin Berliner" the "ein" is incorrect, I'm not sure why, because I learned German in Utero (great Nirvana album) but when you're saying you are something, umm, in English you say "I am a Doctor" in German you just say "I am Doctor" that German efficiency, you see, those "a"s add up.
Also, "Berliner" is the name of a particular Jelly filled Donut, so when JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner" there was a short pause as the Berlin crowd tried to figure out what the eff he was saying, then cheered anyway, because although the Germans might start 2 World Wars, they're polite enough not to point out your grammar mistakes, unlike A-hole Amuricans

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was more than that, Frank -- Stalin couldn't believe that we would do the Berlin Airlift in 1948 for people who had been shooting at us just 3 years earlier, the people of Berlin were grateful.

Their children, not so much. But this was still the Germans who had survived that winter with American help and hadn't forgotten it.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, two reactions.

One, not at all surprised. Gee whiz, NPR is biased? ROTFLMAO. 🙂

Two, I would have summarily dismissed Uri Berliner on the day the story came out, if I were the CEO of NPR*. He should have resigned, then gone public. Then there is always the question of severance. IDK how that comes into play here.

*Assumes Berliner was member of executive C-suite team running NPR. At C-suite, you do not crap on your employer, you crap on your ex-employer.

[Armchair]

Rather, it's gotten more biased..

[Brett Bellmore]

The bias started a lot earlier than he wants to admit. It just got unsubtle around the time Trump ran for President. They've been casually called "All Liberal Things Considered" for decades now.

[Kazinski]

But the bias was more tolerable then. Now it's insufferable.

I would frequently listen to Rush Limbaugh in the morning, and All things considered in the afternoon.

[Frank Drackman]

It's not called National Pubic Radio for nothing.

[bernard11]

Curious about your take on Limbaugh's credibility.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, because he was hooked on Oxycontin he wasn't credible? JFK got Amphetamine injections daily, same with Hitler, and Freud was on Co-cai-ane-a, umm, don't think I'm helping my case.
Early in Rush-Bo's career he came out with his "35 Undeniable Truths of Life" (totally ripped off by Bill Maher with his " I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true")
Some are anachronisms, "The US will again go to War" "The Greatest Threat to Humanity lies in the Nuclear Arsenal of the Soviet Union"
A few just light hearted non sequitors " The Greatest Foo-bawl team in the history of Civilization was the Pittsburgh Steelers of 1975-1980" (Miami Dolphins of 1972-1974 pretty good also) and my favorite,
"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society."

Frank "The chair recognizes the 1/1024th Native Amurican from Tax-a-chussetts, Senator Poke-a-Hontas!!!"

[bernard11]

Oh, because he was hooked on Oxycontin he wasn’t credible?

No. Because he lied a lot.

[Kazinski]

Why don’t you cite some of his lies, and I will tell you what I think.

But Rush always said he was an entertainer, I don’t doubt he got some things wrong, but I don’t think he intentionally made things up, like Alex Jones or Joe "I got arrested trying to see Madela" Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/25/bidens-ridiculous-claim-he-was-arrested-trying-see-mandela

[Armchair]

Many classic "liberal" writers have moved away from the Democratic party line. (Or been forced away), over the last 20 years.

[Martinned2]

Like who?

[Armchair]

Glenn Greenward, Matt Taibbi, Ruy Teixeira...

[Nige]

Lol. The Tulsi Gabbards of "liberal" wirters.

[Brett Bellmore]

Strange, that: Liberal writers who've moved away from the Democratic party line are no longer mainstream Democrats. Who'd have thunk it?

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty of conservatives left the GOP.

Plenty conservatives no longer on the right and say actually the right left them.

But of course the post left are the only ones you think are legit.

[Nige]

I know, it's a tautology that you guys can't stop obsessing over.

[jb]

Gabbard is a lot of things, but characterizing her as a writer seems like a stretch. She's was a politician for basically her entire adult life.

Similarly, I think it would be a stretch to say that she was ever a "mainstream" Democrat. Part of the reason why many people have always found her interesting/appealing is that she's always had her own set of views that don't neatly match either of the big party platforms.

[Nige]

Yeah it was a... never mind.

[Kazinski]

Not a mainstream Democrat?

Tulsi Gabbard, Rising Democratic Star, Endorses Bernie Sanders
Feb 28, 2016 — Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii resigned as a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee on Sunday in order....

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/tulsi-gabbard-rising-democratic-star-endorses-bernie-sanders/

Vice Chairman of the DNC seems pretty mainstream to me, endorsing Bernie isn't that far out.

[jb]

Did you read the article you linked to? She resigned the post so she could disavow the mainstream candidate.

[Kazinski]

Bernie is a mainstream Democrat. Choosing Bernie over Joe is hardly apostasy.

And it certainly doesn't make her a closet conservative.

[Sarcastr0]

Bernie is a mainstream Democrat

I suppose to someone sufficiently partisan, everything to their left looks the same.

He's not even a Democrat.

You can't run an insurgency campaign from the mainstream, and he did.

[Kazinski]

How many votes did Bernie get in 2 presidential election cycles in the Democratic primaries.

Bernie was definitely running as a Democrat when Gabbard endorsed him.

How many democratic endorsements does Bernie get in his Senate Elections? More than just Gabbard.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If an Independent votes for a Democrat, does that make the Democrat an Independent?

Does it make the voter a Democrat?

JFC. Partisan stupidity is the worst.

[Kazinski]

Gabbard in 2016, was a Democrat endorsing and voting for a Democratic Candidate.

Let's just go with the Facts we have Jason, rather than making up your own.

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure I agree with your Police work there Nige, were any of those hot Hawaiian War Veterans?? Next time you fart, hold your nose, you could clear your mind.

[Armchair]

"No True Scotsman"....

[Martinned2]

I wouldn't think Glenn Greenwald is a liberal in either the US sense or in any other sense. He used to be, but people sometimes change their views during their lives. Trump used to be a Democrat.

[John Rohan]

Hmmmmm a gay man married to another man, who vehemently opposed both the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act?

By most people's definitions that would be considered "liberal", but now that he's in favor of free speech and against govt involvement in the media, (both things that liberals used to support), he's no longer a US liberal. How ironic. That's how far the authoritarian left has grown in the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you miss the "people sometimes change their views during their lives" when you cited stuff from 20 years ago?

Glenn Greenwald going post-left is not proof that liberals are not really liberal, no more than David Brock is proof the right is no longer conservative.

[John Rohan]

Except that Greenwald hasn't changed his views in the last 20 years.

He still thinks the Iraq war is wrong. He still supports gay marriage. He still supports Edward Snowden.

He left The Intercept, not because it was attacking Republicans so much, but because they wouldn't go after Democrats with anything close to the same zeal. Journalists are supposed to report the stories they find, not become a propaganda organ for a political party.

[Nige]

So he went on Fox, a propaganda organ for Republicans.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Apparently what you mean by "propaganda organ" is that they're not unrelentingly hostile. Just hostile.

Take a quick look at figure 9.

Trump did indeed get his best coverage from Fox. "Only" 73% negative, to 27% positive. Wow,that's a Republican party propaganda organ? (Every other outlet was at least 80% negative.)

You'd think that the GOP's propaganda organ would like their nominee a little better than that.

[Sarcastr0]

If you assume the correct coverage of Trump should be 50-50, then you do get some weird results!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not assuming anything at all about "correct" coverage. I'm pointing out that it didn't look like "party propaganda organ" coverage.

[Sarcastr0]

You're looking at an analysis of the wrong part of FOX News then.

The commentary shows sure fit the term propaganda – Hannity and Tucker and whomever else were all in on Trump and not so all in on the facts, even if they are dressed up like news shows.

And that's where Glenn was all in.

[David Nieporent]

If you assume the correct coverage of Trump should be 50-50, then you do get some weird results!

Right. Also, that data is from 2016, before MAGA completely took over the GOP.

[Kazinski]

Fox has a long tradition of having liberals on, such as Juan Williams, Alan Combs had co-host ed for
longtime with Sean Hannity.

[bernard11]

Yes, Brett. It's a propaganda organ for Republicans.

If you can't see that you're blind.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha your tokenism sucks, dude.

Alan Combs was a punching bag, and loved it.
Weird dude.

[John Rohan]

He went on Fox as a GUEST. He's not an employee of Fox News.

Even Gavin Newsome was a guest on Fox recently. So was Obama back in the day.

[bernard11]

A few things, Brett.

1. There's no reason coverage should be 50-50. Maybe Trump really was that bad.

2. The data is news coverage and does not include opinion shows, apparently.

3. Even the WSJ was less favorable to Trump than Fox.

[Nige]

‘Apparently what you mean by “propaganda organ” is that they’re not unrelentingly hostile.’

Home of the War On Christmas – they're a propaganda arm for Republicans. I’m not sure what Glenn Geeenwald’s antics have to do with anyone other than Glenn Greenwald. What even is the point here? Glenn Greenwald hates Democrats now. Gabbard always hated Democrats even when she was one. What, are they supposed to like them back? The guys who invented the term RINO think something significant is going on there.

[Martinned2]

Well, I don't think Greenwald was a spokesman for the Kremlin 20 years ago.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173902/ukraine-war-cost-russian-propaganda-rfk-jr-greenwald

[Armchair]

So, you need to understand who Glenn is. He's an old-school anti-war liberal. He didn't like Vietnam. He didn't like Iraq. He didn't like Afghanistan. And he doesn't like a proxy war in Ukraine. And with all that, he doesn't really trust the US National Security agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA etc), feeling they lie too much.

Now, whether or not his opinions are correct or to be agreed with, that's a different question for another time. But in terms of his viewpoints, he's stayed remarkable consistent. Old school, anti-war liberal. And "liberals" (Democrats) used to love that...so long as they were on the same side as him.

But suddenly Democrats are supporting proxy-wars in Ukraine, and trusting the CIA on its judgements, and Glenn's like...whoa, hold up. This is the same CIA/NSA that lied you into Iraq. And suddenly you're all on board?

And Democrats went "Shut up Glenn, we're taking your liberal card away!".

And in my mind, Glenn didn't really change. The "liberals" changed.

[Nige]

No, hang on, Glenn Greenwald says dumb shit, trashes what reputation he had as an incisive critic, and we're supposed to treat him as if he hasn't? Who knew? We're not allowed to disagree with Glenn Greenwald, or point out his dumb sit as being dumb shit.

[Sarcastr0]

Greenwald hasn’t changed his views in the last 20 years

He says this. Then he goes on Tucker and calls Trump colluding with Russia a conspiracy theory. And he's all in on the CIA being behind all bad things.

If he ever was left, he's not now.

No one buys he's a liberal except conservatives who want to believe. Glenn talks about how he's totally on the left, but never actually says anything leftist. He doesn't talk about Snowden or gay marriage, he bashes the left nonstop on his shitty Rumble.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wait, being hostile to the CIA proves you're not on the left these days? When did that happen?

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say being hostile to the CIA, I said he's all in on the CIA as an omni-villain:

-The CIA killed JFK
-The CIA interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections
-The CIA is behind January 06
-The CIA is behind US support for Ukraine.

[Kazinski]

Trump colluding with Russia was a conspiracy theory that never panned out, that's Berliner's point: That NPR should have done a.post notes of why they got it so wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump colluding with Russia was a conspiracy theory that never panned out,

You, who believe every jot and tittle Comey shits out is a sign the Biden Crime Family is soon to fall, continue to pretend the Mueller Report doesn't say what it said.

[John Rohan]

Since the Mueller report didn't find evidence of collusion with Russia, what else would you call it but a conspiracy theory?

[Sarcastr0]

It did find evidence of collusion with Russia, as was explained to you last week.

[Kazinski]

I get a lot of things explained to me here, almost all of it wrong.

[Bwaaah]

Well then you must need more explaining.

[Nige]

‘Wait, being hostile to the CIA proves you’re not on the left these days?’

Dirtbag left, if you think Trump’s the victim, Putin’s within his rights and the pandemic was sus. The rest of the left are watching as the traditionally staunchly patriotic right and the traditionally conservative CIA turn on each other. Over Trump.

I love how 'never proved collusion' is supposed to make everything else magically vanish in a puff of smoke.

[Frank Drackman]

David Horowitz for one, like you'd know who that is.

[Commenter_XY]

Bari Weiss.

[Nige]

Beyond parody.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes you are.

[Nige]

Well, you do lack the talent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bari Weiss has been a difficult, antisocial misfit headed toward a self-righteous, immature flameout at every institution she has associated with since high school (or was it junior high school?). She also is the remarkable combination of grievance junkie and right-wing bully -- a thin-skinned, strident hypocrite.

[Commenter_XY]

So, in IOW, Bari Weiss' resignation letter to the Old Grey Hag was on point. Thx for the confirmation.

[Sarcastr0]

Old Grey Hag
Red Diaper Baby
lower-case-p-palestinians

When did you start talking like Michael Savage?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That was long ago. From "People's Republic of New Jersey" to "POTUS Trump" (post-presidency), this one has been a performative, disaffected clinger without respite.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Don't leave out "The Smasher" and referring to transgender people as 'trannies.'

C_XY is as misogynistic and bigoted as they come.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But he has his god to forgive him for -- or is to push him toward -- all of it.

[Nige]

'Supposedly liberal writers who are roundly despised by liberals' are a class of commenter that are supposed to prove a point, but that point is never 'this idiot is saying the stupidest shit imaginable' it's always 'how dare you not respect this person saying the stupidest shit about you.'

[Joe_dallas]

NPR has gone more than just far left -

March of 2020 - week long segments about the impossibility of a covid lab leak

during first trump impeachment, non stop coverage about the impropriety of trump's seeking investigation of a political opponent, yet nary a mention of the biden family corruption involving ukraine

Day following the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, NPR had former judge discussing the "bias " of the judge and his frequent rulings against the prosecution, but nary a mention of the prosecution misconduct in the trial.

[bernard11]

biden family corruption

There's the tell that you are not to be taken seriously.

[Artifex]

You would fit in just fine at NPR.

[Nige]

A concern with facts over fantasy? I hope he would.

[Kazinski]

Well you are on the same page as the Huffpost:

Majority Of Americans Believe Unproven Allegations About Biden Family Corruption
A new poll suggest most Americans think Joe Biden got involved in his son’s business deals with Ukrainian and Chinese nationals.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/poll-hunter-biden-joe-biden-corrupt_n_64fa0731e4b08305f88fbd47

[Sarcastr0]

Ad popularum is a fallacy.

[Kazinski]

Ad populum is a fallacy except in the voting booth.

[Sarcastr0]

You used it to shore up 'biden family corruption' as a thing.

Now you've changed the goalposts.

To something awful and cynical. 'Maybe it's bullshit, but it will play with the proles.'

I know you claim not to support Trump, but if you actually take this position, you might as well.

[Nige]

'What’s worse is to pretend it never happened,'

I'm not an NPR listener, but this is so dumb. There was enough in the Mueller Report to crucify any regular politician. 'Pretending it didn't happen' just conceded that Trump was untouchable, albeit in both senses. As for his earlier complaint, again, it's Trump exceptionalism to decry the coverage of such explosive rumours. Apparently to be an 'honest liberal' you have to ignore and even reject Trump-related scandals.

[John Rohan]

You are missing the point. Sure there was plenty in the Mueller report to "crucify" politicians. But not collusion with Russia.

There were several prosecutions as a result of the Mueller report, but none of them involved collusion with Russia. They were mostly about tax evasion, and all occurred long before the 2016 election.

The point is that NPR didn't take Adam Schiff to task for his previous statements, or hold him to anything close to the same standards they were holding on Trump.

[Nige]

‘But not collusion with Russia.’

Any high-profile politician suspected of that would have gotten the same, if not worse. What, they weren’t supposed to cover the fact that the President was being investigated for it? And frankly, the findings just stopped short of finding collusion. Which is not actually something anybody can be criminally charged with.

How can they hold Schiff to the same standards as Trump, Schiff wasn't accused of anything, nor did it emerge that Russia tried to interfere with the election on his behalf, and that he knew about it, and approved.

[John Rohan]

Whoosh! Again right over your head. NPR is not a law enforcement agency. I'm taking about holding politicians accountable for lying.

Adam Schiff LIED. He was a guest on NPR dozens of times and claimed to have evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Just like Joseph McCarthy back in the day, he made it up. And NPR didn't hold him accountable.

[Sarcastr0]

There is evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Not just the Mueller Report, a whole Senate Intel Committee Report as well.

So Schiff did not lie. NPR may have double standards, but you have not established that, and you've been lied to and should probably deal with that.

[John Rohan]

You are greatly misinformed. The Mueller report said quote: "the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. " (page 2)

The senate intel committee said that Russia tried to interfere with the election (just like the US interferes in other country's elections). That's not the same thing as Trump colluding with Russians.

[Sarcastr0]

You need to look up the definition of evidence, looks like.

And maybe read a bit more of the Mueller Report, specifically their definition of coordinate.

Of course, if you actually bothered you'll just say 'Mueller was doing an election interference' and ignore it anyhow. Because you're not in it for the truth, just whatever story you can tell where Trump is innocent.

[John Rohan]

I just quoted from the Mueller report. Those were Mueller's words, not mine. If you don't like it, argue with him, or ask him to define "evidence".

If you can find a different conclusion in the report, please share it with us. I'll even make it easy for you and link the report here:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Mueller Report (at 1):

"the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"

Anything else, perhaps something that might have interfered with the investigation and shackled its conclusions? There is this (at 9):

"the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters."

