Thursday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

One morning I woke up and I knew you were really gone
A new day, a new way, and new eyes to see the dawn
Go your way, I'll go mine and carry on

The sky is clearing and the night has cried enough
The sun, he comes, the world to soften up
Rejoice, rejoice, we have no choice but to carry on

The fortunes of fables are able to sing the song
Now witness the quickness with which we get along
To sing the blues you've got to live the dues and carry on

Carry on, love is coming, love is coming to us all

[Dan Schiavetta]

Learning to smile all over again
That's what it takes to make a new friend
That's when I learned it wasn't the end
Learning to smile all over again.

[Drewski]

Sure I ate your plums but that's a little dramatic.

[Paladin_44]

Dan and Mr Bumble,
Some of the nicest, most polite, posts I've seen here in years. Many thanks for your kind words.
Smiling, really smiling, after a major loss takes more time than I thought it would. But eventually we - or I at least - recover the better parts of what we've lost to sustain us.
Thank you,

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re welcome.

It does take time.

[not guilty]

Sarah McBride, an openly transgender woman, has been elected to the House of Representatives from Delaware. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has introduced a resolution to prohibit any lawmakers and House employees from "using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) reportedly has suggested that she would be willing to get into a physical altercation if McBride uses women’s restrooms. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/nancy-mace-defends-anti-trans-bathroom-bill-says-absolutely-targets-sa-rcna180805

What is it with these peckercheckers? Why do they fixate on other folks' genitals? Think about what typically occurs in a women's restroom: (1) a user goes into a stall and closes the door, (2) evacuates her bladder and/or bowels, (3) cleans herself with tissue, (4) washes her hands at the sink, and (5) exits. The configuration of any other occupant's genitalia has nothing whatsoever to do with any of these functions.

As Hank Williams sang with his Drifting Cowboys in 1949:

Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned
I got all that I can do just to mind my own
Why don't mind your own business
Mind your own business
If you mind your own business you'll stay busy all the time

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

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in other new; Alaska and Arizona have finally finished counting votes.

[Moderation4ever]

Good for them. This should free up your time looking over their shoulders. Make good use of the extra time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wo are openly stating that they will defy Federal attempts to deport CRIMINAL Illegal Aliens, and that they will order the police officers they supervise to prevent the Feds from doing this.

Why can't they be arrested and criminally charged for this?

Would the Insurrection Act apply if -- say -- the Boston Police (who are armed) were to obey Wo's orders and "shield" the Illegals from ICE? Could Trump declare martial law and depose the civilian authorities?

[not guilty]

Have you read the Insurrection Act, Dr. Ed 2? Which provision(s) thereof do you claim potentially apply to your hypothetical state of facts?

[Riva]

Why do you think the insurrection act is the only source of potential liability for intentional efforts obstructing federal law enforcement?

And your new interest in “facts” is amusing in general when you begin your comments confusing a man with a woman.

[not guilty]

Riva, Dr. Ed 2 is the one who brought up the Insurrection Act. I just challenged him to put some meat on those bones.

[Riva]

He gave an alleged fact pattern. You ignored him. Comment on that if you want. Regardless of the Insurrection Act, let the Democrat enclaves obstruct federal law enforcement and let’s see what happens. Should be amusing.

[not guilty]

You are lying, Riva. He gave a hypothetical set of facts and asked whether the Insurrection Act would apply:

Would the Insurrection Act apply if — say — the Boston Police (who are armed) were to obey Wo’s [sic] orders and “shield” the Illegals from ICE? Could Trump declare martial law and depose the civilian authorities?

I was curious as to what prompted him to do that, so I inquired as to which provision(s) he claimed would potentially apply.

[Brett Bellmore]

Homan has stated that state officials aren't obligated to actually help, but they'd better not so much as lift a finger to obstruct. We'll see if Healey and Wo are capable of precisely toeing that line, because if they step over it one inch the incoming administration will be all over them with legal actions.

[windycityattorney]

There is anti-commandeering case law (under 10th amend jurisprudence) out there... I imagine those cases would/could be relevant to any future litigation over these issues. Like if the feds sought an injunction or something or sought to declare a state sanctuary law preempted by federal immigration laws.

But note the irony in these comments...all the state's rights loudmouths in here for abortion or pushing Jesus in schools suddenly STFU about state's rights on this topic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion"

The act doesn't make a distinction between armed and not, but I do.

[not guilty]

I see that you have (now) read 10 U.S.C. § 252.

Now please explain how it applies to your hypothetical fact situation of Boston police shielding illegals from ICE.

What would be the "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States" under your scenario? And how would by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings be impracticable? HINT: enforcement of the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings includes respect for dual sovereignty and the anti-commandeering doctrine. See, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

And to answer your question upthread, the Act confers no power on Trump to declare martial law and depose the civilian authorities. That suggestion is so bizarre that it led me to ask earlier if you had read the act.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What part of "rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States" do you not understand?

Wu's talking about having the Boston Police be a shield to physically prevent ICE from "enforc[ing] the laws of the United States." And that wouldn't constitute "rebellion against the authority of the United States"?

[not guilty]

Wow. For someone who has been advocating for civil war, you have a breathtakingly broad view of what constitutes "rebellion against the authority of the United States," as well as what constitutes impracticability.

The authority of the United States includes respect for dual sovereignty and the anti-commandeering doctrine.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A group of armed men physically preventing Federal authorities from enforcing Federal law?

[William of Brooklyn]

The Insurrection Act is the wrong law, and the wrong vehicle, for compelling compliance. However, 8 USC 1324 is correctly on point, and has teeth.

[David Nieporent]

Neither Maura Healey nor Michelle Wu (not "Wo" — despite the fact that Dr. Ed tries to make everything about either Massachusetts or Maine, he can't get basic facts about those places correct) are "openly stating" any such thing.

Why can’t they be arrested and criminally charged for this?

Because the 1A protects speech? And because Donald Trump is not in office?

Not going to respond to your fantasies about another hypothetical civil war based on made up facts.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I heard her on the radio saying it.

The police are saying they will call in sick that day, but Wu said it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you back this up at all (I ask, as if I didn’t know)? I see that she’s said that the city won’t assist with deportation efforts, but that’s a far cry from saying that it will affirmatively try to prevent them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://howiecarrshow.com/welcome-mat-out-in-massachusetts-for-migrant-drug-thugs/

As Mayor Wu sternly lectured some local fluffers on state-run media last weekend:

“What we can do is make sure that we are doing our part to protect our residents in every possible way; that we are not cooperating with those efforts that actually threaten the safety of everyone by causing widespread fear and having large-scale economic impacts.”

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, she didn’t say the thing you claimed she said. Gotcha.

Thanks for acknowledging your mistake.

[bernard11]

Wu has said only that the police will not provide assistance to the Feds.

[Randal]

I'm looking forward to the stories of Sarah freaking out the guys in the men's room. I fully expect she's looking forward to it too.

Somebody needs to elect a hairy trans man to terrorize Nancy and Marjorie in the ladies'.

[Michael P]

Thank you for demonstrating that leftists are all in on making the concerns into reality.

[Randal]

Nice self-own there, big boy. Putting hairy trans men into women's locker rooms is what Republicans want. We're only too happy to oblige.

[Riva]

WTF? “Putting hairy trans men into women’s locker rooms” is in the Democratic Party platform. Seriously. No joke, as the Big Guy would say.

[David Nieporent]

WTF is right. Hint: a "trans man" is a biological woman. The Democratic Party does not want biological women who consider themselves men to be in women's locker rooms; that's what the GOP wants. The Democratic Party wants those people to be in men's locker rooms.
​
​
Also: nothing about this is in fact "in the Democratic Party platform."

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Hint: a “trans man” is a biological woman. "

'Trans man' is a made-up propaganda term that can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

[Mr. Bumble]

A "trans-man" is, was and always will be a man.

[Zarniwoop]

Mr Bumble sez:

A “trans-man” is, was and always will be a man.

That's not actually what the term "trans man" refers to. A "trans man" is someone assigned female at birth who has transitioned (hint hint hint!) to presenting as male.

Another self-own!

[Mr. Bumble]

This is all so confusing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"assigned female at birth"

Observed. The sex is observed or noted.

No doctor thinks, dude has penis but I shall assign him female, or vice versa

[TwelveInchPianist]

“No doctor thinks, dude has penis but I shall assign him female, or vice versa”

And if a doctor did do that, it wouldn’t make the person trans.

A trans person, contra the bizarre academic definitions, is a person who identifies as the opposite of their actual sex.

The fact that the woke set has th make up clearly bs definitions to support their theories is a clear indication that their theories are bs.

[Randal]

It's not that hard, tiny pianist.

A trans person, contra the bizarre academic definitions, is a person who identifies as the opposite of their actual sex.

Close. A trans person is a person whose gender doesn't match their sex.

Feel free to claim that's impossible by definition, I don't care. But I can give you tons of examples you're already comfortable with where the gender doesn't match the sex, starting with God, Glinda the Good Witch, your sex doll*, Smurfette, mother nature, and your imaginary friend.

* You may object that your sex doll has a penis, if you want to define sex in terms of genitalia rather than genetics, in which case replace your sex doll with your Ken doll.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s not that hard, tiny pianist."

Sounds like a personal problem

"Close. A trans person is a person whose gender doesn’t match their sex."

A distinction without a difference.

[Joe_dallas]

Born female
Not assigned female

[EscherEnigma]

... I don't know a single transman who would object to this.

[Riva]

Thanks for correcting me Crazy Dave. I’ll defer to you on the insane trans lingo. And, in case anyone was confused, I’m referring to the Democrat’s push to put male whatevers into women’s bathrooms. And yeah, the Democratic Party platform doesn’t literally mention “hairy,” although they’re all in on the trans insanity. Which was the point of the joke you dense troll.

[Josh R]

You are missing the point.