[Kenneth Almquist]

I’ve seen lots of assertions about “Russiagate,” but never seen anybody try to make the case that it actually happened. Your comment is typical--you claim that Adam Schiff LIED--but don’t identify the alleged lies. I looked over transcripts of a number of times when Adam Schiff was interviewed on NPR, and didn’t spot anything that was subsequently contradicted by the findings of the Mueller Report.

[Brett Bellmore]

All the Adam Schiff Transcripts

He was publicly lying about what was being testified to during the closed hearings. In public he was saying witnesses were confirming things and providing evidence of Trump wrongdoing, when they were actually doing nothing of the sort.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The editorial you link to is behind a paywall, but an internet search indicates that it claims that Schiff was lying when he said that “The Russians offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help. And the president made full use of that help.” (CNN, Dec. 10, 2017)

In other words, the WSJ is claiming that the things Schiff is referring to–the Trump Tower meeting, Russia’s release the DNC E-mails–didn’t happen. Why didn’t the WSJ write an editorial claiming that the Mueller Report was full of lies, rather than the one they did write, which accuses Adam Schiff of lying when he made the same factual claims? I suggest that the WSJ knows its accusations are bullshit, and decided it could get away with falsely accusing Adam Schiff of lying, but couldn’t get away with falsely accusing Mueller of lying.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Why didn’t the WSJ write an editorial claiming that the Mueller Report was full of lies, rather than the one they did write, which accuses Adam Schiff of lying when he made the same factual claims?"

I'd guess that's because the Mueller report was careful NOT to make the same lying factual claims as Schiff. As you'd know if you'd read it.

[Nige]

It's like not holding Hilary accountable for that face-eating video. You can only hold people accountable for stuff that didn't happen if you abandon all fidelity to truth and evidence and consistency.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't buy it.

NPR is liberal as in bothsides are reasonable. To a fault.

It is true they don't bothsides Trump. Because while conservatives and even Republicans have an argument and philosophy, Trump and his people do not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I can't even imagine the knd of bubble you would have to live in to think that NPR doesn't have a strong liberal tilt. It's bordering on "New York Times has a conservative bias" territory.

[Absaroka]

We were NPR members for decades. It did have a slant, but it was just that, a slant. They still did great journalism, and reported a lot of stuff you wouldn't find elsewhere.

We stopped listening and contributing a couple of years ago; it had become the all SJW all the time channel. The 'driveway moments' stopped. They stopped asking the hard questions. It got to be you could guess what you would hear before you turned the radio on. Just not worth the time anymore.

[Bwaaah]

I was an avid NPR listener, especially news, for almost 40 years. The bias was quite tolerable for me until the lead-up to the 2016 election. That’s when they seemed to lose any remaining belief that “journalistic balance” is a virtue. Indeed, their bias became insufferable as they painted moderate thinkers, people who dare stray across the party line on any issue, as right-wing-adjacent, a.k.a. Republicans, a.k.a. morally repulsive human beings. (NPR News also went silent on major aspects of stories, just like all the other left-leaning sources like the NY Times.)

It became a bridge too far to listen to one-sided news analysis that was critically uninformative, except for a deep implication that I'm probably evil, or stupid, or both.

Most NPR reporters, and the Democratic Party, have many essential shared interests. NPR News is an institution through which those reporters pursue their essential interests. Those personal pursuits, in the course of professional activities, used to be considered a breach of good journalistic practice. Now, nothing is more important than me and my pursuit of my sense of right. (We are all similarly obligated to do the same, they say.)

Left-leaning journalistic organizations have become the playpens of self-righteous storytellers. (Right-leaning news always had its roots in page 6 trash. Nothing is lost there.) The “reporters” are not trying to inform their listeners; they’re trying to move them. And it’s not even a shared philosophy. It’s just people masturbating to their righteous desires, in seats that used to be occupied by people who did journalism (in the traditional sense, as to inform).

To wit: Cokie Roberts did a kick-ass job of covering Washington politics for NPR News. She wasn’t scared of describing a Republican perspective in a sensible, compelling manner. A what in a what? There’s no such thing, they say? They don’t do that at NPR News. Did they ever? (Yes, they did.)

[Sarcastr0]

I called them liberal and I meant it.
I was saying they are the kind of liberal who is open in all things including giving the other side their say.

I stopped listening because of too many single slice of life human interest takes that were not interesting to me anymore.
I was only doing Morning Edition and Weekend Edition and Marketplace by then but SJW I did not get.

On the Media maybe.

They remain pretty popular but I’d imagine with an aging demographic.

[Sarcastr0]

I still do Radiolab and Pop Culture Happy Hour podcasts.

There is one host of the four who is SJWy on PCHH. In general it’s just normal review stuff.

[Bwaaah]

[OtisAH]

Ah yes, NPR. Much bias. Many liberal. One of my favorite examples:

In august or September, 2020, Rudy was pushing some new ridiculous conspiracy. NPR’s weekly domestic roundup — Fridays 10am eastern — does an entire 7-10 minute segment on it. For all but the final moments of the segment before the break, each guest reviewed every detail of Rudy’s conspiracy. Nothing was omitted. Then one of the guests blurted out “but that was all debunked” just before the break. There was no discussion about how the conspiracy was debunked and a new topic took stage when the show returned.

Things like this have been a staple of NPR’s so obvious and unrelenting liberally biased liberal bias by liberals who are biased since at least the Time of Dubya.

[JasonT20]

It is worth reading this article posted on NPR's website. It is a news article covering Uri Berliner's essay.

It comes with this disclosure:

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

I can't think of any major news media company that would discuss, in a fair amount of detail, criticism of itself. And the article really does seem to give Berliner's viewpoints as much consideration as those of people that disagree with him. (I read Berliner's essay first.)

However much of Berliner's criticisms hit the mark, the fact that they would do this actually shows me that NPR is still likely to be more objective than just about any news source out there. I can't imagine either Fox News or MSNBC, The New York Post or the NY Times giving that much voice to their critics on their platforms.

[Absaroka]

NYT article on the kerfluffle (sorry if paywalled).

"Some journalists have defended Mr. Berliner’s essay. Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR’s former ombudsman, said Mr. Berliner was “not wrong” on social media. Chuck Holmes, a former managing editor at NPR, called Mr. Berliner’s essay “brave” on Facebook."

Current employee with different view: "Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, said in an interview that he rejected all of Mr. Berliner’s claims of unfairness, adding that his remarks would probably make it harder for NPR journalists to do their jobs.

“The next time one of our people calls up a Republican congressman or something and tries to get an answer from them, they may well say, ‘Oh, I read these stories, you guys aren’t fair, so I’m not going to talk to you,’” Mr. Cavin said."

(that last seems odd ... I doubt many Republican congresscritters were unaware of NPR's angle on things)

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

The mighty Akebono has died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl1KCrXRBE0

[SRG2]

I'm sorry to hear that. I always preferred him to Konishiki.

[Kazinski]

Inflation came in hatter than expected, again, in today's report. Probably dooming any chance of a rate cut before the election:

From Barron's:
"Setbacks on Inflation Are No Longer Just a Blip

Wednesday’s higher-than-expected price growth points to a stalling of last year’s momentum in bringing U.S. inflation rates back down to the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Without inflation showing clear signs of cooling sustainably, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to move on its much anticipated interest rate cuts, particularly given that the U.S. labor market continues to show strength."
https://www.barrons.com/livecoverage/inflation-march-cpi-data-report-today

From BLS:
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.4 percent in March on a seasonally
adjusted basis, the same increase as in February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.5 percent before seasonal adjustment.

The index for shelter rose in March, as did the index for gasoline. Combined, these two indexes
contributed over half of the monthly increase in the index for all items. The energy index rose 1.1
percent over the month. The food index rose 0.1 percent in March. The food at home index was unchanged,
while the food away from home index rose 0.3 percent over the month.

The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.4 percent in March, as it did in each of the 2
preceding months. Indexes which increased in March include shelter, motor vehicle insurance, medical care, apparel, and personal care. The indexes for used cars and trucks, recreation, and new vehicles were among those that decreased over the month."

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, rates might have to go up this year, not down.

The inflation trend is notably unhelpful to POTUS Biden. Great damage has already been done (it is economically much harder for the lower 4 quintiles). The monthly reminders (that is, the monthly reporting of inflation and subsequent commentary) to the electorate about the negative impact of inflation and the hardship it causes to Americans will not help POTUS Biden's re-election campaign. There is no good strategy to address that economic reality (aside from inflation denialism, I suppose).

[Mr. Bumble]

Time to break out the "Win" buttons?

[Michael P]

Hyper ultra bird flu could be 100 times worse than COVID-19, so we need to switch to all mail-in voting. You heard it from John Fulton first: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13268235/This-100-times-worse-Covid-Bird-flu-warning-scientists-say-HALF-infections-H5N1-people-fatal-White-House-says-monitoring-situation.html

[Martinned2]

Fortunately we have (at least sometimes) a sensible government that listens to credible scientific warnings and acts to mitigate risks before they materialise.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is this "we" you speak of?

[Martinned2]

In this case, it seems that it includes at least me and you.

[Kazinski]

Yes, a rate hike in the cards too. But that would be a last resort, and, not only would be an admission of failure, but would probably trigger a recession.

Summers on Bloomberg today:

"Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that the hot US consumer price inflation report for March means that the risk case of the next Federal Reserve move to be an increase must be taken seriously."

"On current facts, a rate cut in June would be a dangerous and egregious error comparable to the errors the
@federalreserve was making in the summer of 2021. We do not need rate cuts right now."

“You have to take seriously the possibility that the next rate move will be upwards rather than downwards,” Summers said on Bloomberg Television’s Wall Street Week with David Westin."

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory, they could reduce inflation by just REDUCING DEFICIT SPENDING. In theory. I realize that option isn't actually on the table at this point.

It's supply/demand; Supply hasn't gone up, but demand for goods and services has, due to the extra spending power sloshing around in the economy. So prices go up.

Demand for goods and services has a private component, and a government component, and it's the sum that's driving up prices. Since government isn't willing to reduce its own demand, the only way to reduce the total is to reduce the private sector demand: Get people used to being poorer, essentially: To keep the total demand in check, the government's growth has to come at the expense of the private sector.

Raising interest rates is just a way of accomplishing that. You could also do it by raising taxes, but that make it too easy for the voters to figure out why they were poorer...

[Mr. Bumble]

"You could also do it by raising taxes,..." but increased taxes have never satiated the government for spending even more.

[Martinned2]

In theory, they could reduce inflation by just REDUCING DEFICIT SPENDING. In theory. I realize that option isn’t actually on the table at this point.

Not just in theory, in practice too. But under what (some) economists call the consensus assignment, it is the job of the central bank to keep inflation on target, and the job of the government to use fiscal tools to promote growth.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02317.x

You can obviously join the lefties of MMT and call for that assignment of responsibilities to be reversed, and you can certainly argue about whether it has worked well over the last 50 years, but it certainly worked pretty well in the 1980s and 1990s, so it's not entirely crazy.

The Inflation Reduction Act is, of course, a classic of American creativity with statute names, at par with the USA PATRIOT Act. Because the US lawmaking process has a lot of veto points, legislation like that always contains a lot of garbage subsidies for some politician's (local) hobby. Handing out money in some sense was probably a good idea in the middle of Covid, but should have been cut back much quicker. Subisidising things that are valuable in the longer term, because they improve productivity, combat climate change, etc. is also a good idea, but that doesn't mean the overall deficit has to increase.

[Jumaira]

The core problem is that government spending either comes from borrowing, which pulls money out of the private economy, or from printing, which adds to the money supply, the very definition of inflation.

There's no miracle drug.

[Brett Bellmore]

The miracle drug is spending less.

[Sarcastr0]

Simple. Ignores history and countries and states nowadays that try austerity.

I’m not saying MMT, but you have not actually cracked macroeconomics (and what a coincidence it aligns with your priors)

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you haven't heard about Argentina.

[Martinned2]

What about Argentina? Even the Milei fanboys at Marginal Revolution think it's a car crash.

https://marginalrevolution.com/?s=milei

[Mr. Bumble]

Is it better or worse than it was?

[bernard11]

No it's not.

[Jumaira]

Yes it is you stupid shylock.

[Magister]

Of course, a teensy amount of government spending actually comes from revenue.

[Martinned2]

Just like government revenue comes from spending. Marvelous, isn't it?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another core problem is the degree to which parasitic red states continue to constitute a drag on our economy. American society is not going to abandon those half-educated, superstition-addled, indolent, unskilled, roundly bigoted, ambition-deprived Republicans -- it is going to continue to let them be freeloaders.

[Krayt]

it is economically much harder for the lower 4 quintiles

I have assurance from folks around here everyone's investments kept well ahead of inflation, "so shut up".

[bernard11]

So you're fixated on a .1% increase in year-over-year inflation, but no other economic statistics matter to you.

Hardly an unbiased analysis.

[Jumaira]

What about the 25% of Bidenflation we've had over the past 3 years? Or did you forget about compounding, because you were too busy blowing your classmates while your high school math teacher was trying to educate you?

[Kazinski]

The problem was everyone was popping champagne back in October, thinking we were on a glide path to 2%, and expecting 3 or 4 rate cuts, now it looks like its going to be a tough slog, with a rate rise almost as likely as cut as the next move.

Today's average mortgage rate is 7.8%, and there isn't much prospect of it going significantly lower over the next 6 months.

Don't pretend it

[bernard11]

There is no good strategy to address that economic reality (aside from inflation denialism, I suppose).

Sort of like your growth and employment denialism? Or are you just looking at whatever negative point you can make about the economy, and ignoring the rest?

Maybe a good strategy would be to emphasize the positive things about the economy, not that the MAGAt's would listen.

[Armchair]

The other issue with inflation is how it works in devious ways with taxes.

On one end, you get things like the Child Tax Credit, which isn't indexed for inflation, thus resulting in higher taxes for many American families.

On the other end, it makes savings difficult. Even if you get a savings rate above the nominal inflation rate, you then need to factor in taxes on that savings rate as well. If inflation is at 4%, and your savings rate is at 5%...you think you're doing pretty well. But then you need to factor in you're going to be paying taxes on that 5% savings, at the top of your income bracket. So, if you're in the 22% bracket...you end up losing money in inflation adjusted terms.

(ie, here's the rough math.)
1) $100 in 2023 USD = $104 in 2024 USD
2a) $100 in 2023 USD saved at 5% for 1 year = $105 USD.
2b) $5 of income, at 22% taxation now = $103.80 USD.

[Krayt]

Oh yeah, "bracket creep!" I forgot about that one from when I was a wee lad.

Your income (if lucky) goes up with inflation, but your buying power, by definition, does not. So you "earn more", and are in a higher tax bracket, and get the honor of paying an increased "fair share", you increasingly wealthy thief.

Also, spending politicians like inflation when large debt exists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Inflation is great when you owe a lot at a fixed rate of interest. It's not so great when your interest rate is floating, which the federal debt is over time.

Politicians like inflation because it's effectively a tax on all assets valued in their currency; 10% inflation this year? Wow, the government just got to spend 10% of everybody's savings! And then put the blame on the private sector for raising prices, too.

[Martinned2]

It’s not so great when your interest rate is floating, which the federal debt is over time.

I've always wondered why governments don't borrow with longer maturities. In the last decade, when interest rates were low, everybody thought that that would continue for some time, but nobody thought that that would continue indefinitely. So why not (re)finance the entire US government debt with bonds lasting 30 years or more?

Instead, I am told that 31% of US government debt matures within a year. (Or at least it did last September.)

https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-all-us-government-debt-outstanding-matures-within-12-months/#:~:text=31%25%20of%20All%20US%20Government%20Debt%20Outstanding%20Matures%20within%2012%20Months,-Torsten%20Sl%C3%B8k&text=One%20source%20of%20upward%20pressure,12%20months%2C%20see%20chart%20below.

[Mr. Bumble]

" So why not (re)finance the entire US government debt with bonds lasting 30 years or more?"
Because the market wouldn't buy them?

[BrotherMovesOn]

My 30 year treasuries are fake? Noooo!

[Absaroka]

Well, treasury bonds are sold at auction. If they sell more, they have to pay higher interest.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did I say that? I'm curious: when did you buy them and what is the yield?

[BrotherMovesOn]

I couldn't give you my yield to maturity but the current yield is ~ 4.64%.

[Brett Bellmore]

As Mr Bumbles says, the market wouldn't buy them, precisely because, while everybody thought it would continue a while, nobody thought it would continue forever. And, who wanted to be the last one standing when the music stopped playing?

And when Biden bragged that Milton Friedman wasn't calling the shots anymore? Anybody with a lick of sense knew inflation was coming back, stat.

[Martinned2]

That's why the yield curve usually slopes up. So yes, if the Treasury sold more long-term bonds, it would have to pay a higher coupon. But it would also have a lot less exposure to changes in interest rates.

[Martinned2]

And when Biden bragged that Milton Friedman wasn’t calling the shots anymore? Anybody with a lick of sense knew inflation was coming back, stat.

The relationship between the quantity of money and inflation has been completely disproven in the 10 years after the global financial crisis.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

[theobromophile]

"On one end, you get things like the Child Tax Credit, which isn’t indexed for inflation, thus resulting in higher taxes for many American families."

Also, massive daycare closures. If the CTC kept up with inflation - or specifically, the increased costs of childcare, which likely exceed inflation - parents would be more able to afford daycare. They can't. Daycares can't raise their prices enough to hire decent people, and daycares all over the country are closing for lack of staff.