Consider a person whose sex is female but gender identity is male. They choose to transtion to male (a trans man). For example, this guy. The House rules as stated by the Speaker (and offered as a statute by Mace, support by fisticuffs by Greene) would require him to use the woman's bathroom.

WTF, indeed!

[grb]

Josh R : "You are missing the point"

We've seen the same performance cruelty in the past. Rep. Oscar de Priest was the only Black member of Congress from 1929 to 1935. As soon as he was elected, the US Capitol restaurant was immediately declared racially segregated.

Bottom line? Evil people will always find a way to be evil. Their petty hate and pandering mischief comprises too great a part of their hollow soul.

[Riva]

House rules would require biological males to use the men’s bathroom. The Delaware representative is a biological male. WTF are you talking about?

[Josh R]

Did you click on my link? House rules would require that guy to use women’s restroom. You OK with that? I doubt the female Senators would be.

[Riva]

What? He is still a man. Even if he chooses to remove some necessary body parts, if that's what the trans "hero" in tbe Newsweek trans propaganda story related. Not really sure and I don't really care.

[Riva]

And the House and Senate use the same women’s and men’s restrooms Josh R? I feel sorry for the janitor

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nice self-own there, big boy. Putting hairy trans men into women’s locker rooms is what Republicans want."

No. If you're a woman who has altered yourself to look like a man, you should probably stay out of ladies rooms, regardless of your gender identity.

[mse326]

So are they not allowed to use a bathroom at all? Because the proposed law says biological sex is what matters which puts that individual in the women's bathroom

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you're one sex and you dress up as the other sex, you're going to raise questions, regardless of whether or not you have gender dysphoria.

If I were dressed as a woman, maybe to participate in a play or something, I don't think anybody would want me using the ladies room.

But it would raise questions if I use the men's. Maybe I'd find more private accommodations, maybe I'll have to explain myself.

[Zarniwoop]

"raises questions", sure.

Like, which bathroom are trans men supposed to use in the US Capitol if they look male, but freak out pearl-clutching GOP women by going in the women's rest room?

Peeing on Nancy Mace's door should be an option, I spose.

[TwelveInchPianist]

All this hate on women who don’t want to share their intimate spaces with men is really misogynistic and small.

RGB famously wrote an op-ed about how women have a right to their own rest rooms and other facilities.

I suppose she’ll be cancelled soon, if she hasn’t already.

[Life of Brian]

if they look male, but freak out pearl-clutching GOP women by going in the women’s rest room

Catty stuff like this just reinforces that the real ultimate goal, whichever direction the gender-bender may go, is to make actual women uncomfortable. Please do keep helping like this as much as you possibly can.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Peeing on Nancy Mace’s door"

Aren't "trans men" biological women?

If so they can do so but the better take of their shoes first. Because they are going to get most on their feet.

[EscherEnigma]

Products to help women pee standing up aren't new or exotic, and something a transman could easily procure.

And that's if they're pre-op. If they've had bottom surgery, they can pee standing up as well as any other man.

[Don Nico]

No Bob, they can use a pee funnel

[TwelveInchPianist]

I will defer to y'alls superior expertise on this issue.

[mse326]

Raising questions is a far cry from can't use. And there aren't always more private accommodations available

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. This is a feature of single sex bathrooms. If you are supposed to use one restroom (by whatever criteria) and are presenting as someone who is supposed to use the other restroom for whatever reason, you will create confusion.

[EscherEnigma]

So you understand, requiring transpeople to use the bathroom based on their biological sex, rather then their gender identity, is a policy intended to create confusion.

[Joe_dallas]

Bottom line
This “trans” confusion is what you get when you celebrate a mental illness instead of trying to cure a mental illness

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You also get legal blog comment sections, apparently.

[hobie]

I believe I read that Congresswoman McBride is going to take the classy route and not complain. I think she should do as the black woman in the movie Hidden Figures did, and walk down the street to a public restroom that doesn't discriminate. Her daily sojourn(s) will make for interesting publicity

[Riva]

He’s a biological male, not a “she.” And how about he do the normal thing and use the men’s restroom instead of trying to make others accommodate his derangement?

[Roger S]

He is already beyond doing something normal. He should find some unisex toilet, and not subject either sex with his perversions.

[ReaderY]

In Hidden Figures, there was no “public restroom that didn’t discriminate.” The black women walked to a NASA restroom in a different NASA building some distance away that was designated for colored NASA employees. This was historically accurate. Any public restroom in Virginia at the time would have been designated white or colored.

[Sarcastr0]

Except for the Pentagon. It was built for segregation with double the bathrooms. But FDR toured there before it was going to open and pulled federal jurisdiction to declare it was not going to be segregated.

When I worked there back in the day, it did indeed have a ton of bathrooms that were always free.

[Commenter_XY]

The bathrooms are probably full of a lot of people shitting their pants right now. Good thing there are tons of bathrooms. 🙂

O/T: Is it really true that repeat Pentagon visitors are never taken the same way through the building for each visit?

[Riva]

When you worked there. Yeah sure. Truly frightening thought if true. But would go a long way to explain why reforms are desperately needed in DOD.

[Drewski]

Since, like all members of Congress, she has a private bathroom in her offices, such a gesture may look more petulant than noble. I think taking the high road is the right move.

[Riva]

Is he a good runner? Maybe we should test that and give him an office in an off site building?

[David Nieporent]

Here's McBride's response, which I would indeed characterize as taking the classy route: https://x.com/SarahEMcBride/status/1859316328793862610

[TwelveInchPianist]

He's going to use the bathroom that corresponds to his sex?

That seems more normal that classy. I do it all the time.

[David Nieporent]

McBride is going to obey the rules and not make a public or legal fuss about it so as to not make the situation all about McBride.

[Riva]

The trans movement is all about the trans performer by definition. The cause is consumed with nothing else but getting others to acknowledge the personal idiosyncrasies of the cross dressers.

[Riva]

Let’s hope Mr. Classy stays that way and doesn’t show up in fishnets and pumps when he’s sworn in

[Noscitur a sociis]

It does seem notable that the person actually inconvenienced by the policy found a way to respond with more dignity, class, and grace than keyboard culture warriors rushing to the ramparts here.

I’m sure this will be the cause for a great deal of reflection.

[jimc5499]

It's a shame that was made up for the movie. They interviewed the woman that the movie was about and she said that she never had to do that. How about making this simple and designating a few restrooms as Unisex? Problem goes bye bye. Oh wait! There's no political posturing involved in that.

[Nelson]

“I believe I read that Congresswoman McBride is going to take the classy route and not complain.”

Correct. She said she wasn’t going to Congress to fight over bathrooms. Since she’s my representative, I appreciate her having her focus in the right place.

I was afraid she would be petty and shallow like Marc and Greene. I’m glad my fear was unfounded.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’m looking forward to the stories of Sarah freaking out the guys in the men’s room."

Well, many people prefer single sex rest rooms, which is why we have them. If you dress up as the other sex and go into their rest room, you should expect questions.

[Zarniwoop]

Which brings up a long standing pet peeve about the many, many establishments the have two (2) single-occupancy restrooms and designate them by sex. Sooner or later there's a line outside of one, while the other stands empty.

Just make them both unisex, already! FFS, what is wrong with people?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, they did that in our front office, I have no idea why.

[Nelson]

Aren’t you an engineer? You guys make things more efficient for everyone else, but missed one in your own house? That’s actually pretty funny.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Building code required M&F starting in the '60s, doesn't now. MA code requires teachers bathrooms in K-12 schools.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The genuinely female Congresswioman who made a fuss about this freak is a rape survivor. I'm willing to cut her some slack on that basis.

[Randal]

I agree. If she's got rape PTSD about being in a public restroom, she should get accommodated with her own rape-resistant single-occupancy bathroom just for her.

[Mr. Bumble]

They all have bathrooms in their offices.

[Randal]

That makes the Republicans' freakout all the more pathetic.

[Michael P]

The United States Capitol Complex has 20 buildings, 12 of which are for primary use by Congress (others include the power plant, Supreme Court, and a visitors' center). Should members of Congress run back to their office every time they need to use a restroom while in another building? And should we worry if they pull a fire alarm when trying to travel between buildings in the process?

[Zarniwoop]

It wasn't until 2011 that women Reps (76 at the time) got a women's room near the House floor, so that they didn't have to go all the way back to their office just to take a pee.

July 28, 2011 at 8:42 p.m. EDT

Women finally have a seat in the House of Representatives. Four seats, in fact. And two sinks.

Last week, as debt-ceiling talks were building to a fever pitch, Room H211 in the U.S. Capitol quietly opened its door to the 76 female members of the House, giving them their own restroom near the Speaker’s Lobby. Women in the Senate have had their own restroom off the Senate floor since 1993.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Republican freakout? It's Dem's who decided to make fighting for the right of men to access ladies' rooms part of their agenda.

[Randal]

Yeah, it's the Republicans who are proposing bills and making statements about Sarah's bathroom habits. It's all a bit sick.

And this whole thing started with an anti-trans national RNC statement back in Jan 2016. Prior to that, trans people used whatever bathroom they felt like and no one much cared.

[not guilty]

Since same sex marriage became available nationwide, overtly hating on gays and lesbians became less socially acceptable. I believe that that was because more same sex attracted folks came out of the closet, and more of the haters realized they were likely hurting someone near and dear to them.

The haters suddenly needed another target -- one composed of people who are less numerous, less prosperous, less politically organized and less likely to be "out" than gays and lesbians. Hatred of transgendered folks was accordingly easy to gin up.

[Josh R]

Agreed, except I would say gays coming out is what led to the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Coming out is what Harvey Milk preached is the one thing gays had to do in order to win their rights.

The same will have to be the case for trans people. They need to come out in order to be seen as normal (a tougher chore since they are an order magnitude less prevelant than gays).

[Nelson]

True, but they saw how it worked for gays and so have skipped the “skeptical and scared” stage. There are a lot more out trans folk already than at a comparable point in the gay rights fight.