Of course, because we live in the worst timeline, the Dem solution is federal spending (not tax credits - direct payments to daycares) and the GOP solution is for women to stay home (because breadwinner wives don't exist).

[Frank Drackman]

But the Inflation's just "Transitory"
you know, it'll last until "45" becomes "47"

[bernard11]

WTF do you think Trump is going to do about it?

[Frank Drackman]

Stop giving You-Crane so much fucking money for one thing, I know, "It's only (insert denomination here) Billions" That's the whole problem, a few hundred Billions here, a few hundred Billions there, and pretty soon you're talking about some real money (I just made that up, don't tell Parkinsonian Joe or he'll pretend he said it)

Frank

[bernard11]

You think there's no benefit to funding Ukraine? Then you're a damn fool.

[Frank Drackman]

Sure, it benefits Voldemort Zolensky and his Capos, and secondarily the US Military Industrial Complex (HT D. Eisenhower), remember when Liberals were against stupid wars and POTUS's against foreign entanglements (HT G. Washington) both of those POTUS's were Army Generals btw, not some shit-ass big mouth like Biden who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with written instructions on the heel.

Frank "No Russian ever called me "Cracker" (HT. M. Ali)

[bernard11]

remember when Liberals were against stupid wars

Remember when conservatives were for smart ones?

[Frank Drackman]

You've obviously never fought in one (I know, "Homo, Much Better Now Though!")

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump will settle Ukraine by fiat. Picture a Henry Kissinger whom both sides are convinced is half crazy and likely to do *anything.*

I think at this point, both sides want peace with honor, there are ways to make Trump the bad guy (he won't mind) and end this foolishness.

[Martinned2]

I love how the Trump foreign policy is basically "he's a lunatic who might do anything, and that's somehow a good thing".

[Frank Drackman]

As opposed to a demented POTUS with Parkinson's Disease who royally fucked up Afghanistan and gave Ham-ass millions in ransom and hasn't gotten any of our hostages back, and only reason he hasn't gotten us into WW3 over You-Crane is Putin is sensible and playing the long game, like the Tolly-Bon (HT Barry Hussein) did.

Frank

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think at this point, both sides want peace with honor

But, as usual, that's because you're an idiot.

[bernard11]

Trump will settle Ukraine by fiat.

A friend of mine had a Fiat once. It was a lousy car, but probably better that Trump's "fiat" settling the Russia-Ukraine war, which most likely will be "Putin wins, gets half or so of Ukraine, and can take the rest when he feels like it."

[bernard11]

By what fiat? If he tells Putin what to do Putin will ignore it unless it's what he wanted to do anyway.

Trump is Putin's sucker.

[OtisAH]

No surprise piece of shit thinks aid to Ukraine causes inflation. After all, there’s no such thing as an intelligent piece of shit.

[Kazinski]

Repeal the inflation reduction act.

Cancel net zero to take pressure off of energy prices, and fertilizer. That's a good start.

So much of what comes out of the Biden administration is regulations that raise prices for consumers amd businesses.

[tylertusta]

I'm shocked! Absolutely stunned! What an inconceivable turn of events! I thought the Inflation Reduction Act was supposed to fix this!

In all seriousness, I expect the final nail in the coffin to be when the Saudis cut oil production sometime later this year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Meteorologists (OK, but...) say this will be an active hurricane year.
It's not just the coastal refineries that have to be shut down but a lot of product still moves by ship and you don't do that into a storm.

Even if the refineries aren't damaged, they have to then be re-started and that's not instant, watch for price spikes.

[Sarcastr0]

Inflation slowed a bit in March from its February surge. On an annualized basis headline CPI inflation came in at 4.6%, down from 5.4% last month. Core CPI was unchanged at 4.4%.

[Ray Donald Pratt]

I am slowly creating a single-page HTML/CSS/JavaScript program for writing motions and pleadings. Very few modern attorneys submit motions and pleadings where the sentence lines match up to the number lines on the left. Double-spaced lines should match exactly, and single-spaced lines should straddle exactly on, in between, and on again. I have the pleading paper done, and now I am studying how to write into it and use JavaScript to insert hidden formatting tags for bold, italic, underline, strike-through, double-spacing, single-spacing, citation block quotes, font-size choice, and to insert common legal glyphs like §. On a lark, I wondered how hard it would be to add a free spell-checker for legal terms, and my search came across the The Volokh Conspiracy article "Spell Checker for Legal Documents?", dated 11/4/2013. Apparently, there were no replies.

Ever since Microsoft lost anti-trust actions back in the day, Microsoft Word dumped its feature for creating legal pleadings, and Corel WordPerfect did the same after it was bought out by Microsoft.

I cannot be the only one who has tried to bring back the magic of well-formatted legal pleadings. See, https://codepen.io/Ray-Donald-Pratt/pen/VwRxmZV

You can paste some lorem ipsum into the pleading paper and play with the font size and line spacing to see that it can work.

I have over 15 years of pro se litigation experience, primarily in prisoners-rights actions (see, e.g., Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2nd 817 (9th Cir. 1987)), and I have an AAS-Legal Assistant degree (with honors) through an ABA-approved course of study. I am getting interested in doing some First Amendment lawsuits regarding Julian Assange and against state and federal censorship of Pro-Palestinian speakers and firms. I am not necessarily 'pro-Palestinian,' but I am incensed by oppression. This pleading paper program is a work of love.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Corel WordPerfect did the same after it was bought out by Microsoft.

So THAT'S what happened to Word Perfect.

All I know is that it now sucks.

[MoreCurious]

It may suck, but it's still better than Word.

[Krayt]

One of my first assembly language programming tasks back in the day was creating a stream formatter for text, cleaning it up. We used the TRT translate-and-test instruction to look for certain characters in a 256 size table, which seemed like a waste to me, but this was back in the 640k is enough for anyone days.

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in the 80's, I didn't have a great printer, but I did have access to a pen plotter. Ended up writing a program to convert text files into properly kerned and justified vector files. Took a while, but the output was beautiful.

[Artifex]

Here is something that might be helpful to you. For tasks like yours, I strongly recommend taking a look at ChatGPT (chat.openai.com). The sweet spot for the Chat Beast seems to be providing aid for novice/intermediate programmers. It is not always right, but you will be testing for correctness in any event, and often when wrong it can correct itself if you describe the symptoms you are seeing while debugging.

If you are more comfortable in English than HTML/CSS/JavaScript, I suggest giving it a try, especially if you are not a professional programmer. Ask it for specific code segments to add the functional additions you desire and my guess is at the very least it will greatly speed things up for you.

[not guilty]

The State has filed its Court of Appeals response in the Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump and others to the Defendants' application for interlocutory appeal. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24536493/fulton-county-da-brief-on-trump-appeal-fani-willis-dq.pdf

In Georgia a trial court’s ruling on a motion to disqualify a prosecutor is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Neuman v. State, 311 Ga. 83, 88, 856 S.E.2d 289 (2021). “Such an exercise of discretion is based on the trial court’s findings of fact which [the appellate court] must sustain if there is any evidence to support them.” Id. Under this deferential standard of review, there is no way that Judge Scott McAfee's fact bound order will be overturned. Entertaining an interlocutory appeal would accordingly be idle ceremony.

[Commenter_XY]

re: FISA 'non' reauthorization

Q: If section 702 is not renewed, what actually happens when an alphabet agency employee searches databases as they did before expiration...do they become liable for 4A violations?

And where would one take the case against that alphabet agency employee? The FISA Court.

My view the FISA Court should be abolished. Why? It is a sewer of abuse toward our 4A rights. This is an experiment (the FISA courts established in 1978) that has gone very seriously awry. Nobody back in Congress in the 70's ever anticipated the scale of abuse of our rights when they established the FISA Court.

Whatever FISA courts are doing, it can be handled in our regular federal district court system.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If you want continuance of a national Cold War strategy based on nuclear first-strike capability, a secret court to keep that intention from public view, both in the U.S. and abroad, is probably indispensable.

Because first-strike nuclear strategy is batshit crazy, I don't think it wise to keep secret the news that it is what has driven U.S. foreign policy from 1945 until today.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty badly kept secret, if you ask me.

[Frank Drackman]

It should be a Capital Offense to comment on Nuke-ular Ish-yews unless you've served in the Military. Just my 2 Shekels.

Frank

[tylertusta]

Federal Courts already have the capability to work with classified material. The FISC is unnecessary.

[Don Nico]

"I don’t think it wise to keep secret the news that it is what has driven U.S. foreign policy "
SL,
Why do you think that it is secret.
It has been part of the declaratory policy of the US as described in the Nuclear Posture Review of every President for the past 40 years.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Some Allies and partners are particularly vulnerable to attacks with non-nuclear means that could produce devastating effects. Given that the U.S. global alliance network is a military center of gravity, the United States will continue to field flexible nuclear capabilities and maintain country-specific approaches that reflect our best understanding of adversary decision-making and perceptions.

Nico, that is the only even slightly forthright bit of first-use disclosure in the 2022 nuclear posture review. It is the last of only 4 paragraphs. In the entire brief 4 paragraph presentation the words, "deter," and "deterrence," appear 18 times. The words, "first strike," or, "first use," never appear.

Nico, do you read that as assertion that a non-nuclear attack by Russia against Lithuania will be met with a decapitating strategic nuclear strike by the U.S. against Moscow, and likely also Beijing? If not, on the basis of what policy you can cite do you think otherwise? Stay mindful that on this subject imputations of insanity are irrelevant; the subject candidly includes appearance of insanity as a possible advantage.

Do you think the Posture Review means something else? If so, how do you know? How do you think an average American reads that, presented as it is without any corroboration from plan specifics—even though specific plans certainly exist?

Do you even know whether any president of the United States has succeeded in learning the specifics of nuclear attack plans which now govern our nation's military's nuclear strategy? It is a matter of record, documented by Daniel Ellsberg, that for decades the military kept that information from U.S. presidents. Where is any record disclosed that the policy is different now? If military strategists previously thought the subject too daunting to share in detail with mere elected Presidents, why would they think otherwise now?

How many Americans understand that many people in this nation's military chain of command—not just the President—have independent power to initiate first use of nuclear weapons—that no presidential order is necessary for that to happen? How many Americans understand that such first-use capacity is probably widely distributed likewise among military officers in each nuclear-capable nation on earth?

Do you understand that what you consider to be an open secret functions against openness. It functions instead to protect by secrecy in detail against demands for reduction of an over-capacity of nuclear warheads sufficient to kill literally billions of the world's population, and possibly everyone?

Do you understand the reason the U.S. resists reducing its nuclear arsenal to a sane (far smaller) number of nuclear warheads is at least three-fold: first, to facilitate foreign policy bullying of other nations, by threatening actually insane consequences initiated by America's President; second, the darkly ironic motive that encourages Congressional advocates to keep lucrative nuclear weapons development projects well-funded in their districts; and third, to unify military rivals from different service branches to pull together to serve each branch a sustaining slice of strategic, "deterrent"?

Describe what you know about the number of warheads the U.S. targets against potential adversaries, and the number of deaths which would result world-wide if they were used in a preemptive first-strike, based on that vaguely-presented theory of, "our best understanding of adversary decision-making and perceptions."

Without disclosure of details of nuclear first-use plans, nuclear war policy remains a secret, sold to the public in a cloud of squid-ink about, "deterrence." That prevents mobilization of any political coalition to reduce drastically nuclear weapons reliance to a level which might permit human survival in the event of miscalculation, accident, or terrorist provocation.

Do you think you understand what the U.S. would do with its nuclear weapons if terrorists got their hands on a 1-megaton warhead, and detonated it in Moscow? You can be certain there is an American plan for that contingency. You do not know the plan. You do not even know if the President knows the plan, or if a presidential demand to be informed of the plan would get forthright compliance.

My point is simple. The entire insane structure of America's nuclear strategy must be stripped bare, and presented to the public for debate and political response. Until that happens, it will prove impossible world-wide to make any headway to curb nuclear proliferation, while proliferation continues to multiply ungovernable existential risks.

Do you think otherwise? Do you prefer some, Very Serious Person pose, chosen to encourage complacency or indifference? Do you think this question whether to tolerate or eliminate existential risk is unfit for politics?

[Absaroka]

I'm not grokking you here. You are saying that A)there are nuclear attack plans that are so secret even the president isn't aware of them but B)you are. This doesn't seem plausible.

I'm with Mr. Nico; the US hasn't been coy about what we might or might not do. If subjected to a WMD attack we may use nukes in response, but we may also use them first if, for example, a Soviet conventional attack is closing in on the Pyrenees. You may prefer that we have a policy of announcing we won't use them first even if the Soviets are in the outskirts of Lisbon, but your fellow Americans disagree with you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, for nearly everything I wrote above I relied on Daniel Ellsberg—who seems during his life to have made himself the single most-informed person on the planet on the subject of nuclear war plans and nuclear war hazards. Ellsberg did that not merely by being a nuclear war planner himself, working for the RAND consulting firm. He also did what others did not, by fact checking on the ground real-life implications of which his colleagues and clients in the Defense Department remained loftily unaware. It does not help that they all have been using security precautions to shield from each other bits of the overall picture, with the result that there may be no one—not even Ellsberg—who has seen the picture whole, and certainly not any President of the United States.

Ellsberg detailed that stuff in his book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.

Judging from your comment, you have not read that book, or forgot what you read.

What uninformed fellow Americans conclude about nuclear war strategies and plans does not seem a promising source of wise political guidance about how those should be governed. That, in fact, is a major point of Ellsberg’s book, and was also my reason for opening that discussion here.

Your reliance on the preferences of people kept deliberately in the dark about abiding and burgeoning existential perils does your own judgment no credit. Why not buy Ellsberg’s book and see what you think after reading it?

[Absaroka]

His book is available at archive.org.

I read the introduction. I see three points:

1)An all out nuclear exchange would be very, very bad. Planet ending bad. I certainly agree. The question is how to prevent that. Deterrence is one strategy for prevention. Unilateral disarmament is another, but it has some disadvantages.

2)We never disclaimed that we might use nukes first if, for example, the Soviets were overrunning Europe. He seems to feel this is bad. Better, perhaps, to make it clear to the Soviets that they can overrun Europe without risking a nuclear response. I don't think I agree that is obviously better than the ambiguity we have maintained.

3)Under some circumstances - loss of communications with Washington, for example - some military commanders might be allowed to use nukes on their own. He feels this is very bad, but notes that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter, and 'almost certainly ... every subsequent president to this day'". This, I think raises the question of who is right - every single president, or Ellsberg?

(lastly, I gotta ask - what's your view on people copying thousands of pages of classified nuclear war plans and leaving them unsecured, giving them to friends, burying them in compost heaps, hiding them in public landfills, and so on?)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka, read the book, not the introduction. You want the evidence, not the generalizations. Ellsberg provided the evidence. He was a meticulous and self-critical reporter. He reported and analyzed his blunders as well as his insights.

The risk goes far beyond response to lost communications with Washington during wartime. It includes myriad possibilities for even low-ranking commanders in peacetime, on the basis of misinformation, misimpression, accident, or other mishap to initiate a nuclear exchange, deliberately or by accident.

Note also, you seem to assume without basis that I urge nuclear disarmament. I do not. I favor credible nuclear deterrence. As Ellsberg makes clear, that cannot include possibility of a spasmodic discharge of multiple thousands of warheads, because the nation doing that commits suicide in doing so; certainly national suicide is a threat less credible than a nation threatening to use a few tens of warheads and hoping to survive.

I will ask you one other question, one which Ellsberg did not address. What implications do you see long-term for nationalist governance world-wide, and/or in the U.S., in having tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in existence, the security of which depends utterly on uninterrupted continuation of highly effective national governance? If, for instance, it became evident that political happenstance had delivered a situation where your own nation was forced to choose between capitulation to a tyrannical government, or loss of physical control over thousands of warheads, which course would you recommend?

Read Ellsberg’s book.

[Absaroka]

Any guesses why every single president for 60 plus years disagrees? Just not as well informed as you/Ellsberg? Not as bright? Any chance at all the solution isn't as clear cut as you/Ellsberg think?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Disagrees with what?

[Absaroka]

I quoted it above, from page 22: "To my surprise, after I had alerted the Kennedy White House to this policy and its dangers, President Kennedy continued it (rather than reverse the decision of the “great commander” who had preceded him). So did Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. So, almost certainly, has every subsequent president to this day,..."

I have Mr. Ellsberg here disagreeing not with one or two presidents, but every one of them. I'm trying to decide if he/you are two of those tendentious cranks who are absolutely sure everyone is wrong but them. So, why did President Obama think you/he are wrong? What's the counterargument to your/his position that is so persuasive?

[Mr. Bumble]

When the improper FISA warrants were exposed against Carter Page Christopher Wray promised reforms. Where are those "reforms"?
The system is broken from top to bottom.

[Kazinski]

They proposed a compromise, requiring warrants to access US citizens data, but Wray opposed it.

But the most amazing thing was 213 Democrats joined 19 Republicans to kill it, after Trump said it should be killed, and here are the headlines:

The Washington Post:
House Republicans revolt against spy agency bill, signaling trouble for Johnson

Axios
GOP revolts against Mike Johnson, tanks vote on FISA spy bill

The Hill
GOP rages over FISA as deadline inches closer

ABC News
House fails to pass procedural vote on FISA in blow to GOP

https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+republicans&oq=fisa+republicans&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTEzNTI1ajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=silk&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

[Commenter_XY]

One of the great ironies is when you get a policy result you want, entirely due to mixed political motivations. It happens a lot. That seems to be the case here. I am fine with it.