[EscherEnigma]

... okay, I'm morbidly curious.

When do you think the "gay rights fight" started? When do you think the "trans rights fight" started?

[Josh R]

Gay rights came to the fore after Stonewall. But, the public at large wasn't convinced until after the 90s (post the passing of DOMA) when it became common place for people to come out.

The trans rights movement was in the background after Stonewall, but was clear during the hassle over ENDA in the 90s when Barney Frank advocated leaving trans protection out. Certanly progress has been made since then, but general acceptance in the public at large has not yet been achieved.

[Josh R]

No one is fighting for a general right of men to use the ladies room. The fight is only for trans women.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So only men who say they feel feminine?

[Randal]

Only the males with a doctor's note.

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to OSHA's model best practices, documentation is not required.

[Randal]

I forgot that you don't feel pain. Or humor.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You do humor?

[EscherEnigma]

That's the strawman that conservatives have been beating for decades, and has never been the standard.

[Josh R]

It's not quite a straw man. It's a fundmental disagreement about what it means to be trans. Twelve thinks it's just about feelings, which can change, rather than a trait which is highly resistant to change. That is, Twelve will not recognize being trans as legitimate.

[EscherEnigma]

Ah yes, "it's not a lie if you're delusional enough".

[Nelson]

Unfortunately, that’s true of a lot of our political differences, Josh.

Well said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Twelve thinks it’s just about feelings"

That's what the gender ideologists say, that gender can be fixed, or fluctuate over the course of days, weeks, even hours. You can even be two or more genders at the same time!

I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate, but just because you feel like a woman doesn't mean that other people have to fell that you're a woman.

[Sarcastr0]

'gender ideologists'

TiP seems to be outsourcing his own opinion to a strawman leftist for some reason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Where's the strawman? Gender fluidity and identifying as both a man and a women are totally things on the left.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, yeah they are things you'll find a set of people believe, but 'some group of people believe this' is a very low bar.

[EscherEnigma]

It's a strawman becuase your summary above, that I responded to, is not an honest good faith summary of how trans folk differentiate themselves, and is instead a gross distortion meant for mockery.

That you now claim to know what gender-fluid and non-binary are, when you insisted earlier that trans-man was a meaningless propaganda term, just goes to show that you are informed enough on the topic to know you're being dishonest.

So yeah. Punch that strawman harder.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Again, where’s the strawman?

Feeling, perception, and sense are all words used to define gender identity.

The UK NHS, for example, refers to trans people as “people [who] feel their gender identity is different from their biological sex”. And people who “have female genitals and breasts but do not identify as a female or feel feminine.”

So I don’t see much daylight between my comments and the actual mainstream definitions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I mean, yeah they are things you’ll find a set of people believe, but ‘some group of people believe this’ is a very low bar."

You're seriously arguing that discussions of gender-fluidity and bi-gender people are strawmen? It's easy to find copious reference to both concepts in mainstream sources.

[EscherEnigma]

Yeah, it's almost like you're conflating gender fluid and trans, pointing at how gender fluid talk about their gender identity as though that was how trans people talk about their gender identity, and then claimed that's why allowing trans people to use the bathroom that doesn't cause "confusion" is a problem.

It's dishonest from the start.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? Genderfluid falls under the trans umbrella. I mean, I'm not making this stuff up. I couldn't if I tried.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, slicing off "her" balls with a rusty straight edge razor comes to mind.

[David Nieporent]

Aside from you being even more of a hateful asshole than its possible to imagine, McBride had the operation ten years ago.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hadn't heard that before. Got a cite?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. McBride's book.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1524761486/reasonmagazinea-20/

It's discussed around page 179.

[Nelson]

C’mon, David. We all know trans people are pathological liars. Do you have a MAGA source like Newsmax or InfoWars for the paleocons? It would make them feel less icky to hear it from their own.

[Zarniwoop]

FAKE NEEEEWWWWWSSSSSS!!!!!!1!1!

(sarcasm, for the totally oblivious. so multiple people reading this, I guess)

[hobie]

Why Dr. Ed, does this mean your backing E Jean Carroll now?

[Stella Link the dog]

Are we sure that Mace is actually a rape survivor? Has Brettmore weighed in yet?

[Mr. Bumble]

Believe all women, no?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Believe all women, no?"

Of course not. All Women lie all the time and are not to be believed. Only men, and only those of certain races, ethnicities, religions, and body masses are ever to be believed about anything.

[Nelson]

Can you tell my partner that? I’m a fat, balding, middle-aged white man. I should be the master of all I survey, right? And yet when she thinks I’m wrong, she has the gall to disagree with me! Publicly! How dare she!

[Stella Link the dog]

You should be president*, you have all the qualifications.

*of the local chapter of the MAGA hair club.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'll support E Jean Carroll to not have peni in her locker room...

[Riva]

And a rape survivor who has received death threats from the trans crowd that feels victimized because they have to use a restroom that corresponds to their actual gender.

[not guilty]

What is your factual basis for saying that, Riva?

[Riva]

That she is a survivor of rape or that she has received threats? Both are true. As for the threats,Representative Mace has posted one from one of the “victimized” trans community: https://x.com/RepNancyMace/status/1858917861797904700

[Drewski]

Eh, stuff on X is fake news. It's a fiction Clearinghouse.

[Riva]

So, Nancy Mace hired that insane freak to post that video? Is that your theory? Or maybe the lunatic was just kidding? Who doesn’t like a good death threat joke. Classic humor.

[Drewski]

Bot acts upset when challenged for posting links to fake news site, film at 11.

[Riva]

That's not "fake news" you moron. Rep Mace shared a threatening X post of a trans lunatic. I know you guys are bastards but do you have to be such stupid bastards?

[Drewski]

Someone claiming to be Mace, verified by a known liar, posted something they claim to have received that they allegedly found threatening, on a site best-known for allowing deepfakes and misinformation. A bot account known for spreading lies posts a link. In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-Four, such things are utterly banal and kind of boring.

[Riva]

That’s her official, verified x account. The same thread is accessible through mace.house.gov, you absolutely abysmal lying idiot. And there are more threats from the deranged trans community.

[Michael P]

Thank you, mansplainer on what "typically" goes on in a women's restroom.

The concern is about incidents like this: https://wjla.com/features/i-team/teen-suspect-found-guilty-in-loudoun-county-public-school-stone-bridge-high-bathroom-assault

And dumb analogies: https://mynorthwest.com/4010975/rantz-judge-claims-female-only-olympus-spa-is-akin-to-whites-only-business/

[jb]

You mean that time when a girl invited a boy (who was not trans but wore skirts, so I guess maybe kind of Scottish?) to the girl's bathroom and then was assaulted by that boy?

Not really sure how that's relevant. Presumably she could have agreed to meet him at any number of other places with pretty similar results.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I love the unstated premise that you would to look inside this dudes dress to see that isn't a woman.

Why do you guys always pretend this? Is it because you're stupid?

lmao

[not guilty]

"I love the unstated premise that you would to look [sic] inside this dudes dress to see that isn’t a woman."

I have no idea what you meant to say, JHBHBE. I doubt that you have any idea either.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

“need to look”

Passing privilege is very rare for trannies. There doesn’t need to be “pecker checkers” at the door to know a man just walked in for 99.9% of the trannies.

Now go on and pretend there really is such a thing as a female dick like they claim. They also claim, that you, an alleged man, can suck a female dick and not be a homosexual because it’s a female dick.

To you and people like you, two humans with penises can be having heterosexual sex if one of those humans believes they are a female.

tRuST tHe SciEnCE
TrUSt thE eXpeRts

[not guilty]

And my sex life and my characterization of others' sex lives are your concern how, JHBHBE?

A penis doesn't hold any attraction for me, no matter whom it is attached to. But that's me. I don't fixate about other folks' genitalia or gender identification/presentation.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you fixate on definitions, the meaning of concepts, and reality?

If someone comes to you and says you must call this orange an apple because it hurts the oranges feelings. Do you go “sure! I don’t fixate on peels or skins or fruit meat, from now on I will call that apple an apple!”

If words and concepts and reality doesn’t matter, why were you a lawyer arguing over the meaning of words, concepts and reality for your career? Why didn’t you take the stance of “Well, that guy says he’s innocent, so I don’t fixate on reality or the meanings of things, so let’s all call him innocent!”?

[not guilty]

As a matter of fact, I do pay close attention to definitions, the meaning of concepts, and reality. You should try it sometimes.

And reality is that for a small but significant part of the population, gender identification and anatomy at birth are incongruent. I don't know, but I suspect, that those of us who accept that reality are happier and more well adjusted than those of you haters who do not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, that was the most ironic statement I've seen in a while, given exactly who is failing to accept reality in this case.

[not guilty]

Where is the irony, Brett?

[Stella Link the dog]

Reality.
"And reality is that for a small but significant part of the population, gender identification and anatomy at birth are incongruent. "

You, Brett, deny that this is a true statement? What, exactly, is incorrect?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sex is objective reality, Stella. It's fine for somebody to say they're attracted to the same sex, rather than the opposite sex, this can be an objective statement concerning their psychological state.

But If they say that they ARE of the opposite sex, that's a denial of objective reality. They simply aren't, any more than somebody who "identifies" as Napoleon actually IS a general.

[Stella Link the dog]

The statement made, Brett, is that for some, gender identification and sex are incongruent. Seems like a pretty anodyne statement to me. Do you actually believe that there are transgender people who deny the reality of their biology?

edit:
Of course there are people who do, in fact, deny reality and some, probably, are transgender just as there are idiots who claim to be geniuses and rank poltroons who claim to be war heroes.

[Sarcastr0]

Even allowing the elision of the small percentage of fuzziness to the sex binary, Brett, your 'objective truth' is misaligned.

What is the functional purpose behind bathrooms being by gender? Privacy. Which is a *subjective* perception.

If someone looks like a woman, it does *more* violence to privacy to force them to go to the men's room.