What is happening today (and on a daily basis) under section 702 and the FISA Courts is just wrong (meaning, continuous and continual violations and abuse of Americans' 4A rights).

[Brett Bellmore]

1. It's always the Republicans' fault.
2. If it isn't, see point 1.

You get the same dynamic when the government goes into shutdown because a Democratic President vetoes Republican spending bills. Just remember that, if a Republican and a Democrat play a game of chicken, the crash is always the Republican's fault. Always.

Sadly, I expect that, as the pressure mounts, they'll find some way to renew the law. Domestic surveillance means the intelligence agencies have a LOT of dirt on members of Congress, so they WILL get their way in the end.

[tylertusta]

You forgot 3: When Democrats do the same thing, it's high-minded statesmanship.

[bernard11]

You get the same dynamic when the government goes into shutdown because a Democratic President vetoes Republican spending bills.

And rightly so, because the Republican spending bills are catastrophically stupid. What do you expect from a political party that is institutionally insane?

[Brett Bellmore]

Your reasoning is exactly what I expect from a political party that's institutionally insane, actually.

You're basically taking a rule or ruin approach to spending: You get every cent you want, or you'll drive this thing off a cliff, because you're entitled to spend every cent you want.

[Nige]

Why oh why won't they just give in to idiotic Republican brinksmanship like they're supposed to?

[Sarcastr0]

The GOP caucus has actual chaos agents in it right now.

Voting down their own party's rules, rooting for a shutdown, vacating the chair of out spite.

I take it you haven't seen the latest budget. It's full of compromises and some pretty drastic cuts.
You are, once again, letting your preferred narrative write what you think is true. Dems got nowhere near every cent they wanted.

You were always a radical, but you didn't always used to be this lazy.

[bernard11]

No Brett. it's you whose looking in funhouse mirrors.

The Dems are willing to compromise on spending, but no to be blackmailed into all sorts of crap the GOP wants to shove in. There were plenty of things the GOP got.

Of course the Freedom Caucus idiots weren't happy.

[tylertusta]

An explainer on what happened as explained by a House Congressman:

This wasn’t a vote on the FISA section 702 renewal bill. It was a vote on the rule for how to consider bills on the floor of the House. The rule would have allowed a FISA extension plus multiple amendments to be considered, including an amendment for a warrant requirement.

The rule being voted on also would have allowed three other pieces of legislation to come to the floor.

All Democrats voted no because they’re Democrats. They oppose all GOP-run procedural moves on the floor out of spite.

19 Republicans voted no on the rule, but there are various reasons why some members voted that way.

Some voted no because they felt that even the warrant amendment didn’t go far enough and wanted to halt the bill in its tracks.

Some may have voted no on the rule because they thought that there was insufficient support for the warrant amendment and enough support to pass just the 702 renewal sans the warrant provision. Killing the rule prevents another extension of the 702 provision altogether, which is an acceptable outcome for some.

Meanwhile, there are those who oppose FISA voted yes on the rule because they wanted a voting record of who supported warrants for FISA and who didn’t. These would have voted no on the 702 renewal even if the warrant amendment passed.

Some Republicans voted yes on the rule because they wanted the warrant requirement and felt that there was enough support in the House to pass the amendment, but fully planned to vote no on the FISA bill if the warrant amendment failed to pass.

Now that the vote for the rule failed, there’s still several avenues for a FISA bill to come to the floor, so this isn’t over yet.

[Michael P]

Ukrainian refugees took a bite out of the Big Apple and found it was rotten: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-05/nyc-s-displaced-ukrainians-weigh-ditching-city-for-war-torn-home

It's quite a milestone that living in our Democrat-run cities is worse than being bombed by Putin.

[Martinned2]

Don't you mean that "living in the US is worse than being bombed by Putin"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nope, original statement was correct.

[Michael P]

No. If I meant that, I would have written that.

[Nige]

US cities not being 'real' America.

[Michael P]

Again, no. Dem cities being "real shitty" America.

[Sarcastr0]

Cities are fine. They have their usual set of problems no matter which party governs them.
Rural areas have their set of issues as well.

It’s tryhard divisiveness, and it doesn’t work well politically. The only ones that buy this Dem cities bad nonsense are fearful old conservatives.

[Nige]

But say a word about 'flyover country.'

[SimonP]

Isn't making being in the US so intolerable that migrants self-deport back to their home countries a key part of conservatives' immigration policy?

The story you linked explained that Ukrainian refugees are coming up to the expiration of their initial temporary leave to remain in the US. To stay longer, they'll need to qualify for some other refugee program. That is the kind of thing that people like you want to put an end to. Isn't this a policy "win" for MAGA?

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's not what it says. It's multiple factors, including the cost of living and earning a living with school-age children as well as the lack of family and English skills.

And, of course, they could freely move to a Republican run rural town, but, strangely, they don't. Using the same logic, do you assume that a dying rural town is worse than a Democrat-run city? Certainly most educated Americans think so, it stands to reason Ukrainians would too.

But stupid hot takes are a specialty of yours.

(By the way, I personally know Ukrainians and they love America.)

[theobromophile]

I'm definitely a conservative and agree with you on rural depopulation. If you look at any place with minimal growth or depopulation, there is usually a cultural force at work. Sure, people will leave horrid weather for someplace more mild; however, if you want to know why Cincinnati and Nashville are growing but surrounding rural counties are losing people, whelp, that one shouldn't be hard to figure out.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's called bright flight.

The smart, ambitious young people depart at high school graduation to seek the modernity, education, and economic opportunity that can only be found elsewhere. They move to educated, modern, successful cities and/or strong, reason-based campuses, never to return.

What remains is a depleted human residue, a concentrating pool of dysfunction, ignorance, superstition, disaffectedness, addiction, indolence, resentment, and backwardness. The economic, educational, and cultural consequences are predictable and devastating.

[Frank Drackman]

There was plenty of "Flight" away from Penn State, "Coach". Like you could afford to live in Berkeley

[theobromophile]

So Rev, is Chicago a backwards cesspool of bitter, uneducated clingers? Shortly after COVID, the population of Massachusetts decreased slightly, and, of course, the state lost a Representative in 2010 restricting. Is that because the land of Harvard, MIT, Wellesley, Williams, Amherst, Tufts, BC, and Smith is insufficiently educated and progressive?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are the educated, skilled, successful, modern regions of Massachusetts and Illinois losing population . . . or are the rural, bigoted, half-educated backwaters (nearly every state has 'em) shedding population?

Maybe some people are leaving successful, modern communities because they can't afford the cost of the ticket in desirable areas, but mostly I would expect the emptying of can't-keep-up rural stretches to be responsible for population loss.

[theobromophile]

Chicago is quite affordable compared to other large cities and has similar salaries. Yet its population decreases.

Shouldn't a modern, progressive state like Massachusetts figure out housing for its citizens?

Furthermore, the northeast can't even figure out how to reproduce. How can you be on the right side of history when you don't even have kids?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The cities of the northeast can count on pulling the smart, ambitious, promising young people from rural areas -- first to college campuses (Swarthmore and Haverford to Williams and Carnegie Mellon, Harvard and Yale to Pittsburgh and Rutgers, Princeton and Wellesley to Syracuse and MIT), then to the urban centers and suburbs of the cities.

Waiting for a successful young person to return to a Lubbock, Great Falls, Chillicothe, Lynchburg, Grand Forks, or Starkville makes sense only (1) if the person washes out and can't make it in a modern, desireable community or (2) if the person is willing to sacrifice greatly to help a sick relative or something similar.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Don't you live in Pennsylvania?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh separated by Alabama and Kentucky.

[Frank Drackman]

2 Shitholes separated by 2 beautiful States (albeit, with smaller Shitholes)

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, it seems that former "special prosecutor" Nathan Wade has reneged on the temporary divorce settlement he agreed to just months ago and has not complied with the financial obligations to his former wife.
Funny how quickly he agreed to that settlement when it looked like Fanny Pak would have to testify in the divorce proceedings.
Is Fanny off the hook?

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man, Nathan got the Big Casino AND had to deal with that annoying Crack Ho (she probably gave him the Prostrate Cancer) and anyone who's been around Crack smokers knows that Fanny's "testimony" was fueled by 100% Colombian Co-Cai-ane-a (I always pronounce it like Tony Montana did)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Serious question -- prostate cancer is transmissible as a STD?

I hadn't heard that one before.

[Frank Drackman]

Practically every man who gets Prostrate Cancer has had sex (sometimes even with a woman)
No, unlike the Anal/Cervical Cancers which are usually due to the Human Papilloma Virus (and yes, I had my daughters get the HPV shot when they were kids, and I gave them Depo-Provera shots when they got to be of child bearing age, not like I could be there 24-7 to swat away all the guys that were constantly bothering them) there's no evidence linking STD's to Prostrate Cancer.
The "Standard" explanation (i.e. the one you have to regurgitate to pass your Bored Exams) is that the increase in Prostrate CA is due to "Environmental Toxins" also due to increased life expectancy as some 80% of men over 80 have at least microscopic Prostrate Cancer.
Problem is nobody knows how to tell if you have the Frank Zappa variety which killed him at 53, or the Ronaldus Maximus Strain, that still hadn't killed him by the time Alzheimer's did at 93.
Only documented way to decrease the risk is regular jerking off, "flushes the system" supposedly.

Frank "I'm not jerking off, I'm just reducing my risk of Prostrate Cancer!"

[Krayt]

Bah, I thought "prostrate" cancer was a clever euphemism for a man hit hard by divorce.

[Frank Drackman]

I know it's "Prostate" but in Med School there was this one Minority Screw-dent who pronounced it "Prostrate" so we all pronounced it the same way to show our solidarity with him, and because it sounded funny (when he showed up, he went through his whole time on "CPT")

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, getting pretty much any STD increases your risk of prostate cancer, but the association is stronger for some STDs than others.

Really, the association is between prostate cancer and urinary tract infections, but STDs ARE urinary tract infections in men.

[tylertusta]

I wouldn't be surprised if some big powerhouse Dem billionaire donor offered to bankroll Wade's divorce to try to hush everything up.

But then that donor backed off once he or she realized how much of shitshow Fulton County actually was.

[Kazinski]

“The man of action is always ruthless; no one has a conscience but an observer."

--Goethe

[Martinned2]

The Napoleon fanboy would know...

https://shannonselin.com/2016/10/napoleon-met-goethe/

[Frank Drackman]

I loved Napoleon "Do the Chickens have Sharp Talons?"

[mydisplayname]

So, we are at the stage ​where “Both the uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide” but a court cannot rule because it believes that genocide is a political question outside the purview of the court. Any bets on what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will do? Or the Supreme Court?

In the interim, how does one refer to multiple horrendous Israeli acts of genocide together forming a genocide in a way that will not be deemed anti-Semitic? I realize that Israelis would prefer not to be portrayed as blood-letting monsters -- just as a rapist might prefer being called an "undocumented sexual partner" and an illegal alien might prefer being called an "undocumented migrant" (with "undocumented worker" no longer en vogue due to the onerous mention of "working") -- but anything less is a forced euphemism. Further, why should acts of genocide be tolerated when committed by Israelis yet be condemned when committed by Ugandans or Germans: other than possession of cash needed by Democrats, what differentiates an Israeli from a Nazi?

[Ironically, in the 1970's, Israel supported Idi Amin of Uganda, who is supposed to have actually eaten some of his enemies. What did Netanyahu say about that at the time??]

[Brett Bellmore]

Define "a people". And 'eradicating a people". I'm pretty sure that the end result of this isn't going to be that everybody in Gaza dies.

Anyway, what the hell are the Israelis supposed to do, just let Hamas keep raping and killing them whenever the wall fails to be enough? Accept that rockets will perpetually be launched their way, and hope to intercept them all? Hope like heck Hamas never gets their hands on a nuclear bomb?

The fundamental problem here is that Hamas is openly genocidal, to a degree that makes the NAZIs look like Gandhian pacifists. I don't think there's actually any response to that short of the Jews letting them have their way that you'd approve of, frankly, so why should anyone value your approval?

[Martinned2]

Define “a people”. And ‘eradicating a people”. I’m pretty sure that the end result of this isn’t going to be that everybody in Gaza dies.

Then again, "everybody dies" isn't actually an element of the crime of genocide:

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

[Commenter_XY]

Except....Israel did not declare war against a people. They declared war on a Judeocidal terror group (who has reaffirmed their Judeocidal intent repeatedly since 7 Oct 23) and it's members who committed acts of war on Israeli soil, to secure their country, and to repatriate hostages. Regrettably, Hamas chooses to sacrifice their own people in service to their sick, and malevolent ideology.

I am personally grateful to POTUS Biden for his support of Israel with weaponry and actionable intelligence that enables Israel to hunt down and kill Hamas members, with a comparatively low percentage of gazan civilian casualties. I see that actionable intelligence netted Israel three Hamas terrorists last evening, with Haniyeh as their surname. Three down, just a few thousand more to go.

The only problem I see here is that Israel needs to kill more Hamas members faster. After resupply and replenishment, Rafah is next. It will be soon.

[Nige]

'They declared war on a Judeocidal terror group'

By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that. If you completely ignore the widespread death and suffering, all the dead children, the war against Hamas is going fine.

[Martinned2]

Israel did not declare war against a people

Where do you see the word "war" in the definition of genocide? Try to be a lawyer for just a second, please.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your support of Israel's immoral, criminal right-wing belligerents (and disregard for the legitimate interests of non-Israelis in the West Bank, Gaza, and elsewhere) resembles your support for America's vestigial clingers and your disdain for modern America and its liberal-libertarian mainstream.

One important difference: America's superstitious, downscale wingnuts will still be getting subsidies from America's culture war winners long after Israel's superstitious, right-wing assholes have been left to fend for thenselves.

[SRG2]

Anyway, what the hell are the Israelis supposed to do, just let Hamas keep raping and killing them whenever the wall fails to be enough? Accept that rockets will perpetually be launched their way, and hope to intercept them all? Hope like heck Hamas never gets their hands on a nuclear bomb?

Basically, that is exactly what much of the world wants Israel to do.

As they never have to bear the cost of Hamas attacks, it's easy to sit back and decry Israel's response.

As I wrote elsewhere:

I do not like what is going on in Gaza. I take no pleasure in the death of civilians and the destruction of buildings. But it is a mistake to think that there is a good answer, rather than better or worse choices amongst bad answers and Israel is generally making the better choice. I would like Israeli passivity even less..
Hamas gave Israel a clear choice on October 7 - fight us, and kill thousands of Gazans in a matter of weeks, or don't fight us, and let us kill hundreds of you every so often. I do not believe that there was much of a realistic compromise of position between those choices given that Hamas is dedicated to a culture of death, generally, and the eradication of Jews, specifically.

There are customary laws of war that almost all fighting bodies largely adhere to. There will always be breaches in any conflict - so I am not going to pretend that no Israeli soldier ever commits a war crime. But nor will I accept the argument from the Palestinian side, that these laws of war put Hamas at a disadvantage so it's only fair that they breach them, by using civilians as human shields, embedding their operations in civilian locations, etc. Hamas are *hosti humani generis*. (And one way or another they have plenty of support in Gaza.)

No country anywhere - ANYWHERE - is going to tolerate an enemy like that on its borders, and will always prioritise the lives of its own citizens ahead of the citizens in the neighbouring country.
There are plenty of people who will perform a moral calculus and say, if country X loses an average of say 250 citizens a year to attacks from Y, but can choose instead to fight Y at a cost of 10,000 of Y's citizens, as no life is worth more than any other, X should just suffer. But first, no country will accept that inaction as an option and second, this calculus ignores the message that is sent more broadly to disputes elsewhere.

[Jumaira]

The only way the West will ever have peace is if Islam is eradicated from the Earth. That means either forcing Muslims to convert and killing their leaders, which is what Ann Coulter advocated for, or just exterminating all Muslims.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Israel should be entitled to do as it wishes.

But, so long as it chooses immoral, bigoted, and criminal right-wing belligerence, it should not receive support from others. Let right-wing assholes pursue their stale, ugly aims on their own dime.

[Jumaira]

That's how I feel about Shaniqua shooting out 8 illegitimate children on my dime.

[Moderation4ever]

I think the issue for me, and others is one of has the time for the big war ended. Have the goals for a big war been achieved and now is the time to change to more targeted strategies. Ending Hamas is a political goal but not a practical goal. So, the question is the big war being extended for military purposes or rather for political ones. Continuing the big war does begin to run close to genocide and will do the people of Israel no good. It seems to serve only the political goals for a small group. A bigger and more important political decision is how to move forward towards finding Palestinian leaders that can focus on their people and not some idea of ending Israel.

[Mr. Bumble]

Even accepting the Hamas figures for the number of deaths in Gaza , how does the death of 30-40 thousand out of 2.5 million amount to genocide?

[Krayt]

[Brett Bellmore]

Ending Hamas is a practical goal, in the same sense ending the NAZI party in Germany was a practical goal. It's not an EASY goal, it's going to involve a LOT of people in Gaza dying, the Palestinians will have to lose the autonomy they had for a generation, but it's doable.

Palestinian schools are operating as pro-genocide indoctrination centers. That has to change. It's not going to change voluntarily. So the Palestinians have to have that choice taken away, so that the NEXT generation will be willing to accept peace.