That's the thing about trans stuff, and why it's going to be an issue for a while - the purpose of stuff being segregated by gender can differ a lot - athletic ability, privacy, outmoded ideas about gender roles, who can get pregnant, etc.

There's not going to be a one size fits all solution.

[not guilty]

Brett, that is entirely unresponsive to Stella's question. Do you deny that a single word of mine that she quoted is true? Yes or no?

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say the quoted words were false. It is certainly true that a sadly non-trivial fraction of the population suffer from delusions concerning their own sex.

But this: "I don’t know, but I suspect, that those of us who accept that reality are happier and more well adjusted than those of you haters who do not." IS deeply ironic, considering that the people who aren't accepting reality are that fraction of the population and their defenders.

[SRG2]

Sex is objective reality,

Objective reality:

XX genotype usually but not invariably leads to female phenotype
XY genotype almost invariably leads to male phenotype
In a small number of cases, cerebrotype and phenotype do not match,
All mental states are physical brain states

Hence if someone's brain tells them they're male and their body tells them they're female. there is no objective reality to dismiss the former fact and accept the latter. You are required, if you're honest, to accept that this disconnect is real. What you do with this reality is up to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

You might as well declare that since amputees and birth defects exist, humans aren't bipedal, and so anybody who up and declares that they have only one leg while standing on two isn't delusional.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What is the functional purpose behind bathrooms being by gender? Privacy. Which is a *subjective* perception."

The peeping tom's mantra: It's OK to look because she didn't know I was looking.

[Sarcastr0]

The peeping tom’s mantra: It’s OK to look because she didn’t know I was looking.

Is that the issue with trans bathroom stuff? Peeping tommery?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, that is not the issue here Sarcastr0.

TiP is playing the only role he knows how: the bigot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Is that the issue with trans bathroom stuff? Peeping tommery?"

No, that's your argument. That privacy is subjective, so according to you it's not violated if the victim doesn't know it's being violated.

[SRG2]

Brett: if you ask anyone who's transgender, what sex their phenotype is, they will answer you correctly. They are fully aware. It is indeed a pathological condition to have a conflict between what your brain tells you your sex is, and what sex your body is, but as rewiring or restructuring the brain isn't an option - which we know because much therapy has been tried, what are you left with? You would leave them to suffer.

[Sarcastr0]

So you don't have an issue with my argument as it applies to this instance, you're quibbling with my definition as it applies to some other scenarios you want to bring up.

That doesn't touch my argument; it's just pedantry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. No, your argument applies equally to peeping Toms as it does to someone who looks like a woman in the men's room. And it's just as stupid in both contexts.

[Sarcastr0]

No TiP - your issue with my definition of privacy *only* applies outside of the issue here. Hence why you made the argument you did.

I could talk about the contours of privacy in different context, but I don't need to. We all know the context.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Yes, a man in a dress is demanding access to a woman's private spaces. As if people no longer have a right to bodily privacy in the presence of the opposite sex, when that person of opposite sex insists they are not of the opposite sex.

It's retarded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And a small but not insignificant percentage of the population starve themselves because they think they are fat. Do we honor this delusion, or do we treat them? Trannies are equally mentally ill.

[CountmontyC]

And there are others that think that some body part or another needs to be removed . This is known as body identity dysphoria. Removing the body part rarely stops their feeling that something needs amputated and they just transfer the need to another body part.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what the trans warriors don't want to admit: Thinking you're a girl when you're actually a guy isn't the whole thing, it's just a symptom of something more fundamental. That's why even people who transition, move, and manage to pass, still have sky high suicide rates.

There's something in their heads telling them that they aren't what they are, and changing what they 'are' doesn't fix it. Any more than you can cure anorexia with liposuction.

[Randal]

Go go doctor Brett. Let me know when you publish your paper on transgenderism in the next Journal of Medical Importance. Until then I'll trust the real doctors.

[SRG2]

There’s something in their heads telling them that they aren’t what they are, and changing what they ‘are’ doesn’t fix it. Any more than you can cure anorexia with liposuction.

Better, their brain isn't what their body is.

I would have more sympathy for your side of the argument if the majority of you didn't regard the issue as part of the culture wars, and weren't motivated by disgust or hatred - or in some cases, resorting to biblical fiction.

I have an n=1 - a nephew of mine who since he transitioned from female to male has become a much much happier person. You would deny him that happiness. And please don't lie and pretend otherwise.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>And reality is that for a small but significant part of the population, gender identification and anatomy at birth are incongruent.

That gender identification disorder does not alter sex or anatomy. The reality of what they are is still the same.

Right?

[Nelson]

“I suspect, that those of us who accept that reality are happier and more well adjusted than those of you haters who do not.”

C’mon, Not Guilty. What about Mother’s Lament, or Dr. Ed? Wait, no, I mean JesseAz. Crap. I mean Rob Misek. Damnit! I mean Woodchipper … hmmm. You know what? You may be on to something.

[Michael P]

Well, that answers his question in the affirmative.

[Commenter_XY]

Simple answer: RHIP (Rank Hath It's Privilege)

NG, is it unreasonable to say if McBride removes his penis, he can go ahead and use the ladies room?

[not guilty]

Has anyone actually said that, C_XY?

[Commenter_XY]

I am. 🙂

[not guilty]

I somehow doubt that the plumbing facilities are enough of a concern to Sarah McBride for her to undergo bottom surgery, so I don't think that would be reasonable.

In any event, what she has in her pants neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, even though you are a partisan (on the wrong side, heh), I have to say you are truly gifted in the turn of phrase (TL allusion). There is still time to beat out David for 'one liner' of the year. 🙂

If Sarah doesn't want 'The Full Monty' then maybe Sarah has psychological problems, and probably shouldn't foist her psychological problems onto the other women on Capitol Hill.

If you want to use the ladies room, have ladies plumbing. 😉

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

bottom surgery doesn't create ladies plumbing though.

HTH

[Commenter_XY]

Jesus, look up penile inversion vaginoplasty. Close enough.

To me, when Sarah McBride undergoes penile inversion vaginoplasty, s/he is free to use the ladies room.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh heavens whatever you do, don't do an image search!

An open wound that reeks of feces and infection that has to be dilated 4 hours a day, forever, is not "close enough".

Maybe in the way a goat or a sheep is "close enough" to many Middle Eastern/Southeast Asian cultures it is, but not to civilized peoples.

[not guilty]

"bottom surgery doesn’t create ladies plumbing though."

JHBHBE, I was talking about literal plumbing facilities -- the porcelain kind.

[Martinned2]

If you want to use the ladies room, have ladies plumbing.

When have Trumpists ever cared about whether a trans person has had any sort of gender-affirming surgery? Cruelty is the point...

[Michael P]

Cruelty is only the point to the extent demonstrated up-thread by Randal wanting people to be freaked out and stalked in the bathroom.

[Randal]

Again, the cruelty in that scenario is entirely the result of Republicans’ preferred policy of throwing men and women together into the same bathroom.

[Michael P]

Again, YOU were the one calling for people being "freak[ed] out" and "terrorize[d]" in restrooms.

[Randal]

You’re just annoyed to realize that the Republicans' cruelty can’t be confined to just the trans people and will end up impacting other people too.

[Commenter_XY]

Cruelty is not treating the underlying psychological problem(s).

You know, the other way to look at it M2, and you won't like it....these trannies are being helped along in their journey with the insistence that the plumbing must correspond to the bathroom. They (Trannies) want to be a woman, anatomically. Fine. Part of womanhood is having the plumbing. Post penile inversion vaginoplasty, then you are a woman, anatomically, sort of. That is what you wanted, now you have it. The point is, if you want to be a woman anatomically, then just do it and stop making a public spectacle of yourself in some sick martyrhood fantasy.

Post surgery, feel free to use the ladies room.

If you're unwilling to change the plumbing, then the problem is psychological, and you should be treated.

[Michael P]

The word you may be looking for is autogynephilia.

I don't think there is a standard name for the NG version of it, but "autogynephilia by proxy" is a candidate.

[Commenter_XY]

It is manufactured controversy. The way to shut that down is to call the bluff. A human being, with the anatomical equipment of a woman, gets to use the ladies room on Capitol Hill. Dudes with dicks go to the men's room. It isn't rocket science.

[Randal]

That seems fine to me. But that's not the rule Marjorie, Nancy, and Mike are proposing.

[David Nieporent]

It is manufactured controversy. The way to shut that down is to call the bluff. A human being, with the anatomical equipment of a woman, gets to use the ladies room on Capitol Hill. Dudes with dicks go to the men’s room. It isn’t rocket science.

Few would be satisfied with that as a resolution. JHBHBE already sneered at that. And if the issue were solely McBride, that might work, since McBride is a recognizable member of Congress and everyone knows, or can. But if a random person walks into a restroom, how is anyone going to know what his/her 'anatomical equipment' looks like? Do you intend to ask him/her to prove it each time s/he enters a given restroom?

[Commenter_XY]

David, no one would actually know if a rando tranny decides to use the bathroom that corresponds to their chosen gender. One would expect a visitor to follow the rules. Some will not. Those who do not follow the rules (as Speaker Johnson has just articulated them) will probably be asked politely to leave the premises by the Capitol Police.

A few will want to make a faux martyrhood statement, and proceed to make a public spectacle of themselves. Let them. They damage their own cause.

[Josh R]

There is no good reason why anatomical equipment is the standard. A pre-surgical trans woman can use the stall without exposing herself.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

@David,

For 99.9% of the trannies, everyone knows. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

The problem is that most of these people are obviously men in woman-face.

[EscherEnigma]

"David, no one would actually know if a rando tranny decides to use the bathroom that corresponds to their chosen gender. One would expect a visitor to follow the rules. Some will not. Those who do not follow the rules (as Speaker Johnson has just articulated them) will probably be asked politely to leave the premises by the Capitol Police."
Which is more likely to get Capitol Police called on them? A brawny bearded transman who "follows the rules" and goes into the women's restroom, or one who violates the rules and uses the men's room?

[David Nieporent]

There is no good reason why anatomical equipment is the standard. A pre-surgical trans woman can use the stall without exposing herself.

I can't see a good reason to use a standard other than anatomical equipment. If it isn't appropriate to divide that way, then why have men's and women's bathrooms at all?

[EscherEnigma]

"I can’t see a good reason to use a standard other than anatomical equipment."

Practicality.

Most people agree that the idea of having a bathroom guardian who checks people's breeches for the correct genitals is absurd.

So seeing as we are broadly unwilling to check genitals, genitals necessarily should not be part of the standard.

It'd be like saying "you must be this tall to ride" and then going "wait, you want us to measure people?!"

[Josh R]

We have separate-sex restrooms to advance the interests of privacy and safety. Because there is no good reason for a cis person to use the restroom opposite their sex, we respect those interests. But there is a good reason for a trans person, pre or post-surgery, to use the restroom opposite of their sex: their health and well being. And that trumps the other interests because they are not exposing themselves.

[jb]

Wait, so does this mean that you're supportive of gender affirming care for kids?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I support sexual identity affirming care for kids. If a kid wants to identify as straight but has homosexual proclivities, he should get kind compassionate care to help him live how he wants to live as a heterosexual, normal person.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The pearl-clutching Jew who's so worried about anti-Semitism once again comes in swinging with slurs and hate towards people whose only offense is existing.

What does the Torah say about speech and slurs? Your Rabbi would not be impressed.

[Drewski]

Let’s all take moral advice from the guy who thinks “drink some Draino” is a witty rejoinder and who has called for the legalization of slavery.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"the guy who thinks “drink some Draino” is a witty rejoinder..."

Yeah, people should knock that off. This isn't Canadian social services.

[Nelson]

Holy shit, that quote is awesome. I love Jefferson (and my dad loved him even more) so I’m crushed I didn’t know that one. Well, that’s two new things I learned today.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a good quote. NG has a lot of great ones.

[not guilty]

The Jefferson quotation in full is:

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

[Commenter_XY]

Great quote, NG. Thank you. I enjoy those a lot.

They (Founders) were giants compared to us.

[David Nieporent]

NG, is it unreasonable to say if McBride removes his penis, he can go ahead and use the ladies room?

As I mentioned above, McBride in fact did so. Does that change your perception of this situation?

[Commenter_XY]

David, if McBride doesn't have male plumbing, what is there to say? If McBride has female plumbing (e.g. s/he doesn't have a penis anymore), go ahead and use the ladies room.

No, it would not change my perception of the situation one iota.

I don't have an objection to a fully transitioned tranny, sans penis, using the ladies room. I would not understand the objection at that point.

[EscherEnigma]

If you do not understand the objection, then perhaps you should speak to your fellow travelers more, as quite a few of them --including Mace-- have been very vocal about how their objections cannot be mollified.

[Noscitur a sociis]

By this rationale, is there any possible reason a cisgender man should be excluded from the same bathrooms?

[Ska]

They didn't say the magic words.

[jb]

When I go to big public events like sports games, I often see women going to men's bathrooms to avoid long lines for the women's facilities. I've never had a problem with that, and the other sports fans don't seem to either. I'm not sure why this changes when it's a man needing to use the women's bathroom in a government building instead.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not sure why this changes when it’s a man needing to use the women’s bathroom

In several different places I've worked, the women's restrooms were kept locked and the men's restrooms weren't. That's because men and women have very different concerns about privacy and safety.

[Randal]

This is why I predict we'll land on "White straight cis female" and "Other" in the end.

[jb]

So is the idea that women are safe and private if they use the men's bathroom when men around, but they're not safe and private if they use the women's bathroom with men around? I'm struggling to understand why one is safer and more private than the other, even just from the perspective of women.

[Commenter_XY]

Same here = locked ladies rooms, no lock on men's room.

[Josh R]

Trans women have a reason to use the women's restroom: their health and well being. What reason is there for a cis man to use the women's restroom?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I agree that most men probably don’t have any interest in using a women’s bathroom. But with respect, that’s not an answer to my question. Not guilty’s position is that, given “what typically occurs in a women’s restroom”, there isn’t any legitimate reason for a woman to care about the “configuration of any other occupant’s genitalia”. Do you agree with not guilty? If so, is there any basis on which a man should be excluded from women’s bathroom?

[Josh R]

I do not agree with not guilty. Privacy and safety are a legitimate concern. But, those concerns are trumped by the health and well being of trans women who do not expose themselves and aren't a threat.

[Armchair]

" trans women who do not expose themselves and aren’t a threat."

How does one differentiate these individuals from those who "are a threat" a priori

For that matter, use non-trans males. If these individuals are "not a threat" why shouldn't they be able to use the women's bathroom. Can you differentiate these individuals from those who "are a threat"?

[not guilty]

Sex segregation of public restrooms is customary. Before the right wing culture warriors seized on a new category of Emmanuel Goldsteins to gin up their Two Minute Hates, trans folks used restrooms corresponding to their gender presentation without issue.

[Armchair]

"Sex segregation of public restrooms is customary."

Indeed, sex segregation of public restrooms IS customary. However, "Sex" is not the same as "Gender". (Really, look up the difference). Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct.

When a number of people people "identified" as a different gender, and then used that identity to engage in sexual assault...it became a issue. I've linked to it above.

[Josh R]

The differentiation is the person has to come out as trans and has to live their life as such.

There is no way to know if a cis man is a threat. But given (unlike for a trans man) there is no affirmative reason to let a cis man use the women's restroom, we conclude the safety interest wins out. And, there is the privacy interest as well.

[Armchair]

No...your comment was "trans women....aren’t a threat."

1) The differentiation is not between trans and non-trans. The differentiation was between "a threat" and "not a threat".

"2) But given (unlike for a trans man) there is no affirmative reason to let a cis man use the women’s restroom"

I disagree. There can absolutely be affirmative reasons for a cis man to use the women's restroom. Perhaps there is no line there (unlikely, but possible). Perhaps it just smells nicer than the mens room. Perhaps the cis male simply feels more comfortable there.

With these affirmative reasons, you once again get into a balancing situation. And you need to compare the relative risk versus liberty. Can you realistically say, there is absolutely NO reason for a cis male to EVER use the women's room...but there is for a trans male?

And once you cross that line, once again, you get into a balancing situation of the relative risk.

[Josh R]

None of your stated reasons for cis men using the women’s bathroom is even remotely close to being remotely close to being comparable to why trans women do. In short, it's horseshit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The differentiation is the person has to come out as trans and has to live their life as such."

No they don't. All they have to is say, "I am a woman."

Do you think there's some sort of committee that decides if someone is sufficiently trans to enter a ladies' room?

And if there were, why should they get greater deference than Nancy Mace?

[Josh R]

All they have to is say, “I am a woman.”

Not in my book. We rightly can make sure the trans woman is not a faker. The responsibility goes to the body that runs the bathroom.

Mace, like you, doesn’t believe being trans is legitimate. The rest of know Congresswoman McBride is trans.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. It sounds like there three ways we can approach this:

We can have bright line criteria, like "got a dick your a man, vajayjay you're a woman". Mace's approach, and mine.

We can go be unquestioned self-id, which is the approach favored by many gender ideologues. I don't like that approach, and it seems neither do you.

Or we can have your approach, where bathroom owners subjectively decide what sex you are based on how long you've worn a dress, how feminine you look and act, etc.

You can understand why many bathroom owners might opt for the first or second approach, right?

[Josh R]

Close. The owners will decide what your gender identity is based on the totality of how you conduct your life. And again, that extra screening is only to weed out fakers.

Mace's criteria would exclude all trans woman, not just post-ops (*). It's based on ignorance and hatred.

(*) Again noting, that I would not exclude pre-op or post-op trans women because no one is exposing themselves. They are going into a closed stall to use the toilet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And why is it ignorant and hateful to reject being a sex-arbiter and decide based on biological sex or self-identification?

[Randal]

That’s not right tiny pianist. Whether the criteria is “has a dick” or anything else, the bathroom owner is the one who has to enforce it.

If I were a bathroom owner, I’d way rather be enforcing a policy around “generally lives as a woman” than one that requires me to verify everyone’s dick or lack thereof.

[Josh R]

It’s only ignorant to decide based on sex. Mace chose that criterion because she ignorantly believes gender identity does not exist. The result harms the health and well-being of trans people, and thus is hateful.

Self-identification risks fakers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you want restroom owners telling you that you generally live like a woman, so you have to use the ladies room?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Mace chose that criterion because she ignorantly believes gender identity does not exist."

"Mace chose that criterion because she ignorantly believes gender identity does not exist. "

You think she believes that there are no men who feel like women? What's your evidence?

There appear to be women who don't want to share restrooms with men whether they feel like women or not. You haven't established that that's more ignorant or hateful than women not wanting to share a restroom with men who feel like men.

[Josh R]

The owner would only make a determination of how someone lived their life if they said they were trans and wanted to use the restroom that matched their gender identity.

Cut the shit already and just admit you hold Mace's view that gender identity isn't real and trans people are delusional.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Cut the shit already and just admit you hold Mace’s view that gender identity isn’t real and trans people are delusional.”

Huh? I believe that there are men who feel feminine and want to be treated and seen as women.

But I don’t believe this desire imposes any obligation on others to actually see them and treat them as women.

And I certainly don’t believe it falls to restroom owners to decide what someone’s gender identity is.

[Josh R]

Do you believe gender identity is a real, largely immutable trait, and that a person whose gender identity does not match their sex is normal and not delusional?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The owner would only make a determination of how someone lived their life if they said they were trans and wanted to use the restroom that matched their gender identity."

So in your view it's OK for a trans "man" to fake being a woman and use the ladies room?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you believe gender identity is a real, largely immutable trait, and that a person whose gender identity does not match their sex is normal and not delusional?"