"A bigger and more important political decision is how to move forward towards finding Palestinian leaders that can focus on their people and not some idea of ending Israel."

A start on that is making them absolutely certain that focusing on some idea of ending Israel just results in ending up dead.

[Moderation4ever]

Look at your comment about the Nazi Party in Germany. The Allied Powers did not keep up the war in Germany until all the Nazis were dead. Instead, they rebuilt Germany as a place where there was no need for the Nazi party. Post war Germany likely had Nazis after the war, but they died off naturally. This is a better model for Israel to use than to continue a large war in Gaza. Hunt down the Hamas leaders in targeted strikes. Build the Palestinians back as a better people.

[Artifex]

What the Allied Powers did with both Germany and Japan is insist on unconditional surrender. Seems appropriate for the war between Israel and Hamas as well. There is not much to say about "rebuilding" until Hamas unconditionally surrenders.

[Nige]

People are always fighting the last war, but you’re trying to fight a war three-quarters of a century old while ignoring the actual ‘last wars’ of the previous twenty years. It's a great way to justify the mass slaughter of civilians, if you're into that, but that's all it is.

[SRG2]

Can you think of a way that Hamas could avert the mass slaughter of their fellow Gazans?

[Nige]

Lots of ways. But Hamas aren't the ones doing the slaughtering. The current slaughtering, anyway.

[SRG2]

In a war, "who started it?" is a relevant question.

[Martinned2]

@SRG2: If you're prosecuting people for aggression, sure. Otherwise, not so much. The distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello goes back centuries. It's just that, historically, the philosophers and jurists spent a lot of time thinking about just war theory (ius ad bellum) and not a lot of time thinking about what is and isn't OK once a war has started (ius in bello).

[SRG2]

But it also goes to how much force the attacked party can engage in to prevent a recurrence.

[Martinned2]

@SRG2: Not really. "Recurrence" doesn't really factor into anything. Nothing in the ius in bello (or, if you prefer English, International Humanitarian Law), prevents Israel from utterly destroying Hamas. And likewise, nothing in the laws of war (ius ad bellum or ius in bello) authorises Israel to attack civilians because of some concern about another war in the future.

In some circumstances, a state can initiate an armed conflict as an exercise of its right to self-defence (art. 51 UN Charter). But that is only lawful if an attack against it is *imminent*. Only then is a pre-emptive attack allowed. That is million miles away from killing civilians now so that they don't become soldiers in 10 years time.

[Nige]

‘In a war, “who started it?” is a relevant question.’

Of course it is. But it’s also a useful propagnda pount if you want to kill tens of thousands of poople while still claiming some moral high ground.

'But it also goes to how much force the attacked party can engage in to prevent a recurrence.'

If they wanted to prevent a recurrence they would examine what went wrong on Oct 7th and fix it, and they would seek a way to de-escalate hostilities. So this is not that.

[SRG2]

Consider this hypothetical. A country has a battleship stationed off the coast of another country. The ship occasionally shells cities on the coast, killing say 50 or 100 at a time. This ship has a crew of 2,000 but also has 6,000 civilians on board - including of course women and children, and inevitably in overcrowded conditions. The country with the battleship refuses to stand down and says it will continue to shell coastal cities. What should the other country do?

[Nige]

'it’s going to involve a LOT of people in Gaza dying, the Palestinians will have to lose the autonomy they had for a generation,'

Which is to say, the things that always fail horrifically, only more so.

[Commenter_XY]

A bigger and more important political decision is how to move forward towards finding Palestinian leaders that can focus on their people and not some idea of ending Israel.

Good luck trying to find those people. Repeated polling of palestinians in the aftermath of the Simchat Torah pogrom show strong support for the actions (and ideology) of Hamas. The only arab Knesset member I see who has the desire to move forward with Israel, and improve the lives of the arabs living in Israel is Mansour Abbas (Ra'am). He is a guy who I have quietly watched for some time now. He acted credibly while Naftali Bennett was in power.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Palestinians support Hamas.

Israelis support murderous settlers, war crimes, land theft, and bigoted, superstitious, right-wing government.

Maybe it's best to stay out of it. Neither side is attractive or worthy.

[Nige]

Good luck finding non-extremists after this mess.

[CountmontyC]

So could the question of us it time to just end the applicable to Ukraine as well? Because that war has been going on even longer than the Israel-Hamas war.

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with you.

The problem is Ukraine has been a reactive war to invasion. That rather changes the 'have a strategic goal' maxim.

But as third parties, even with a rooting interest, we should be thinking hard about how this could end, and end such that Russia doesn't get rewarded for imperialism.

[CountmontyC]

Are you saying Israel wasn't invaded? Because to me October 7 looks a lot like an invasion and Hamas is threatening more such invasions and slaughter. So why isn't Israel allallowed to finish off the threat Hamas poses to Israel?

[Nige]

More of an incusrion than an invasion, and its the thousands and thousands of dead people Hamas is objecting to.

[CountmontyC]

1200 dead sounds like an invasion to me. It was also in Israel proper so yes an invasion.

[Nige]

It can sound like it to you all you want, it's still not an invasion except in the colloquial sense.

[Martinned2]

So why isn’t Israel allallowed to finish off the threat Hamas poses to Israel?

It is. It's just not allowed to intentionally or recklessly kill disproportionate numbers of civilians while it does so.

[CountmontyC]

It is not allowed to specifically target civilians. However if the Palestinian military ( Hamas)chooses to hide behind civilians then Israel can still attack Hamas and it is Hamas guilty of war crimes.

[Martinned2]

No, then they're both guilty of war crimes.

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/irrc-872-bouchie-de-belle.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

On the contrary: Your own link, (Which goes a bit too far in the case of voluntary human shields, I think.) states that a rule of proportionality is applicable. See page 17!

You can kill human shields if it is incidental to a legitimate military operation that you would have conducted if they weren't there, and the civilian deaths are not out of proportion to the military objective.

The rules of war, after all, are not intended to create a positive incentive for their own violation. And that's what you'd have if combatants were flatly required to avoid killing human shields; They'd work, and thus be used more widely!

[Sarcastr0]

Attacked, not invaded. Hamas held no territory.

No one on the VC has any issue with their wiping out Hamas.

But they have not seemed to have a viable plan to do so, they just went in with guns and righteousness.

If Israel has some way to 'finish off the threat Hamas poses to Israel' I'd be very supportive. I don't see that though.

[CountmontyC]

An enemy force entering another country is an invasion and Israel is destroying Hamas and it's weapons supply. Seems viable to me.

[Sarcastr0]

I really don't care about the semantics here. OK for the sake of argument, an invasion.

Ukraine has an active invasion they are repelling.
That's a different situation than Israel which has a threat they want to wipe out.

You can argue neither is a war of choice, but Israel has some luxury as the active belligerent.

destroying Hamas and it’s weapons supply
"Victory!" is not a strategy. How are they going to do this? Because so far, they're not pulling it off.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh please. For you, the Jews are 'different' and somehow they are an 'exception' and have to be held to some vague 'standard'. Yeah Sarcastr0, we know.

But Sarcastr0...some of your best friends are Jews, right? If I ever need a 'friend' with a shiv to stick in me, I'll know who to call.

[CountmontyC]

If Israel stopped and implemented a ceasefire how long do you think that ceasefire would last before Hamas attacked Israel again? And yes rocket fire would be an attack.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, a ceasefire is not the answer.

I don't know what is.
Certainly the crowd advocating for Israel taking hard measures against these Jew-hating Palestinians, or saying the solution is some ethnic cleansing or even light genocide do not know.

That's what I point out about Israel coming in with righteousness but no real method in mind to achieve their righteous goal.
It's the lesson we learned in Afghanistan. When it comes to a plan: have one.

(IMO we had a plan in Iraq, we just biffed the execution.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How many Palestinian friends does Commenter_XY have?

Is that why he is willing — even eager — to treat them inhumanely and extend his general right-wing bigotry to cover them?

[Nige]

'If I ever need a ‘friend’ with a shiv to stick in me, I’ll know who to call.'

And if we ever need a 'friend' who will use us to justify, and therefore implicate us in, the most appalling acts of mass slaughter, we also know who to call.

[Sarcastr0]

If I ever need a ‘friend’ with a shiv to stick in me, I’ll know who to call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

How does this keep happening?

[Absaroka]

"Ukraine has an active invasion they are repelling.
That’s a different situation than Israel which has a threat they want to wipe out."

This seems like pretty thin gruel to me. It's the winter of 1944/45. The Allies have reached the German border. At that point, they have liberated France, Holland, Poland, etc, so they aren't repelling an active invasion any more. What right do they have to continue into Germany, with all the horrific civilian casualties that will cause, just because they don't want to deal with the hypothetical future threat that the Nazi government might try and invade its neighbors again?

[Sarcastr0]

Abrasoka, wars have a momentum all their own, I’m not at all talking about once a war gets rolling.

I’m saying Israel had some flexibility on when and how they went in (and Ukraine did not).
And at this point it’s pretty clear Israel didn’t use their options to outline a strategic plan towards victory (I’d say specify a victory condition, but in this case the victory condition seems pretty clear).

Do I have any idea what that plan should look like? I do not. But it looks to me like they are where they are because they didn’t think like that.

[SimonP]

Anyway, what the hell are the Israelis supposed to do, just let Hamas keep raping and killing them blah blah blah...

Brett, if you want to be taken seriously by people who disagree with you, you need to stop spinning yourself into this ritualistic recitation of grievances. It just doesn't seem like you've read anything, or reflected upon anything, or adjusted a single view about the matter, since October 7. It would be futile at this point to even try to engage you in yet another rebuttal of this dreck, since by now it's surely been done dozens of times with no effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't particularly care to be taken seriously by people who are determined to pretend the Palestinian leadership can be reasoned with, and that the Israelis have to just keep accepting attacks without doing anything until they find an argument that works.

Sometimes people are unreasonable, and there's nothing left to do but kill them so that they stop trying to kill you.

[Sarcastr0]

Israelis have to just keep accepting attacks without doing anything until they find an argument that works

I've never seen this argument.

Israel got themselves into a counterinsurgency trap. We watched them do it. Some of us talked about what it was. Others, either blinded with righteous spite, or having never heard of Algiers, thought if you were ruthless enough maybe it'd go different.

Except the second folks have been proven wrong at this point. But seem to be still doubling down on more civilian deaths.
It's really foolish to think that will get you anywhere tactical at this point.

[SimonP]

Right, more blah, blah, blah...

You'll note that I didn't say, "if you want to be taken seriously by people who [think Israel should try to negotiate a ceasefire or truce with Hamas]," I said, "if you want to be taken seriously by people who disagree with you [whatever that disagreement might be about]." It's interesting to me that "people who disagree with you" includes, apparently, anyone who does not take your conclusions as granted.

Like, I could once again explain to you why your hidden premises don't reflect the science or history of resolving these kinds of military conflicts. I could once again explain that the legitimate goal of eliminating Hamas as a real military threat to Israel does not require the total destruction of Gaza. I could once again rebut the asinine talking point that any opposition to Israel's current campaign or calls for an immediate ceasefire is tantamount to calling for Israel to consent to being raped and bombed without recourse. I could once again outline the ways in which Israel's strategy in Gaza is so counterproductive to the stated goal of eliminating Hamas as a military threat that one has to surmise that Israel's goal is, in fact, to create new "facts on the ground" that effectively force any surviving Palestinians out of the territory, either quickly or after more years of starvation, economic isolation, poverty and disease, etc.

And you don't have to agree with any of that, but it would be nice if, at least, one could see some evidence in your responses that engaging with you in such terms wasn't just throwing pearls before swine, as you go snorting back to your inane talking points without any adjustment.

There are reasonable and better-informed positions between your idiotic take and the strawman position you refuse to countenance. I am better informed, better read, and smarter than you are, but there are other smart people who don't necessarily agree with me that are also better informed, better read, and smarter than you are. Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge this just signals - as I said - that you're immune to reason and facts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"[think Israel should try to negotiate a ceasefire or truce with Hamas]"

What the hell is the point? Do you not follow the news? Hamas has already rejected a ceasefire!

So you're demanding that Israel do what they already got rebuffed for doing.

[Martinned2]

Hamas has also offered a ceasfire.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-issues-ceasefire-proposal-mediators-which-includes-exchanging-2024-03-15/

But it doesn't matter. Israel is not obligated to either offer or accept a ceasefire.

[Mr. Bumble]

When has Hamas ever honored a cease fire?

[Brett Bellmore]

While they were reloading.

[SimonP]

Jesus Christ. Read my comment again, you waffle-headed moron.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm trying to envision that in my mind, but I have one question I cannot artistically come up with an answer to:

What kind of hairstyle goes best with a waffle-head?

[apedad]

Slightly O/T:

Did you know that Netanyahu's older brother was the military leader of Operation Thunderbolt (Israel's Raid on Entebbe), and was the only Israeli military casualty?

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

I was in Uganda and Entebbe in the mid-90s and the old airport tower and terminal were still there - still riddled with bullet holes.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, I've known that since I first learned about Net N' Yahoo. Actually I've known of Yoni Net N' Yahoo since I watched "Raid on Entebbe" in 1977 (Made for TV Movie, think there will be any about October 7?) it's just nobody knew who Bibi was yet.
The Entebbe raid occurred on July 4, 1976, mine (and Amurica's) birthday remember when Amuricans cheered when Israel killed A-rab Terrorists?
Yoni was a legitimate Amurican Bad-Ass, born in NYC, and remember that part in "Munich" where the Israeli Commandos kill the terrorists in Beirut? that was Yoni

Yoni was a member of a commando unit sent the night of April 19,1973 to Beirut to attack the planners of the Munich Massacre.

Israeli commandos landed on a Lebanese beach and slipped into Beirut. Yoni and his unit made their way to the apartment of Black September leader Muhammad Youssef Al-Najjar (Abu Youssef). Yoni had not been originally assigned to the mission—he had volunteered.

The last to leave the apartment, Yoni grabbed a satchel of papers just as Lebanese police jeeps arrived. The papers contained operational plans for the PLO’s terrorist network throughout Israel. Yoni’s discovery undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives.

Frank

[Michael P]

In the ruling you quoted, a bunch of antisemites sued Joe Biden. Is your complaint that the antisemites had no standing in their frivolous suit or just that the Biden administration took advantage of that rather than dignify a bunch of bigots by arguing the merits?

[Martinned2]

So we're back to calling people we disagree with "antisemites"? Please go ahead and explain what your basis is for calling these people and organisations antisemites:
- Defense for Children International-Palestine,
- Al-Haq,
- Ahmed Abu Artema,
- Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh,
- Mohammad Herzallah,
- A. N., Laila Elhaddad,
- Waeil Elbhassi,
- Basim Elkarra,
- Omar Al-Najjar,
- Dr. Omar Al-Najjar

Also, what's so frivolous about a case that was only dismissed because of the political question doctrine, which is a fig leaf with no basis in the constitution that exists only to allow courts to weasel out of deciding cases that they think might get them in trouble?

[Michael P]

We are still at the point of calling antisemites what they are.

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/defense-for-children-international-palestines-ties-to-the-pflp-terrorist-organization-2/, for example: "front group for Islamist terror" would be more precise than "antisemites" in at least that case. Al-Haq seems to have similar leadership problems.

Now are you going to answer my question?

[Martinned2]

I think my answer to your question (which wasn't directed at me, for the avoidance of doubt) is implied in my previous comment. I think the Dutch version of this case was correctly decided, albeit with different underlying substantive law. The equivalent provision of US law, s. 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, sets the bar higher, because it doesn't capture a situation where there is a "risk" that the weapons will be used for human rights violations etc. And whether Israel engages in "a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" isn't obvious.

It makes sense that not any random person off the street should be able to litigate this question. Standing is a thing. But if the plaintiffs can show that the relief they are seeking solves a tangible problem they have in a way that is distinct from every other person, I don't think the court (or the defendant) should be able to avoid complying with the law by invoking some political question doctrine.

Let the defendants say, and the court agree, that the evidence isn't there to show a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. That would be a perfectly respectable outcome. But ducking the issue isn't what courts should do in a state governed by the rule of law.

[Bob from Ohio]

National security matters and foreign relations are the province of the Executive [and to a limited extent Congress], the courts have no role. None. Nada. Geen.

[Martinned2]

If Congress has made a law, it is the job of the Executive to execute it, and the job of the Judiciary to see that it does. If the Executive thinks that Congress has made a law that is unconstitutional, for example because it governs something that is within the sole power of the Executive, it is welcome to make that argument in court. But as long as Congress stays within its constitutional bounds, the laws it makes should be obeyed by the Executive and the Judiciary.

[Bob from Ohio]

"basis"

They filed suit in support of Hamas. There is your "basis".

[Martinned2]

No, they filed suit in support of innocent Palestinian civilians.

[Bob from Ohio]

They don't care about Palestinian civilians at all, or they would try to get their Hamas buddies to release the hostages and surrender.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their Hamas buddies probably can't release the hostages, having long since killed them.

[Nige]

Two Iraq war supporters supporting more war. Saddam was days away from unleashing them WMDs.

[Jumaira]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/rutgers-university-center-for-islamic-life-vandalized-eid-reaj/index.html

Warms my heart.

[Frank Drackman]

Guarantee you the "Vandalism" was done by a Mahmoud, Moe-hammed, O-mar, Ah-med. Pure Coincidence that it occurs right after Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong-Dan.

Frank "round up the usual suspects, and deport them"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These bigots are the target audience of the Volokh Conspiracy.