I believe that there are people who wish that they were the opposite sex. AFAIK that doesn't change for some people, fluctuates for others, and is temporary for others.

[Josh R]

“People who wish that they were the opposite sex” sounds like you don’t believe gender identity is a trait. And it sounds like you believe such people are delusional.

Cut the shit already and come clean.

[Randal]

Do you want restroom owners telling you that you generally live like a woman, so you have to use the ladies room?

That would be funny enough to be worth it.

But also thanks for acknowledging the premise that it sucks to be told that you have to use the wrong restroom.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"People who wish that they were the opposite sex” sounds like you don’t believe gender identity is a trait"

What's the distinction, in your view?

"But also thanks for acknowledging the premise that it sucks to be told that you have to use the wrong restroom."

Question begging aside, it sucks to be told to do something you don't want to do. C'est la vie.

[Josh R]

McBride doesn't wish to be a woman. Her brain is telling her she is a woman. That is, her gender identity is female and does not match her sex.

Now, is her gender identity a real trait? Is she delusional?

[Absaroka]

"McBride doesn’t wish to be a woman. Her brain is telling her she is a woman. That is, her gender identity is female and does not match her sex.

Now, is her gender identity a real trait? Is she delusional?"

Yes, no maybe?

If she doesn't realize she isn't quite like the other girls, then yes, she is quite delusional. She would have to be forgetting the surgery, the hormones, etc.

A year or so ago there was a newspaper article about an XX who identified as male ... and was 9 months pregnant and went to the hospital to deliver a baby. And was offended because the facility was called the 'Maternity Ward', not a Paternity Ward, and he was after all a father giving birth, not a mother.

But ... in some important ways, he had things in common with the mothers who were also there giving birth - and he didn't share those things with other fathers.

So the 'trans women/men are just exactly like other women/men' stuff is pretty nonsensical.

[Josh R]

So the ‘trans women/men are just exactly like other women/men’ stuff is pretty nonsensical.

Straw man alert.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"McBride doesn’t wish to be a woman."

Huh, cite?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, if he thinks he’s an actual, legit woman, then he’s delusional. But I doubt he thinks that. I assume he understands that he's a man with gender dysphoria.

[Josh R]

She thinks her gender identity is female and her sex is male. And, she thinks gender identity is just as legitimate a definition of what a woman is as one's sex.

[Absaroka]

TIP: wouldn't your first, bright line, criteria mean that Congressperson McBride and other post-surgical trans people could use the women's room?

That seems like a reasonable criteria to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, I was referring to natural penises and again, not surgically created simulated ones.

Recognizing surgical transformations is another approach. It's probably preferable to the 2nd and 3rd above, but has the complication of creating an incentive for people to alter their bodies.

[Sarcastr0]

This is targeted, performative meanness. The GOP bread and butter these days – their base loves it!

But Nancy Mace tweeted over 250 times in 36 hours about the bathroom.
That’s not just the usual brand of being an awful person, it’s personal and obsessive and working out some kinda thing she's got going on more than kowtowing to the GOP base's demands to be an asshole.

[Michael P]

Do the count of 250 tweets include her talking about the death threats she has received from transgender activists?

[Sarcastr0]

Changing the subject - a sure sign Michael doesn't have a good response.
Or is lazy.
Or has some story he just read in dailymail he really wants to post.

Point is, engaging with the stuff he replies to has never been his strong suit.

[Michael P]

In short, “yes”. You inflated your claimed count by including her revelations that your political allies threaten to kill members of Congress for not toeing the line. Or you parroted somebody else’s inflated, dishonest claim without realizing you were the sucker.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-mace-former-communications-director-transgender-resolution-x-1989294

You continue to have no defense for this obsessive behavior, and thus deflect.

[Stella Link the dog]

The money quote about Nancy Mace's crusade :
"If you think this bill is about protecting women and not simply a ploy to get on Fox News, you've been fooled."

[Bob from Ohio]

Disgruntled ex-employee says something witty, libs jump on it.

[Stella Link the dog]

What she wrote is obviously true, her state of gruntlement as a former employee not withstanding.

[Bob from Ohio]

obviously!

[Michael P]

You continue to run away from your own leading factual claim on the topic.

[Sarcastr0]

Running away by providing a source.

And besides, quibble with the exact number all you want (it was apparently 262 not 250) - this is obsessives behavior and not something to defend or normalize.

[Michael P]

Your source continued the innumerate quote that you relied on: "a bill that applies to like .00000001% of Congress".

Like I said, you fell for somebody's inflated, dishonest claim without realizing you were the sucker.

[Sarcastr0]

You have yet to establish inflated or dishonest regarding my source.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree that wacked out (But not off.) men demanding to use the women's bathroom IS targeted, performative meanness. The tranny is engaged in a demonstration that real women have no rights he isn't entitled to usurp by just claiming to be a woman himself.

[Sarcastr0]

Why did you use the word tranny, Brett? At this point you know it's a slur.

Seems you're giving the game away even before anyone notes how weak your question begging is.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Why did you use the word tranny, Brett? At this point you know it’s a slur."
Why? Because it's a slur.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it's shorter than "cross dresser" or "transgender individual" or whatever. Nothing more than that, really.

As for it being a slur, you are aware of the euphemism treadmill, right? Negative connotations attach to the concept, not the word, so any euphemism or anodyne word/phrase you pick to replace a 'slur' becomes a slur. The only way to shut down the euphemism treadmill is to refuse to play the game in the first place.

And we should shut that treadmill down, it burns through a lot of perfectly good words, impoverishing the language in a futile effort to alter people's opinions by dictating the words they use to express them, a very Orwellian endeavor.

[Swede425]

Careful Brett.
You've got the Guardians Of Speech on you.
If you were in the UK they'd probably report you.
"Also, Dude, chinaman isn't the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please".

[not guilty]

IOW, all chinks are gooks, but not all gooks are chinks?

There are times that a slur against a deserving individual is helpful to make a point. I have referred to Clarence Uncle Thomas as a House Negro because his particular behavior regarding race warrants those epithets — he is a quisling in the struggle against inequality. Because I am willing to point that out, numerous commenters here are quick to call me “racist” and slow to defend Mr. Thomas’s behavior.

But there is a difference between saying that Mr. Thomas is unfit to carry Thurgood Marshall’s briefcase and saying that he is unfit to shine Mr. Marshall’s shoes. If I were to posit the latter or call him “nigger,” that would indeed be racist of me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Calling him "Uncle Tom" is racist of you.

But you're just fucking every goat there is this morning, aren't you?

[Swede425]

"You see, when I do it, it's for the PUREST of reasons. Unlike you racistnazihomophobictransphobic troglodytes".

[Mr. Bumble]

In most cases the proper word would be transvestite.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude. It's to save the typing.

You're like someone who can't stop saying the N-word trying to argue they have some good points about civil rights.

You're useful only as an example of bad faith argumentation. Taking a grand stand against language changing on behalf of shitheads everywhere.

[Stella Link the dog]

"And we should shut that treadmill down,"

So, are you happy with autistic people being labeled as retards or mental defectives?

[not guilty]

I don't recall Brett referring to his wife as a gook because it is shorter than typing Filipino.

[not guilty]

Excuse me. That should be Filipina.

[David Nieporent]

Filipinx?

[Brett Bellmore]

I AM mentally defective, or else it wouldn't have taken probably better than half my life to learn to emotionally interact with other people well enough to achieve something resembling a normal and satisfying life. Retarded? Sorry, I'm high functioning, the exact opposite of retarded, in everything but the capacity to perceive and express emotions.

I suppose that latter is the sort of confusion to be expected of the psychiatric community's bizarre decision to conflate autism and Asperger's, since people with autism as formerly defined typically were retarded in a general sense, while people with Asperger's tend to instead be advanced in most areas.

Anyway, the precise nature of my 'neurodivergence' actually dictates that I won't emotionally react to your attempt to upset me, so you're kind of wasting your time in that regard.

NG, I generally refer to her as "dear", or "my wife". "Gook", in addition to being a slur, is both dated and very non-specific.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Anyway, the precise nature of my ‘neurodivergence’ actually dictates that I won’t emotionally react to your attempt to upset me, so you’re kind of wasting your time in that regard."

You're lying again.

"I won’t emotionally react to your attempt to upset me"
1. I'm not trying to upset you.
2. You already have emotionally reacted.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose detached amusement IS an emotional reaction.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"NG, I generally refer to her as “dear”, or “my wife”. “Gook”, in addition to being a slur, is both dated and very non-specific."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same guy who wrote this?

As for it being a slur, you are aware of the euphemism treadmill, right? Negative connotations attach to the concept, not the word, so any euphemism or anodyne word/phrase you pick to replace a ‘slur’ becomes a slur. The only way to shut down the euphemism treadmill is to refuse to play the game in the first place.

And we should shut that treadmill down, it burns through a lot of perfectly good words, impoverishing the language in a futile effort to alter people’s opinions by dictating the words they use to express them, a very Orwellian endeavor.

Let me clarify your position for anyone who is still confused on the matter. Your wife isn't a "gook" because that's a slur you recognize and object to, but "tranny" is not a slur to you (despite the fact it's been used as one for at least 30+ years) because you didn't marry one.

In other words, you're a hypocrite and an asshole.

[David Nieporent]

Because it’s shorter than “cross dresser” or “transgender individual” or whatever. Nothing more than that, really.

It's longer than "trans."

[Roger S]

No, tranny is the commonly accepted term.

[David Nieporent]

At your Klan meetings, maybe.

[Bob from Ohio]

Isn't saying he goes to "Klan meetings" defamation if false, as it no doubt is? Its a statement of fact, he either attends such meetings or not.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is targeted, performative meanness."

Yup. Forcing women to accept men in their spaces is targeted, performative meanness.

You guys are terrible human beings.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Please remind me, were your panties in such a bunch about Trump's blatant misogyny? Is it just 100 percent bad faith with you?

[Swede425]

Yeah, men don't belong in women's bathrooms.
Nobody is required to accommodate somebody's mental illness.
That's not an extremist position.
Expecting people to believe a dog can be a cat is very 1984.
Not having it.

[Armchair]

"What is it with these peckercheckers? "

The simple answer is this...women's rights and safety. There's a reason we have separate men's and women's bathrooms.

Historically, men are stronger, and more prone to sexual aggression against women. Simultaneously, a bathroom is a place of relative privacy where a woman is at least partially removing her clothing. Mixing the genders in bathrooms at a minimum tends to lead to extreme sexual harassment and leering by men against women. And in more limited cases, it leads to sexual violence and rape. To minimize these risks, the bathrooms have typically been segregated by gender.

Allowing men to use women's bathrooms leads to the same issues as above. More sexual harassment, and potentially more sexual assault and rape. (See https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf). Transgender or not, that doesn't necessarily change sexual orientation, and often the strength and "physical equipment" are still there.

So, what these "peckercheckers" are about is protecting women's rights and safety. About preventing rape. Perhaps you disagree

[Sarcastr0]

Safety. You think this elected official is gonna go raping people? That's a helluva accusation to make. It looks a lot like you dove in without really checking what we were discussing.

Women's rights? as mandated from above by a dude? No, this is targeted cruelty at an outgroup of one. Really unifying the asshole base.

Historically, men are stronger, and more prone to sexual aggression against women.
Ah yes, lets generalize based on Biotruths. Next we can take away women's' votes due to 'historically, women are more emotional.'

[Armchair]

There is a long, long, long history of elected officials and sexual violence and harassment. Elected officials are not paragons of behavior.

But, if you want to ignore women's safety...that's your choice. Some of us don't make that choice.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t think this rep is going to rape people and needs a dedicated law to protect from that. As though rape wasn't a crime otherwise.

You’re too dumb to realize how absolutely idiotic this argument looks. Which is really dumb.

[not guilty]

Armchair, can you identify any member of Congress not named Larry Craig who in fact has engaged in untoward behavior in a public restroom? Even Dennis Hastert had better sense than that.

[Stella Link the dog]

"any member of Congress not named Larry Craig who in fact has engaged in untoward behavior in a public restroom"

Perhaps a public restroom is the only place that Lauren Boebert has never "engaged in untoward behavior."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That incident is the one thing I like about Boebert.

[Armchair]

Look up Chesterton's Fence. Then revisit your question.

[not guilty]

Done.

Now Armchair, can you identify any member of Congress not named Larry Craig who in fact has engaged in untoward behavior in a public restroom?

If you can't, there is no shame in admitting it.

[Magister]

Jon Clifton Hinson (March 16, 1942 – July 21, 1995) was an American politician who served as a Republican U.S. representative for Mississippi's 4th congressional district from 1979 to 1981.

Hinson, who was married, was arrested again on February 4, 1981, and charged with attempted sodomy for performing oral sex on a male employee of the Library of Congress in a restroom of the Longworth Building of the House of Representatives. After the investigation, which was prompted after complaints arose about similar incidents in the same restroom, Hinson was charged with sodomy.

Obviously we need segregated bathrooms for Republicans. That's probably why Armchair won't respond.

[Armchair]

I'm actually politically agnostic with regards to this questions. Democrats and Republicans are both culpable.

[not guilty]

Were Rep. Hinson and his pitcher in a male or female restroom of the Longworth Building?

[Armchair]

Well...you may have done so. But you failed to comprehend the issue.

The reason the standard (separating men and women's restrooms) exist is precisely because of the risk of sexual assault. And by separating those restrooms, one has alleviated the resulting risk, resulting in minimal cases.

Or in other words, precisely BECAUSE women and men have separate restrooms, one sees much lower levels of sexual harassment and assault in those restrooms. (Chesterton's Fence, it exists for a reason).

What we HAVE seen is assaults in other semi-private areas. Elevators, isolated areas, etc. These are far more difficult to pull off (as opposed to a restroom). But restrooms are segregated by gender, so it doesn't exist. Except, of course, in the examples cited above (with non-Congressional situations) where you've seen several assaults occur.

Now, since Congressional legislators aren't superior in their moral character, if one was to deregulate the restrooms (as we've seen other areas do, to the detriment of the female population), we would EXPECT sexual assaults to eventually occur. The fact they don't CURRENTLY occur, is precisely because they are gender segregated.

[not guilty]

That's a lot of ipse dixit, Armchair.

[Armchair]

in other words....you have no real rebuttal, because your original argument was fallacious. And you know it.

[Magister]

There is an argument that public restrooms are currently slightly riskier places because privacy concerns prevent video surveillance, unlike probably every other public place in Congressional buildings (although people entering and leaving would probably be on video). But the gender segregation preceded video in public places, and mostly restrooms are safe because there are a lot of people entering and leaving, not because they are gender segregated. How would gender segregation prevent cis male predators from attacking someone in an infrequently used restroom? Because they would be too embarrassed to enter? Fear of cooties? In any case, not really relevant to trans people.

Clearly the safest approach would be individual restrooms with the entire space visible from the doorway before entering and locking the door, and also better for parents with small children or those who require assistance.

[Sarcastr0]

The reason the standard (separating men and women’s restrooms) exist is precisely because of the risk of sexual assault

What is your source for this claim, upon which you opine for 3 paragraphs?

[Magister]

Can we get the next administration to apply Chesterton's Fence to its deregulation mania?

[Commenter_XY]

We can always ask the Ethics Committee 🙂 = How many elected officials went around raping people. They have records going back many years.

[Mr. Bumble]

...including records of payments for NDAs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, this is targeted cruelty at an outgroup of one."

Men are not an outgroup, Sarcastro. Men are not oppressed.

Women are the outgroup, remember?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro the MRA. Gotta love it. Keep fighting for the right of men to use the ladies room, dude!

[David Nieporent]

Safety. You think this elected official is gonna go raping people? That’s a helluva accusation to make. It looks a lot like you dove in without really checking what we were discussing.

Matt Gaetz?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Representatives are required to be at least twenty-five, David.

Gaetz wouldn't be interested.

[Brett Bellmore]

The dude caved, he'll be staying out of the womens' bathroom.

And, yeah, as expected, he's obviously a dude, even with the airbrushing these dudes generally get for media photos.

[Sarcastr0]

You're really going out of your way to be a dick to this person.

Shows where you're really coming from here.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm making a perfectly accurate observation. There's a picture at the link, it's a picture the dude picked himself, and you can see that he's a dude. Not quite as awful as Levine, but he does not make a convincing girl.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you're choosing your words to misgender as openly as you possibly can and using slurs.

You're performing bigotry. You know it, everyone knows it. You deny it for reasons I do not understand.

But yeah, you've made it clear what your motives are.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will continue to say I see four fingers, Sarcastr0, no matter how you demand that I see five.

[Sarcastr0]

You use slurs and go out of your way to misgender as hard as you can well beyond need.

This isn't you having a policy disagreement, this is you openly putting in effort for no other reason than being an asshole to someone.

Which, while I find your views abhorrent, you generally didn't do.

[SimonP]

That's not what you're doing, Brett.

You know that McBride describes herself as trans. You know that she presents and lives as a woman. You can grasp that, if you had met McBride on the street without knowing who she is, you probably would address her by the name she introduces herself as and would refer to her by the pronouns that seem obvious (even if you might privately harbor some doubts about her "true" gender).

You also understand that trans women like McBride are not really a threat to other women in public restrooms.

Your choice to refer to her using male pronouns is an affectation you've developed only fairly recently. It's an intentional choice you've made to convey to others that you do not believe that "transgenderism" is a thing, and that people who are out as "trans" are not entitled to the basic respect you would afford a total stranger you met in the street. You are not "calling it like you see it." You are seeing things just fine; you are choosing to describe reality in a way that aligns with your gender ideology.

[Swede425]

Total bullshit.
He's a man.
No amount of pretending is going to change that fact.
No amount of cheerleading and support from you is going to change that fact.
Your issue is that you can't fathom why somebody just won't play along. But that's just too bad.

[Swede425]

LOL!
"Misgender".
Oh, he's misgendered alright.
Listen, weirdo, we get it. You're a science denying cretin who gets frustrated that the rubes won't play pretend with you or the other mental cases. That's too bad.
Truth doesn't bend for you. Deal with it.

[Don Nico]

True story:
My vet misgendered by dog yesterday. He kept calling the girl-dog "he."

The poor creature is upset.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, speaking of awful, aren't both Levine and McBride self-identified AWFLs?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, you’re choosing your words to misgender as openly as you possibly can..."

You're the one misgendering.

[Sarcastr0]

Wank.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You're wanking too?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You’re really going out of your way to be a dick to this person."

Calling a dude a dude is being a dick?

If someone wants, for whatever reason, to pretend to be a woman, fine. Different strokes for different folks.

But when they start demanding that others pretend too, they are being dicks and deserve to be treated like dicks.

[Randal]

This is such a tired debate. Yes, you're free to be an asshole. It's pretty disgusting that your tribe is this excited about being a communal asshole to one person, but ok, we get it, you're insecure losers with an inferiority complex and this is how you compensate.

[Lennyk78]

I'd rather put them in concentration camps, so telling them not to use the wrong bathroom is light in terms of being a dick.

[hobie]

What we need to do is elect Chastity Bono to congress. When that corpulent, bearded dude waddles into MTG's sitting parlor...oh the irony!

[Moderation4ever]

This is of course a silly exercise. I have lost all respect for Nancy Mace who did seem to be a serious person at one time. I have noticed increasing numbers of single occupancy nongender specific bathrooms and I hope the capital has a few and Sarah can use these. I am a bit old fashioned and I believe that bathrooms are place for specific business and not social clubs where you hang out.

[Mr. Bumble]

Be honest, you can't lose what you never had.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Sarah can use these"

He has a private bathroom in his private office.

[LawTalkingGuy]

How do you or would you address attorneys who are trans? If you were judging a moot court or a mock trial with a student you knew or thought was trans, how would you refer to them?