Carry on, clingers.

[Jumaira]

And the target of the deviants that fill most college campuses these days is your diseased colon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are the defender these wingnut professors deserve (and target).

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez, with that shitty excuse of a Defense I'm beginning to think you really are Coach Jerry Sandusky

[Commenter_XY]

From the river (Raritan), to the C (student lounge), Rutgers shall be free. 🙂

Hope they find the vandals.

[dwb68]

Winred is awful and i refuse to donate to any candidate who uses it, which may hurt some candidates i may support (but who probably dont need my money anyway). All you get is 37 trillion spam texts from candidates i dont care about who arent in my district, state, even side of the country. Thank god for dark money pools.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Four New York Times Reporters Repeat Debunked Claims that Past Presidential Candidates Injured the Democratic Nominee”

https://ballot-access.org/2024/04/10/four-new-york-times-reporters-repeat-debunked-claims-that-past-presidential-candidates-injured-the-democratic-nominee/

The Times’ evidence includes Republican aid to RFK, Jr, aid to West and Stein on ballot access, and a Republican asking Libertarians to attack Biden rather than Trump (I’m sure the Libertarians will respond with sheep-like obedience. /sarc).

In addition to the misstatements on the influence of Perot in 1992 and Stein in 2016, the article simply leaves out the Constitution Party from consideration – that party stands to “steal” votes from Republicans, not Democrats. I presume the Republicans are as concerned with ballot access for the Constitution Party as the Dems with ballot access for lefty candidates, but the Times article doesn’t even try to spin this in Dems’ favor.

The article includes this paragraph:

“The moves by Trump allies come as the Democratic Party has mobilized a team of lawyers to scrutinize outsider candidates, including looking into whether they’ve followed the rules to get on state ballots.” [with link to article]

It seems the Dems are looking for a scapegoat whom they can blame if the economy is bad enough to induce voters to reject Biden. Dems are willing to practice vote suppression for third parties, violating the constitutional guarantee of a republican (small r) form of government. If it's vote suppression to discourage Dem votes, how is it *not* voter suppression to conspire to deny votes to third parties?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's worth taking a look at Dems' brazen vote-suppression efforts (which probably have Republican counterparts, to counteract the Constitution Party people):

It's paywalled for me, but maybe some of you can read it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/politics/democrats-third-party-candidates.html

[Martinned2]

Maybe it's time to move to a more sophisticated voting system? Even Georgia's two-round system would already solve this problem.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yes, indeed.

[Krayt]

That forces evolution of a secondary two party system, as in states heavily dominated by one side, where the two finals candidates are from the same party.

Is that the will of the voters, or does this breed such pathological states?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In Georgia?

Or are you responding to my original comment?

Ballot access in the context I’m discussing means third parties and independent candidates are on the general election ballot. Your dysfunctional California (not Georgia) system only allows independent candidate son the *primary* ballot, reserving the general election ballot to (say) two Democrats.

Georgia only removes minor-party candidates from the ballot if they don't get enough votes on the *first* ballot, then the top two (generally a Donkey and an Elephant) go up against each other on ballot #2.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Sadly, Georgia's ballot-access law limits the appearance of third-party candidates on the ballot, but with their runoff there's little reason to whine about "minor" candidates "stealing" votes.

[Frank Drackman]

Requiring a majority to get erected???? It's Jim Crow Version Infinity!!!!! It's Pre-Nazi Germany!! (why is it always "Pre-Nazi Germany"?? I was under the impression that Pre-Nazi Germany was pretty cool except for the inflation, I mean, people needing a Shopping Cart to carry enough Deutsch Marks to buy groceries, could never happen here! )

Frank

[Don Nico]

War Stories,
By now it has become clear that Hamas to won the war in Gaza, having achieved it military and political goals. It has created tens of thousands of martyrs for Allah; it has isolated Israel diplomatically on every front, it has mobilized Palestinian diaspora in the US to scare Biden in his re-election campaign, its Allies continue to press for a genocide ruling against Israel in the ICJ. It has radicalized campuses in the US and EU against Israel.
Likewise it is clear that absent US and NATO boots on the ground or the us of strategic US weapons against Russia that the Ukraine will never reverse ts loses in the war against Russia. Even if Mr Biden eventually gets $80B to feed to US arms dealers to ship materiel to Ukraine, that will only prolong the fight to the last Ukrainian. Anything the starts to look like a Russian reversal of fortune risks the use of small battlefield nuclear weapons, consistent with it declared nuclear posture.

In neither case is there a long-term political resolution that ia acceptable to all warring parties.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR is not worth a single American life. Not one.

If Israel fails to defeat Hamas in Gaza, we will be fighting Hamas here in America.

[hobie]

Is that what you actually fear? That Hamas will attack the United States?

[Frank Drackman]

A-rab Terrorists attack the US? you mean like Fly Airliners into Buildings? what are you? a nut?!!!!

[Krayt]

Putin's underball smegma is particularly fragrant today, eh?

[Krayt]

Besides, I doubt you feel merely dumping money in is ok, either? Doing that seems reasonable and is in accord with past precedent.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

UKR is not worth a single American life. Not one.

Israel's right-wing belligerents aren't worth an American fingernail.

We should invite better Israelis to emigrate to the United States, then push the floe that remains out to sea and let nature take its course. If Saudi Arabia can be included in that project, so much the better!

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry, if you'd "Coached" in Saudi Arabia instead of Pennsylvania your genitals would have been fed to the Jackals just before they chopped off your head.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is your fan base, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your deans would dip deeply into their discretionary funds to get you off campus.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Ukraine being lost will cost the lives of Georgians, and Moldovans, and eventually Europeans and Americans. You're just too fucking stupid to realize it.

Hamas will never be a threat to America.

Thankfully the rest of the world doesn't base their foreign policy on idiotic religious grievances like you do.

[Martinned2]

...and Taiwanese

[grb]

Don Nico : “By now it has become clear that Hamas…. (etc)”

There’s seldom anything clear in a Don Nico post. Let’s rewrite this one:

1. One Hamas objective was surely to scuttle negotiations between the Israelis and other Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia. This is likely because many of Hamas’ patrons (such as Iran) are deeply opposed to any such pact. Of course Hamas has had success here, but for how long? It is a truism that Arab sympathy for the Palestinians is only paper thin. The war may have just postponed an agreement.

2. Another Hamas objective was to prompt a wider conflict. Overall, this goal has failed. There was no uprising in the West Bank and conflict in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen etc has tightly controled. There’s been no regional war.

3. If the war was to “scare Biden” per DN’s hackery, it’s another fail. The U.S. military support continues unabated and the White House just approved a massive sale of fighter jets to Israel.

An additional two points : One reason Hamas may find “success” in this bloodbath is Israel has no coherent stategdy to “win”, and nothing close to a plan for Gaza post-war. Given Hamas’s brutal terrorist attack and the facts on the ground, it would have been hard to achieve either, but Israel has been exceptional brutal and clumsy to no stategic end. This is partly tied to Netanyahu’s political situation.

As for Irsael’s diplomatic problems, there’s a tendency of the country’s more shallow supporters to ignore the fact that IDF war tactics have killed civillians, women, children, and aide workers at a rate not seen worldwide in decades.

On Ukraine: One might think Don Nico has been forced to make a painful decision on supporting Ukraine. Nonsense. He was opposed to U.S. support back when Ukraine was retaking massive amounts of ground. He’s regularly repeated Russian talking points since Day One, particularly on Putin’s hamfisted threats of nuclear war. What’s really ludicrous is his crocodile tears about the “last Ukrainian”. This is a common trope from Putin’s far-left and far-right supporters, none of whom give the slightest f**k about any Ukrainian, last or not.

[Martinned2]

This is likely because many of Hamas’ patrons (such as Iran) are deeply opposed to any such pact.

I thought it was more the Gulf States than Iran that were funding Hamas. Anyway, Hamas hardly needs a reason to want to stop talks between Arab countries and Israel.

[Don Nico]

GRB,
You never fail to supply your usual load of bullshit.
Why do you think Hamas wanted a wider war? You just made that up.
Hamas never gave a shit about Biden. Again you made that up.
As for "Israel has been exceptional brutal and clumsy to no strategic end" that is just more of your lack of any strategic insight. The pro-Hamas crowd in the US and EU would have been just as vocal if the death toll in Gaza were only one-third as large. But rather that criticism whiy don't you offer your thoughtful solution.
As for the Ukraine, you keep up your pro-Putin slander when you have then most myopic Biden-centric view of world affairs. If you seriously think that there is any better than a stalemate in store for Zelenskiy, you're delusional. Then you act as if "until the last Ukrainian" is just an extremist troppe when this line has been common parlance across the political spectrum in Europe for nearly two years.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"If you seriously think that there is any better than a stalemate in store for Zelenskiy, you’re delusional."

Speaking of bullshit...

You've got some stuff on your face you should wipe off, Don.

[SRG2]

What Hamas want is simple. No Israel and no Jews. And they don't care how many Palestinian lives are lost to that end.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hamas to won the war in Gaza"

You are way too gloomy. Its just the end of the beginning.

[John Rohan]

Their immediate goal was to derail the Saudi-Israel peace deal, which they did.

Apparently that was a red line they would not allow. But their overall losses have been so devastating, it may have been a really pyrrhic victory for them.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Likewise it is clear that absent US and NATO boots on the ground or the us of strategic US weapons against Russia that the Ukraine will never reverse ts loses in the war against Russia. Even if Mr Biden eventually gets $80B to feed to US arms dealers to ship materiel to Ukraine, that will only prolong the fight to the last Ukrainian."

Keep sucking that dick, Don. You're a shameless Russian propagandist wholly disconnected from reality.

Ukraine is only losing their country because of lack of supplies. They've had success when equipped, and Russia has not used any nuclear weapons when losing ground to them.

Fuck off.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We're running out of ammo -- have been since Obama started going through hellfire missiles like fratboys through beer...
https://reason.com/2024/04/01/what-if-america-runs-out-of-bombs/

[Martinned2]

Maybe stop using them to go after people who live in caves?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Martin, 2010 called, wants its "Bin Laden's in a Cave in Afghanistan" Trope back, Yeah, he was supposedly in a Cave when he was actually in a nice Villa in Abbottabad Pock-E-Stan a literal snipers shot from Pock-E-Stan's version of West Point. It's the one thing Barry Hussein did right and one of a gazillion things Parkinsonian Joe's had wrong.

Frank

[Armchair]

Technically speaking, we're not running out of ammo. In fact, the American small arms industry is easily supplying the small ammunition rounds needed. A side benefit of robust 2nd Amendment protections is the civilian industry needed for a war effort with related weapons.

What we're "running out of" are the larger shells and bombs. 155 mM arty shells, for example.

Generally speaking, the war funds to Ukraine have been horribly mismanaged and promised arms have been lacking. Europe promised Ukraine a million arty shells...they've failed to deliver even 50% of that.

These types of arms are what were really needed to help Ukraine. It's not sexy (like an F-16), but far more effective dollar for dollar, in this type of conflict. But there hasn't been the political will to actually do the necessary construction and hiring to bring this type of increased production online. It's easy to allocate money. It's hard to actually cut the red tape and do the hiring and building to get what was actually needed.

[Martinned2]

A side benefit of robust 2nd Amendment protections is the civilian industry needed for a war effort with related weapons.

That's one way to put it. Or, to put it differently, America already has all the weapons it might need for World War III because Americans use those weapons to shoot at each other on a daily basis.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s mostly Amurican Felons of a particular hue, shooting other Amurican Felons of a particular hue, but you do have the “on a daily basis” (actually more “nightly”) part right. And the only reason in the 1968 “Gun Control Act” (really controlling guns, isn’t it?) “Felons” were specified as a “Prohibited Persons” category is it was the only way they could include Amuricans of a particular hue without actually saying “Amuricans of a particular hue” 1968's Version of the Constitutions “all other persons” verbiage

Frank “Don’t go to a Hawks game, there’s too many “All other persons” there”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The racism at the Volokh Conspiracy is rarely much below the surface, which apparently is how the operators of this white, male, right-wing blog like it.

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of America's Vestigial Bigots.

[ThePublius]

It's not racist to voice an opinion or site a fact regarding gun deaths. It's true that black Americans are killed at a higher rate than whites. But because of bias in the media it's difficult to ascertain the truth that most of these homicides are committed by blacks. If you factor out primarily Dem-run cities like Chicago, St.Louis, Baltimore, Gary, D.C., and so on, the U.S. is a relatively safe place, statistically, regarding firearms related homicides. Saying that is not racist.

I don't take any joy in this, and wish there was a solution. I'm afraid it's a problem of culture, which will take generations to change, once some effort is made to change it!

"...some areas in Chicago are incredibly dangerous. The most dangerous neighborhood in Chicago has a violent crime rate that is 943 percent higher than the national average, making it a severely dangerous neighborhood to live in. "

Here's an interesting site about Chicago:

https://heyjackass.com/

[Frank Drackman]

So you wish gun deaths were distributed equally among the races?? It's like that movie "White Men Can't Jump", "Black Men Can't Not Shoot Each Other Over Stupid Shit"
"Some Areas in Chicago"?? Edison Park? Lake View? Forest Glen?
I'd check your link but "Heyjackass.com"?? why not just link to "Iloveyoungboys.com"??

Frank

[ThePublius]

What on earth are you talking about? No, I don't "wish gun deaths were distributed equally among the races." I have no idea how you leapt to that based on what I posted. I'm just stating a fact!

Go check the link, and cut out the homo slurs, dummy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

At the Volokh Conspiracy it is not racist to habitually publish vile racial slurs, to court racists as a target audience, or to operate a white, male blog.

And conservatives continue to wonder why they have been stomped in the modern American culture war.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got an example of a recent vile racial slur?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Can’t you read?

The Volokh Conspiracy Bigotry Standings are published biweekly. I think these white, male, disaffected wingnuts are still ahead of a once-a-week pace for the year.

Should we start tracking the trans-Muslim-lesbian-white grievance-Black crime-male grievance-drag queen content at this blog, too? Might be a close contest with the racial slurs.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since there are sooo many (in your mind) make it easy on yourself and give us just one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The dates of the five most recent racial slurs published by this white, male, shit-rate blog:

April 10, April 3, April 2, March 27, March 18

The dates of the five most recent racial slurs offered personally by this blog's bigot-hugging proprietor:

March 18, February 20, February 18, February 7, November 5

This is a blog by and for bigots. Right-wing bigots. Republican bigots. Superstitious bigots. Federalist Society bigots. Faux libertarian bigots. Volokh Conspiracy bigots.

How much longer will UCLA be putting up with this stain on its reputation?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Maybe Kirkland can repeat the slur like he did before, and, like he did before, blame that sonovabitch Johnson – I mean the blog’s hosts – for making him do it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes: "articulate."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don't the FBI stats indicate race of murderer,, when known?

[bernard11]

Obama? You're blaming Obama?

How about calling up that spineless weasel Mike Johnson and telling him to stop waffling and playing games and get some funds authorized.

How big a disadvantage does he have to put Ukraine under before he relents? Is he too busy reading his Bible?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Maybe he's praying on it a spell, like an overmatched, especially gullible child.

[Armchair]

The question isn't one of getting funds authorized.

It's one of the proper application of those funds, and the will to build more arms plants

[Kazinski]

Johnson might be willing to push the Ukraine funding through if the Democratic caucus agrees not to vote for MTG's a motion to vacate.

Last time McCarthy pushed through the compromise continuing resolution, then the Democrats joined with Matt Gaetz to vote McCarthy out.

That's not a sustainable strategy for getting supposedly important things done.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In other words, Johnson is destroying American credibility and preventing strategic foreign policy goals from being met, because he's a fucking coward afraid of losing his personal power.

The current batch of GOP politicians and their supporters are the shit-stains of America.

[darkknight9]

Rest In Peace Akebono, the first foreign born (non Japanese) top ranked Yokozuna in history. One of Hawaii's finest and a true gentleman.

Godspeed buddy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/11/pioneering-hawaiian-born-sumo-champion-akebono-dies-aged-54

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

This white, male, conservative blog
with a thin, receding academic veneer
— dedicated to creating and preserving
safe spaces for America’s vestigial bigots
as modern America passes them by —
has operated for no more than

ZERO (0)

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

NINETEEN (19)

occasions (so far) during the
first three months of 2024
(that’s at least 19 exchanges
that have included a racial slur,
not just 19 racial slurs; many
Volokh Conspiracy discussions
feature multiple racial slurs.)

This blog is outrunning its
remarkable pace of 2023,
when the Volokh Conspiracy
published racial slurs in at least

FORTY-FOUR (44)

different discussions.
These numbers likely miss
some of the racial slurs this
blog regularly publishes; it
would be unreasonable to expect
anyone to catch all of them.
This assessment does not address
the broader, everyday stream of
antisemitic, gay-bashing, misogynistic,
immigrant-hating, Palestinian-hating,
transphobic, Islamophobic, racist,
and other bigoted content published
at this faux libertarian blog, which
is presented from the disaffected,
receding right-wing fringe of
legal academia by members of
the Federalist Society for Law
and Public Policy Studies.

Amid this blog's steady stream of stale, ugly content, here is something better. (Frogman died this week.)

Speaking of the Frogman . . .

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Today's Rolling Stones bits:

First, the song that made Mick Jagger a fan of my son. (Wayne Perkins not only contributed guitar to that track but also worked on the soundtrack for Back to School.)

Next, an unpolished number you shouldn't miss. (Some of Wayne Perkins' fretwork from those Black and Blue sessions sat on a shelf for a few years, then emerged on Tattoo You as the solo on that one.)

The world would be better if this blog discarded the right-wing rubbish and focused on music.

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to thank Rush Limbaugh for reintroducing Frogman to many people with his use of "Ain't Got No Home" as an intro to his homeless updates.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I had an education, a successful career, and some character, so I was not greatly familiar with Rush Limbaugh's work. I know he performed his greatest service to America when he died.

Has modern society stuck the fork in AM radio yet?

[Mr. Bumble]

Your loss. While you might have disagreed with him he was funny and entertaining and had a much more successful career than you.

[hobie]

I was a teenager when Limbaugh came on the scene. His juvenile hates and names for all these people I knew nothing about was intoxicating. But when you grow up you put away childish things. And his shtick couldn't overcome maturity

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Limbaugh was a dropout and backwater radio disc jockey who learned to profit by hawking downscale merchandise and lousy ideas to uneducated, bigoted, disaffected, right-wing rubes. That's a "successful career" like Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, and other televangelists and faith healers have successful careers.

[Frank Drackman]

emphasis on "Had"

[M L]

“To diffuse a uniformity and purity of language in America, to destroy the provincial prejudices that originate in the trifling differences of dialect, is the most ardent wish of the author.”

– Noah Webster

In other words, to make everyone think and speak like New England. The Puritan quest to dominate America by destroying local customs and traditions isn’t new.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

New England reformers were a mixed bag (not to suggest all New Englanders were reformers, some were as antireformist as one could wish). The reformers *did* hit on some reforms which needed doing – like getting rid of slavery. But as far as making the country over in their own image on every issue, that may have gone a bit far. I can say this because I have N. E. ancestors.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It seems the media claim to have identified the speaker who trespassed on Dean Chemerinsky’s home. If the media is correct (and I’m not saying I trust the media), it’s a law student. Will she remain a law student (assuming she was correctly identified)?

[tylertusta]

The trespasser is a Berkeley student. She'll probably get a boost to her grades and a fast track to a big law firm/NGO.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If (I said if) she was identified correctly, at least get her convicted of trespassing, so she can explain to the Bar how she was a political prisoner and her action was truly righteous.

(nb – I’m not assuming the media is correct – and because I don’t always trust the media I’m not putting her name out there. Also she hasn’t been convicted yet – if she ever will be.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Justice Thomas and Judge Pryor won't hire her, though, unless she used a vile racial slur and belongs to at least one society for obsolete bigots.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I don't think I've ever read a post of yours that wasn't you crying about something. Are you on the rag?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Whenever someone whom you consider on your side does something bad, or whenever someone not on your side points out something bad - and you can't pretend it's a good thing - you try to redirect the discussion: "look over there, a clinger did something bad, too!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The students who stridently misbehaved at that dean's house were immature, wrong, and likely counterproductive.

The people who are bashing them are mostly low-grade hypocrites and ignorant, old-timey bigots.

No heroes in sight.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Chemerinsky "bashed" them. So what is he?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did he bash them? He asked them to leave his home (although it lost some of its hominess if the school paid for the school-related event). He criticized them, as they deserved (although they also might have hit a nerve with respect to his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian clustermuck).

I haven't seen him use this as a political weapon from the reliably bigoted perspective.

"Mostly" still applies.

Carry on, clingers.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“(although they also might have hit a nerve with respect to his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian clustermuck)”

Which Chemerinsky personally masterminded, of course. /sarc

[NOVA Lawyer]

It seemed pretty clear from the original story that she was a 3L invited to Chemerinsky's home because they (now 3Ls) didn't get an invite three years ago (in their 1L year) due to covid. If they've released the name, that's new information.

It's bad behavior. I hope she has appropriate consequences.

[Commenter_XY]

You tell me. What is appropriate?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't know all of the facts, including how the university has handled similar misconduct. I would not be upset at all at any employers that took a pass or revoked an offer.

I doubt this is the sort of thing that really warrants criminal charges in the first instance, though it certainly would have at subsequent dinners when he made the conditions of the invite clear. As he said, it was incredibly rude, and technically criminal, but there are many Thanksgivings and other family gatherings, just for starters, that should see people end up with criminal records if everyone presses charges when rude guests don't immediately leave when asked.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Should an employer take a pass or withdraw an offer if it learns that a candidate is

a superstitious gay-basher ("traditional values," "conservative values"),

an immigrant-hating asshole,

a misogynistic hayseed,

a transphobic loser,

a race-targeting vote suppressor,

or another variety of bigot?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Absolutely.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you sure you want to disqualify Federalist Society members from consideration for judicial clerkships?

Heterodox Academy would be quite cranky about that.

[Commenter_XY]

Your T-Giving comment....is SO TRUE! 🙂

[#FFFFFFPride]

Is anyone else as unsurprised as I am that "Plagiarism Gate" has seemingly caught a bunch of Didn't Earn It's?

That Fed Governor one is something else. That lady is a complete fraud and racist yet here she is a Fed Governor. Didn't Earn It.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is that what they're calling Ackman's wife these days?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Would any of the State Worshippers and other assorted Marxists and Democrats mind explaining how the BLS supplying secret econ data to a bunch of big banks is "good governance"?

I'm also interested in hearing how it's racist or antisemitic to raise any eyebrows and that it's just another conspiracy theory because of course the Noble Bureaucrat is never corrupt, only protecting the General Welfare.

[OtisAH]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about, loser.

[Brett Bellmore]

This, I assume.

JPMorgan, BlackRock Among BLS Economist’s CPI ‘Super Users’

Specific financial institutions were apparently secretly given advance access to various economic statistics.

[Sarcastr0]

The existence of industry superusers of US statistical agency data is not a secret, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously not since Bloomberg reported it. But do you doubt this is what #FFFFFFPride was talking about?

[Sarcastr0]

WhitePride being wrong about a load-bearing fact to turn a publicly available fee-for-service program sinister?

Yeah that sounds right.

[#FFFFFFPride]

I like how just an hour ago you had no idea what was going on and all of a sudden you're a confident expert.

lol, you're clearly wrong and gaslighting in behalf of your tribe.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're an idiot if you didn't understand that Sarcastro knew about the Bloomberg super user story, but was noting that your comment bore no actual relationship to that story as you tend to write only gibberish and lies.

[#FFFFFFPride]

What about these super users getting access to secret data?

Was that also not a secret?

[#FFFFFFPride]

Do you think it was the Cognitive Infrastructure Gaurdians protecting our National Security that kept you ignorant pf this obvious Russian Disinfo?

[Martinned2]

OJ Simpson dead at 76.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68792486

[Mr. Bumble]

Lain prostrate by the prostate.

[SRG2]

Perhaps they can now conduct an autopsy to see whether he suffered from CTE.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His decades-long search for the real killer -- conducted on golf courses, in barrooms, at memorabilia events, and in front of cameras and microphones throughout the land -- is over.

The murders occurred 30 years ago. I remember watching the verdict announcement with about 75 people from our office at a club a few blocks away. (We must have had advance notice of the timing.) The secretaries, paralegals, and administrative staff predicted acquittal far more often than the lawyers did, as I recall

[Commenter_XY]

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Johnny Cochran was stellar; Shapiro was brilliant.

[Frank Drackman]

The gloves actually fit really well. Last thing I want when I'm bludgeoning 2 peoples is loose fitting gloves.

[SRG2]

And the cops over-egged their cake.

I thought at the time that OJ was guilty and that the jury would acquit him because was it possible that LA cops would plant evidence? Sure.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Yeah, finding reasonable doubt may not have been as horrible as portrayed.

Nor does it sound like "nullification" - nullification would be saying killing two people is OK. More like they had doubts (reasonable or unreasonable) on whether he actually had been proved guilty.

[Joe_dallas]

Margrave - Its very difficult to convict a celebrity, no matter how strong the evidence.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think the bloom was off the rose by the time he went to trial.

Blacks and Whites had to a great extent gotten over their hero-worship. Those barometers of public opinion, the late-night hosts, had turned against him.

But the Black jurors had local knowledge of the Los Angeles cops' propensity for abusive behavior, so they were, I think, predisposed to listen to defense experts picking apart the prosecution case. Maybe the jurors were being totally irrational, but on the other hand one of the purposes of a jury is to have a local panel of citizens with general awareness of the situation in their community, including police behavior.

[Commenter_XY]

Over-egged the cake? What? 🙂

Another idiom I do not know.

[Joe_dallas]

Commenter xy
The gloves were leather, get them wet/damp let them dry out, they will shrink.

leather golf gloves were very common in the 70's and 80's. I several pair that would shrink 2 or 3 sizes if I didnt let them dry out properly

[Frank Drackman]

I predicted his aquittal as soon as charges were filed in LA instead of Santa Monica, and maybe you've got a little CTE yourself, (because everyone had advance notice of the "timing". They waited a day to announce it so they could have the National Guard in place for the expected Riots when "The Juice" was convicted.) "and as the "Paper of Record" reported in trying to explain how OJ got away with it

"The decision (to file charges in downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica) may have affected the trial's outcome because it resulted in a jury pool that was less educated, had lower incomes, and contained more African Americans"
that's right "Coach" those "Bettors" you keep blithering about

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It was 30 years ago, dumbass.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually the verdict was announced October 3, 1995, and it was quite a while ago, because I still had enough hair to get a haircut from a Barber, and I was telling the Barber there was no way OJ would be convicted, which he misunderstood as me saying OJ was innocent (maybe you're right about the Rubes in Red States), and before I could explain myself the verdict was already announced. Got out of that North Carolina Barbershop just before Zed and Maynard had their way with me...

Frank

[Joe_dallas]

Yes it was a mistake to file the charges in LA vs Santa Monica(?). While the large number of african americans probably helped with the not guilty verdict, the primary reason for the not guilty verdict is that is very difficult to find a celebrity guilty. Same with robert blake.

Similar vein with numerous politicians John Wiley Price in Dallas

[Krayt]

Pizza places claimed that the verdict was the only time they ever went 5 full minutes without a call.

Also, no murder, no Robert Kardashian fame on the Dream Team, and no Kardashians shows. Thanks, OJ!

[darkknight9]

Did you see the blurb in the Onion?
OJ allowed to live because casket does not fit.

[Dan Schiavetta]

When White America is exposed as a bunch of gullible fools, it doesn’t hurt them. They still run the country and the person who fooled them the most got to be President and may well be again.

When Black America is exposed as a bunch of gullible fools, it’s deadly. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.

[apedad]

DOJ Publishes New Rule to Update Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Firearms Dealer

Today, the Justice Department announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule, which makes clear the circumstances in which a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license.

§ 478.13 Definition of “engaged in the business as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker.”

(a) Definition. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. The term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person’s personal collection of firearms. In addition, the term shall not include an auctioneer who provides
only auction services on commission to assist in liquidating firearms at an estate-type auction; provided, that the auctioneer does not purchase the firearms, or take possession of the firearms for sale on consignment.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/video/doj-publishes-new-rule-update-definition-engaged-business-firearms-dealer

Seems reasonable and there are some exceptions.

[apedad]

Actual rule with exceptions. Start on pg 457

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download

[Brett Bellmore]

In order to not be engaged in business you apparently have to aim to lose money on your sales.

[Jumaira]

It seems pretty tough to sell guns privately and make a profit.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like a thriving business in major US cities.

[Jumaira]

If you're selling to gang bangers, yeah, maybe.

But most people are buying a new Glock 19 for $550 at a local store (before tax) and selling it used for $450 after they shoot it a few times and decide they don't want it.

I don't see how most people are making a profit.

[JasonT20]

nm

[Frank Drackman]

The only profits to be had are the cyclical gun control scares where everyone wants everything right away. Thing is, they've done it so many times since 1993 the market's supersaturated. I remember when your only choice in AK's was Norinco or Polytek, now you can get Romanian, Czech, Polish, Egyptian, etc etc.

Frank

[JasonT20]

In order to not be engaged in business you apparently have to aim to lose money on your sales.

I don't read the rule that way at all.

A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.

You also have to be purchasing firearms with some regularity and reselling them with similar regularity. If you purchase a firearm, shoot a couple hundred rounds through it to try it out, and then sell it, profit or not, you haven't met the definition. If you do that for a dozen firearms over the course of a couple of months, you still haven't necessarily met the definition, profit or not, since firing the weapon yourself a significant number of times shows that you have a reason to have purchased it other than to resell it. Especially if you keep any of those firearms without selling them.

If someone does buy a dozen or so firearms over the course of a month or two, and sells those firearms not long afterwards, without having fired them, then, yes, making a profit would be fairly strong evidence that trying to make a profit was the goal all along, and the person would have been a firearms dealer.

[Frank Drackman]

so buying/selling 11 is OK? it's such bullshit, because they make it hard to get a FFL because they don't want people buying for their own collection, so you have to have an EIN, Local Business License, your licensed premises has to have published hours (for Customers, not the BATFE, they can kick your door in whenever they want), you better file a Schedule C, go to some gun shows, but if you don't have a license and you sell 12 of your personal guns you're suddenly a "Dealer", You-Crane needs guns? I'd send every one of BATFE's agents there in a second.

Frank

[Absaroka]

The one I like is the (rebuttable) presumption you are 'in the business' (i.e., need an FFL) if you "makes or maintains records, in any form, to document, track, or calculate profits and losses from firearms purchases and sales".

Theoretically, though, if you bought your deer rifle 30 years ago for $100 and sell it today for $200, you should report the $100 'profit' to the IRS as income. So you get to choose whether you want the IRS or ATF coming after you.

In practice, I think the number of people who actually report something like that as income is approximately zero.

What's funny about the whole thing is that the ATF hasn't seemed particularly on the ball about prosecuting obvious illicit dealers, i.e. someone who was buying a half dozen identical Glocks a month. Those guys seem to get away with it for quite a while. You don't need tighter rules to go after them. When you are lax about enforcing the existing rules it makes the justification for tighter rules a little suspect.

[JasonT20]

Theoretically, though, if you bought your deer rifle 30 years ago for $100 and sell it today for $200, you should report the $100 ‘profit’ to the IRS as income. So you get to choose whether you want the IRS or ATF coming after you.

They do make a point of "repetitive purchase and resale" being part of the proposed definition. The situation you describe does not fit the definition at all.

[Absaroka]

p 458: "However, there is no minimum threshold number of
firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensing requirement".

The reason people are raising an eyebrow over this is that the old definitions did allow them to prosecute people who were actually illicit dealers - even for small numbers of firearms. And Biden rather publicly said he was going to get as close to ending private sales as he could, and this rulemaking is the result.

We'll see how it pans out. If it in fact just maintains the status quo, where widows or someone who lost their job and is selling their guns to pay the rent aren't getting hassled, and which allowed prosecutions of illicit dealers when the ATF decided to, then no problem. But the other possibility is that they are trying to create FUD so people will be afraid to sell firearms privately. You may disallowing private sales is a good thing, but the right way to do that is to get congress to change the law, not the ATF creating FUD by replacing long understood regulations with vague 'maybe we'll prosecute and maybe we won't, but we really want you to go through an FFL, if you get our drift'.

[Jumaira]

The problem is not the background check, but the fact that the Democrats refuse to allow private sellers to use NICS.

[Frank Drackman]

Because then the "Background Check" companies would go out of business.

[Brett Bellmore]

Land lords would pretend to be considering selling a gun to prospective tenants, employers to prospective hires. It would ruin all their efforts to prevent businesses from protecting themselves from shady characters.

[Brett Bellmore]

“You may [think] disallowing private sales is a good thing, but the right way to do that is to get congress to change the law,”

Actually the right way to do it is to repeal the 2nd amendment prior to getting Congress to change the law. And maybe repeal the last 14 words of the interstate commerce clause, while you’re at it.

The best way to analyze any gun law is to ask, “Would it be constitutional to pass this law if it applied to printing presses?” Crucifixes?

You could absolutely enact a law prohibiting using a printing press to commit a crime. You might be able to get a way with prohibiting a convicted felon from owning one, if the felony was relevant. (Counterfeiting, perhaps?) You could get away with a law regulating printing presses that were unreasonably likely to blow up in use, or otherwise endangered the life or health of the user even when properly employed. There might be constitutional issues at the federal level if the interstate commerce clause was honestly interpreted, but that’s about it.

But, could you require a license to sell a printing press? A background check to buy one? A state or federal registry of people who owned one? Could you prohibit printing presses that held more than a minimal amount of paper or ink, or printed too fast? Prohibit ergonometric controls, or noise reduction devices?

No, the idea is ludicrous. You’d be slapped down faster than an injunction against a Washington state gun control law. Well, maybe not that fast…

There is no right way to disallow private sales of a constitutionally protected article. Could you prohibit private sales of books? Crucifixes? Of course not.

The only reason these sorts of laws are tolerated by the judiciary is hostility to the right they violate.

[JasonT20]

What’s funny about the whole thing is that the ATF hasn’t seemed particularly on the ball about prosecuting obvious illicit dealers, i.e. someone who was buying a half dozen identical Glocks a month.

I don't know, if they have the ability to see that a single person has purchased several guns of the same model in a short period of time, why wouldn't they investigate that? How is it you seem to know that people "get away with it for quite a while"?

[Absaroka]

"How is it you seem to know that people “get away with it for quite a while”?

By reading accounts where someone did just that for extended periods.

[Martinned2]

Mexico has now filed its case against Ecuador at the ICJ: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/194/194-20240411-pre-01-00-en.pdf

It all seems pretty standard, except the request that the ICJ suspend Ecuador from the United Nations. I'm not sure where that suddenly comes from, or whether it's even within the powers of the ICJ to do that.

[John F. Carr]

The UN Charter says "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." Most countries will be safe thanks to a friend, or at least an enemy of an enemy, among the permanent members of the Security Council.

The ICJ is being asked to declare persistent violations. I do not think the complaint shows a pattern. A legally binding declaration by the ICJ that it does would still not mandate expulsion. The General Assembly "may" expel a member. Like impeachment, expulsion is a political question.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Mexico has now filed its case against Ecuador at the ICJ"

That will show Ecuador!

Mexico lacks the air or naval power to hit Ecuador so Ecuador wins, no mater what the moot court-ers in the Hague think.

[John F. Carr]

The Mayor of Newton, Massachusetts was informed that a disused boiler in a locked room in the basement of a city library had been bought from Germany in the 1930s. She immediately ordered workers to grind off the swastika.

If I donated my copy of William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to a library in a progressive city it would probably go straight to the shredder and I to the police station for questioning, to be followed by an overwrought email to the community.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Then stick with the drawling, bigoted, superstition-addled, can't-keep-up conservative backwaters that are your natural fit. You seem old enough that there will still be a few deplorable hayseeds around long enough to meet your needs.

[Zarniwoop]

Sing together now: "one of these things is not like the other!"

But seriously: how on Dog's green earth do you get from the first proposition to the second? You posit a scenario (shredder, police station) that is frankly hallucinatory. I thought you were smarter that that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

"I thought you were smarter that that."

Did you really? He's just less enamored of violent fantasies than Dr. Ed, but I don't recall that's he's much more grounded in reality.

[Zarniwoop]

Well, it's mostly rhetorical, but even so I do think JF Carr is at minimum a few steps up from Grampa Ed. JFC often has an actual connection to reality, displays legal knowledge, etc. Which is why I was a little surprised by the complete non-sequitur above.

[MoreCurious]

There are a lot of inane comments on this blog, but I would like to nominate this one by John F. Carr for the 2024 Stupidest VC Comment Award.

[NvEric]

Statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2)
can be applied against anyone protesting as is done daily around the country.

Seems Jack Smith has not found his calling in life.

With the inauguration of the Biden Regime, our second Civil War officially started, however, this time it is the federal junta in DC who has insurrected and made war on these united States

[not guilty]

“Statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2) can be applied against anyone protesting as is done daily around the country.”

Where on earth do you get that reading of the statute?

[Zarniwoop]

Statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2)
can be applied against anyone protesting as is done daily around the country.

No, it can't. Merely "protesting" is not sufficient to establish the statutory elements of "corruptly" and "otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding".

Those words have meaning that have swooooshed way over your head.

That said, it's fairly clear that you're a moron, in any common sense use of the word.

[#FFFFFFPride]

How do those characteristics not apply to the many Leftist stormings of Congress?

[Zarniwoop]

Burden of proof is on the prosecution. Because, you know, Constitution. Tell us what you're hallucinating about.

[NOVA Lawyer]

He (which is likely a rotating set of fingers at a keyboard in a Putin troll factory) just makes up things. He lies repeatedly. And that's the point for Putin bootlickers like him, flood the zone with misinformation hoping it confuses and distracts. There is no there there. He'll just disappear to start anew with fresh misinformation.

[Zarniwoop]

He (which is likely a rotating set of fingers at a keyboard in a Putin troll factory) just makes up things. He lies repeatedly.

Hey, those rotating fingers could theoretically be attached to women too! But I agree on all the other parts.

[#FFFFFFPride]

People who don't worship the federal government are paid Russian trolls!

Has anyone ever confused you with a smart person?

[NOVA Lawyer]

You lie with every comment, your purpose seems to be as offensive as possible, if you aren’t a paid Russian troll, you should look into it. You have the skill set. Why do for free what Putin will pay you for?

[not guilty]

Which "Leftist stormings of Congress" have occurred since § 1512(c)(2) was enacted in 2002, #FFFFFFPride?

Who do you claim should have been charged with violating § 1512(c)(2), who was not so charged? Please be specific.

[Zarniwoop]

I bet #WhiteLoser desperately wants to believe that it was "Leftists" storming Congress on J6. Sad, really.

[Brett Bellmore]

Brett Kavanaugh protesters ignore police barricades, occupy the U.S. Capitol

Shout, arrest, repeat: Inside the Kavanaugh hearing protests

[not guilty]

Several hundred arrests were made in regard to protests inside the Capitol buildings of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

I am not sure what statutes were charged, but several federal misdemeanor statutes were potentially applicable: entering or remaining in a restricted building in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); disorderly conduct in a Capitol building in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D); and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G).

Unlike these statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) requires that the accused acts corruptly.

[#FFFFFFPride]

Weren't they going in there to corruptly stop the nomination?

[not guilty]

What facts evince the protestors acting with a corrupt state of mind?

BTW, ipse dixit assertions and begging the question don't count as facts.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, #FFFFFFPride. What facts evince the Kavanaugh protestors acting with a corrupt state of mind?

[#FFFFFFPride]

From a contemporary CNN description of the event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRnmnxVtDqg
“Protesters opposed to Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the US Supreme Court swarmed over Washington — massing at the Capitol, disrupting the confirmation vote in the Senate and banging on the Supreme Court building doors when Kavanaugh arrived to be sworn in”

They went there to stop the vote, and then disrupted the vote.

To you, that’s no evidence of “corrupt state of mind”, but two grannies taking selfies while on a guided tour with Capitol Police convinces you of their insurrection-intent because it was on J6.

You’re just another partisan hack parading around as some sort of serious, principled legal thinker.

[not guilty]

That goes only to the actus reus. The applicable mens rea is a separate concept.

What facts evince the Kavanaugh protestors acting with a corrupt state of mind?

[not guilty]

"You’re just another partisan hack parading around as some sort of serious, principled legal thinker."

Projection much, #FFFFFFPride?

Confirmation bias, to which we are all subject, can be a bear. But one should not accuse another person of criminal conduct without evidence of every element of the subject offense(s). And IOKIYAR is not a maxim of statutory construction. Neither is tu quoque.

[not guilty]

[duplicate comment deleted]

[#FFFFFFPride]

Don't click the link before answering this question to yourself:

How could a plagiarist that has never published a peer-reviewed paper on economics become a governor on the Federal Reserve?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/04/biden-appointee-at-federal-reserve-with-questionable-academic-record-is-now-accused-of-plagiarism/

Ok, were you right?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Speaker Johnson is traveling to prostrate himself before Donald Trump (shortly after Trump's most recent humiliation of that obsequious loser). Which will Johnson do first?
__ kiss Trump's ass
__ lick Trump's boots
__ push Ted Cruz out of the way and suckle Trump's scrotum
__ declare Trump the true embodiment of Jesus Christ
__ lend his wife to Trump (and watch, grinning)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Gosh, aren't you worried that Prof. Volokh will censor you?

By the way, when was the last time he did that? Because he sure seems to have changed his policy about you. At first you couldn't say "slackjaw," now you can insult anyone (including the professor) at will, refer to suckling scrotums, etc.

Would it be too much for your to acknowledge that there's been a change in moderation policy?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I recommend you ask Prof. Volokh about this rather than solicit my speculation about something I have never much understood. If he adds more words to his censorship list for me I would expect to strive to respect those wishes. If he does not I would prefer that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Just to repeat - when was the last time he censored you?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe it has been a few years, from one perspective.

From a couple of other perspectives, he censors me every day.

Which he is entitled to do. Loud hypocrites have rights, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you and your persecution complex.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

How does he censor you every day when he hasn't censored you for years?

[Sarcastr0]

Why is the RAK engagement through the roof last couple of weeks?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose he means he's self-censoring due to the threat of being banned if he just said what he really wants to say.

Which raises the question: As awful as what he says despite self-censoring is, just what would he be saying if he wasn't restraining himself?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland -- who provided often humorous insights concerning the thinking of movement conservatives -- was banished and is no longer able to speak at this forum.

There is a list of words that I am forbidden to use today and every day. I have asked whether that censorship is still in effect, without reply.

[JasonT20]

I’m trying to figure out what Israel’s endgame is. (Netanyahu, more precisely.) I don’t see how they could “eliminate” Hamas without full military control of Gaza. They don’t seem to be trying to do that. I also see little about what Israel thinks can replace Hamas, if it isn’t going to be them.

Like all wars, it won’t end until one or both sides become exhausted by the fight and agree to end it. If both sides are exhausted, then it will end up with a mutual agreement. If it is just one side that is exhausted, then that side will accede to at least most of the demands of the side willing to continue fighting.

The tragedy of the situation is that the people of Gaza have likely been past the point of exhaustion for months, but Hamas isn’t there yet, or may never be. And the Israelis aren’t suffering further hardships that would exhaust them. The remaining hostages may all be dead, or many of them might be, in which case Israel’s motivation to stop diminishes.

Ive seen someone say before that the problem with the Palestinian - Israeli conflict is that peace is really only in the interest of ordinary Palestinians. No one else wants that enough to make the compromises needed to bring lasting peace.

[Nige]

And Palestinians don't behave perfectly - there's always someone saying something mean about Israel and/or Jews with Israeli bombs raining down and wiping put their entire families to show they're really judeocidal monsters. It's like if Northern Ireland Catholics saying the most abusive shit about the Brits was held up as proof that peace would never be possible.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think Israel particularly cares if somebody says something mean, if they refrain from launching rockets or slitting throats. If the Palestinians had limited it to trash talk instead of murder, things would be very different.

[Nige]

Yes, the Israelis are big into collective punishment, it seems. I was referring of course, to the cheerleaders here and elsewhere.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

If the Palestinians had limited it to trash talk instead of murder, things would be very different.

Is that your analysis of Israel's longstanding bigoted, brutal, criminal conduct in the West Bank?

[JasonT20]

If the Palestinians had limited it to trash talk instead of murder, things would be very different.

Besides the collective punishment issue that Nige brings up, there is another fundamental problem. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are nationless. They do not live in sovereign territory claimed by anyone. Instead, they live in territory that is occupied by Israel (West Bank from 1967 to the present and Gaza from 1967 - 2005), or since 2005, a strip of land with borders heavily controlled and passage and trade limited from outside. Not living in a sovereign nation means that there is no government with full control over the territory that has the Palestinian people's wellbeing as its first moral duty. Hamas had the duty to govern the internal matters of Gaza, but it had no freedom to negotiate trade or conduct diplomacy with other countries. That limited Gaza's economy tremendously, and hindered Hamas's ability to deliver for the people of Gaza, even if they had wanted to do right by them.

Lastly, of course, is the biggest sticking point in peace efforts other than terrorism against Israel: settlements in the West Bank. Around half a million Israelis are living in the West Bank, with many of those settlements spread out in such a way that it would be virtually impossible for Palestinians in the West Bank to make a contiguous nation out of it. That certainly makes the two-state solution look like a pipe dream.

Countries that share a border can make peace after a war as long as they each have their own territory and sovereignty intact. That just doesn't seem possible, and Israel's policies for decades have made it that way.

[Martinned2]

I don’t see how they could “eliminate” Hamas without full military control of Gaza.

Israel had full military control of Gaza from 1967-2005. Hamas was founded in 1987, and had extensive presence in the West Bank and the Gaza strip from the 1990s onwards. Clearly having full military control of Gaza didn't do Israel much good.

So, like you, I'm not sure what Israel's endgame is. The only strategy that makes sense from a military POV is ethnic cleansing. Pushing all the Palestinians into Egypt. But it's difficult to see how Israel could do that without becoming an international pariah state.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean Every Nation in the UN except for the US (and it's only a matter of time) would be against them? Oh Dearie!!!

[JasonT20]

The only strategy that makes sense from a military POV is ethnic cleansing. Pushing all the Palestinians into Egypt. But it’s difficult to see how Israel could do that without becoming an international pariah state.

As I argue above, ethnic cleansing is never necessary to build a lasting peace between sovereign nations. It is the impossibility of the two state solution that makes Israel see utterly destroying Hamas as the only option. The two state solution is made impossible by Israel's choices in allowing hundreds of thousands of settlers to move into the West Bank.

[Martinned2]

Sure, they can also try for a one state solution. When it comes to making peace between Israel and the Palestinians, both are avenues that could work. But none of that will make Hamas not want to kill Israelis. And because Hamas is a terrorist organisation, you can't tell whether someone is a member of Hamas just by looking at them. So the only way to get rid of Hamas is to get rid of all Palestinians. (I.e. kill them all or force them over the border.) And the problem for Israel is that both genocide and ethnic cleansing are very illegal.

[Brett Bellmore]

The bigger problem is that nobody else in the Middle East wants those mad dogs, either. Jordan took some in years ago, and has regretted it ever since.

It usually escapes reporting somehow, but Gaza borders on Egypt, and the West bank on Jordan, and both those borders are maintained by those countries as securely as possible, because Palestinian terrorism isn't just directed at Israelis. Just primarily.

The Arab countries spent many years encouraging the Palestinians to be as nasty as possible, as a deniable weapon against an Israel they knew they didn't dare get in another war with. They know as well as anyone who they'd be dealing with.

[JasonT20]

No just illegal, but morally abhorrent. The excuse of not being able to easily distinguish between terrorists and innocent civilians is something you only ever see argued when the terrorists are not in your own territory. You think Israel would blow up a whole apartment building in Israel in order to get terrorists they think are in there? No country would do that. Cops will engage in standoffs that last days, sometimes before going into a house that they are fairly sure only has a suspect in it. SWAT usually wont go in if any civilians are in the line of fire unless they think the perps are already shooting them.

This is what I’m getting at here. The calculus is only different against terrorists because those terrorists are among a population that is being painted as being indistinguishable from the terrorists in beliefs and goals, not just in appearance. They aren’t really/ innocent, they are “mad dogs,” so bombs away, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

You're talking about people who elect a terrorist government, who have been launching rockets into residential neighborhoods for years, who teach genocide in elementary school.

Enough with the non-judgmental crap.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you enjoy the lethal rampage conducted by Israeli settlers (and facilitated by the IDF) yesterday?

What the fuck is wrong with those people? Is there some kind of psycho-Orthodox Haredi clinger cult with a death wish in Israel?

Even if those dumbasses are gullible and dumb enough to genuinely believe that an illusory man in the sky has declared them the proper inhabitant of some particular patches of dirt, don't they recognize the predictable consequences of their bigoted, selfish, brutal, immoral conduct?

How long before Americans stop providing the military, political, and economic cover that has enabled Israel's right-wing belligerence? When those skirts are removed, Israeli's superstition right-wing jerks will be praying in vain for a stop to the pain.

There is no kook quite like a religious kook.

[JasonT20]

You’re talking about people who elect a terrorist government…

The 2006 elections are not what you seem to think they were. For one, Hamas won a majority of seats by getting 44% of the vote to Fatah's 41%. Hardly a mandate.

https://web.archive.org/web/20141220142322/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/173.php#

One of the largest concerns was about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Hamas had presented itself as having moderated (somewhat) and focused on saying that it would end corruption. Polls after the election indicated large majority support from Palestinians for Hamas to abandon its calls to eliminate Israel and in favor of a two-state solution.

Also, this was a legislative election for all of the Palestinian Authority, not an election to put Hamas in dictatorial control. That came later, and it came after Israel and the U.S. had hindered the new Hamas-led government. Hamas had also kidnapped an Israeli soldier in June of 2006, for which Israel responded forcefully, including the arrest of dozens of Hamas legislators that may or may not have had any knowledge of that kidnapping.

Add to that how almost half of all Gazans weren’t even born when that election occurred, your argument that they are a people that elected a terrorist government is more collective punishment of 2 million people for the actions of that terrorist government.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

And the Israelis aren’t suffering further hardships that would exhaust them.

The Israelis have lost support from mainstream America -- especially educated, modern, reasoning Americans and the winning side of the American culture war -- and seem headed toward trying to operate without American subsidies (military, political, economic).

I sense Israel has at least as much to lose as the Palestinians do, and is going to lose at least as much as the people they have abused in the West Bank and Gaza will lose, although perhaps some of Israel's superstitious, parasitic right-wingers do not recognize this aspect of the reality-based world yet.

Hardship may not begin to describe what Israel will experience.

[Martinned2]

Good news! More and more state legislatures all over the US are taking the threat of chemtrails seriously: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2024/04/are-chemtrails-spreading-no.html

[Nige]

Inadvertant pro-climate legislation ftw.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the House caves on FISA renewal. Who didn't see that coming?

[Brett Bellmore]

Wapo is trying to encourage more race riots for the election.

That's the only conclusion I can come to.

Here's the WaPo story, (Paywalled.) courtesy of MSN: Police fire 96 shots in 41 seconds, killing Black man during traffic stop

Of course, it was a routine traffic stop until HE OPENED FIRE ON THE POLICE. It's not until paragraph 8 that they mention that little fact, and do so casting shade on it despite having badge cam video from multiple angles confirming it.

Then they get back to how nice a boy he was and all that crap.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That might just be the autism-stoked bigotry talking.

[David Nieporent]

1) It was obviously not a routine stop; 5 plainclothes officers do not surround a car with guns drawn because of a purported seatbelt violation. There was something going on there that has not yet been disclosed.

2) I have seen several videos and in none of them is it clear to me that he shot first.