See I know there are trans attorneys in Ohio and I’m very concerned you may interact with them in some way and I want your assurance you will not behave this way if they have the misfortune to interact with you in a professional or (god forbid) a social situation.

[Commenter_XY]

Wouldn't the judge or whoever ask the trans attorney how they would like to be addressed?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Will Bob? That’s what I’m asking here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Counselor always works.

LTG is just trolling though as usual.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I am asking you to assure me and the bar of Ohio, in your capacity as a licensed Ohio attorney, that you will not deliberately misgender a fellow attorney or degrade a student. If you think that asking you to uphold professionalism is “trolling” that is extremely worrying because it indicates that you do not have the ability to comport yourself in a professional and ethical manner.

So yes or no: will you deliberately misgender an attorney or student?

[Bob from Ohio]

Yawn.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why can’t you answer this question? Why does professionalism get a “yawn” from you?

[Bob from Ohio]

"can’t"

You don't speak for the "bar of Ohio" so I won't [not can’t] respond.

Its your tedious stalking of me that gets the yawn in any event.

[LawTalkingGuy]

We are what we pretend to be. And you pretend to be an attorney with little concern for ethics and professionalism. That’s a problem. You won’t answer because you don’t have an answer that comports with professional ideals.

You and I are members of the same bar. And your behavior reflects poorly on me by association. That’s why I want your assurances. If you can’t discuss legal ethics and dismiss it as trolling and stalking that speaks extremely poorly to your abilities as a lawyer.

The only thing that is “stalking” you is your own lack of ethics. You don’t like having a reminder of your own character.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, does making false accusations against a sitting Circuit judge violate your professionalism norm? Is it cause for a complaint to the bar? Specifically, I am thinking of Judge William Pryor.

[Swede425]

Dude has a pisser in his office.
He can use that.

[Lennyk78]

Your logic is an argument for eliminating single-sex bathrooms entirely, not for making an exception for mentally ill men who think they're women.

[Bored Lawyer]

Why is this so hard?

Ask yourself, why do we still have gender segregated bathrooms? We don't gender segregate anywhere else -- men and women eat in front of each other in restaurants and cafeterias. And racially segregated bathrooms were outlawed 60 years ago? So why do gender segregated bathrooms persist?

When you answer that, you will understand the issue.

[Sarcastr0]

If it was as easy as you say, women in Congress would be unanimously in support of this measure.
They very much are not.

And why don't you go into what the functional purpose is behind bathrooms being by gender?
I will - it's the feeling of privacy. Which is a *subjective* perception.

If someone looks like a woman, it does *more* violence to privacy to force them to go to the men’s room.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They very much are not."

Negative partisanship.

[Sarcastr0]

Is negative partisanship ever your motive on an issue?

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure, as is yours.

[Sarcastr0]

When I notice I’m doing that, I quit it.

I also don’t go diagnosing as a group large swaths who disagrees with me as having that motive.

[Bob from Ohio]

"diagnosing as a group large swaths who disagrees with me as having that motive"

Well hurray for you! But that does not mean Dem women are not reacting negatively because its a GOP effort.

[Sarcastr0]

You're using an unsupported conjecture to discard a lot of women's opinions so you can declare women's real opinion on their behalf.

IOW, just straight bullshit.

[Don Nico]

S_0,
I don't think that you have been paying much attention in the wider world.

But to this issue, Congress a bit more money and convert all (or at least 2/3) the bathrooms to unisex.

[Roger S]

Not unanimous? Are there women in Congress who want to use the men's restrooms?

[SimonP]

No, actually - it's a good question. Why do we have gender-segregated restrooms?

Gender segregation in restrooms and locker rooms have nothing to do with basic biological functions or anatomy, and whatever risks women may be said to have in those spaces (at the hands of heterosexual, cisgender men) have nothing to do with that gender segregation choice. (Women are better protected from attack by locked, single-occupancy restrooms and locked locker rooms, not gender-segregated spaces that can be easily invaded by any attacker.)

Gender segregation in these spaces is, rather, entirely a product of decency norms that we've inherited and have barely examined directly. That's why transgender people in these spaces break everyone's brain. It's not about how you pee, what bits are briefly visible when removing clothing, or the sexual assault risk that transgender people can pose. It's about how our decency norms ought to apply to people who present one way when they're clothed but another way when they're naked.

All of this gobbledygook you fucking asswipes come up with is beside the point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Several reasons, I think.

1) Communal bathrooms consume fewer resources, they are a reflection of relative poverty. We haven't yet adjusted to being able to afford a whole bank of single user bathrooms. Or, frankly, decided yet that the expense is worth it even if we could afford it.
2) Men and women actually ARE biologically different; Women have no use for urinals, for instance, while they greatly speed up male bathroom use.
3) Men can experience a rather inconvenient and embarrassing reflex under circumstances communal unisex bathrooms can create. Annoying, but still true: It's hard to piss when it's hard...
4) I suppose you can dismiss it as a "decency norm", and then just casually advocate forcing women who have that norm, (Most of them!) to endure violations of it, but most people don't want to do that.

So, if you're going to have communal bathrooms, it makes sense to sex segregate them.

[SimonP]

1) The question wasn’t “why do we have communal restrooms?”

2) No reason whatsoever that men can’t use urinals in the same space that women are using stalls. Men could also just… use stalls.

3) If a guy can learn to pee next to another guy, he can learn to pee around a woman. This is not a bona fide biological or anatomical concern, and it wouldn’t matter anyway if everyone were in separate stalls. [ETA: Jesus christ, you are talking about getting an erection in the restroom, not "piss-shyness". Trust me, Brett, as a big ol' homo - if I can avoid getting an erection while naked in the locker room next to attractive naked men, so can men who are going to the restroom to relieve an urgent and uncomfortable need. Anyway, it's not like it's something you have to worry about any more.]

4) You seem to misunderstand the point. BL was asking, “why do we segregate restrooms”? He was implying that there is a good reason for this segregation. My calling it just a reflection of “decency norms” is not necessarily to say that we segregate only for bad reasons that we should discard, unless you were to take for granted that being patent about that justification would undermine the whole argument in favor of gender segregation that BL is implicitly making.

You’re not good at this, Brett. Left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Must be rough for you at the trough.

[Krayt]

Back when this started, someone quoted some SC ruling that the government could not force you to expose your genitals to the opposite gender, nor force you to be exposed to it.

Conscioussness-shocking ok for me but not for thee. Lemmee see how the lawyers I support wanna sue. That will let me know if a shocked psyche is a dread concern, or something to be pooh pooh’d.

[EscherEnigma]

"Ask yourself, why do we still have gender segregated bathrooms? "
History.

[Bored Lawyer]

I see we have mostly snark in response to my post, so let me answer my own question.

Bathrooms in Western society require a degree of privacy. Given that using a bathroom requires exposing one's private parts, this is not surprising. In private homes, bathrooms are generally used by one person at a time, except perhaps for spouses or very young siblings. (Which is why we don't have gender segregated bathrooms in homes, generally.)

In public areas, this is not practical, so gender segregated bathrooms are used. Given that the use of bathrooms requires exposing oneself to some extent, it is invasive to do so while members of the opposite sex are present. As a corollary, bathrooms are often used not only for bodily functions, but to change clothes, where, again, one exposes oneself more than in public.

So public bathrooms are gender segregated to provide each gender a degree of privacy that is appropriate for its use. It is thus perfectly rational for women not to want men in their bathroom -- and then includes biological men who think they are women and are wearing a dress. That's the nub -- women, and men, require an area where there is some degree of privacy to do private things.

The obvious compromise is to have some single-person bathrooms, where anyone, including transgender, can use. A single-person bathroom need not have a gender identity, which is the case in almost all private homes.

(Before I signed on and my muting kicked in, I saw someone compare this to "safe spaces." It is indeed a form of safe space. Difference is, here the safe space is to expose private parts of one's body. The "safe spaces" which have become popular in some universities are designed to insulate students from ideas that might challenge their beliefs. If you can't see the difference, then you are a fool.)

[EscherEnigma]

"Given that using a bathroom requires exposing one’s private parts [...]"
If you're exposing yourself to other people in the bathroom, you're doing it wrong and you're the problem.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The House of Representatives, Republican-style, is not shining themselves in glory, including in the ethics investigation.

One check is elections, but that left us in the same basic place as before with a similarly narrowly controlled clown show with a touch of bigotry.

[SimonP]

I am looking forward to the GOP's plan to fight inflation, bring housing prices down, and create jobs.

[Zarniwoop]

Well I can tell you what the plan to "fight inflation" is: claim credit for the Biden soft landing the minute Trump takes the oath.

So let me make put down a marker that should be obvious to all:
On Jan. 21, the right-wing media will start trumpeting from on high that inflation is under control, in the 2-3% range, thanks to the Trump miracle. Get out the kneepads and pay homage to Dear Leader!

[TwelveInchPianist]

The kneepads are for presidents who keep abortion legal, remember?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Hating on women who don’t want to share restrooms and other in image spaces with men? Fighting for the right of men to use the ladies room is a kind of fight, I guess.

“Why do they fixate on other folks’ genitals?”

"Why don’t mind your own business..."
This is the same low-life who wasted several comments trying to figure out if Ashleigh Merchant had a boob-job, because if she did that would be a sign of low integrity.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The irony of you calling anyone, let alone NG a "low-life" is almost criminal.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So the piece of shit doesn't like me criticizing racist crooks?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

A mirror shows a reflection of yourself, dummy. Not two different people.

[Kazinski]

Who else is in a bathroom with a woman is her business.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, it is not.

[santamonica811]

How would you guys grade Trump's nominations and staffing so far? I'd give about a C, overall. Some excellent ones (ie, serious people, highly qualified, even if I love or hate their policies). Lot's of examples: Sen. Rubio, William McGinley for White House Counsel.
Some decent ones: Matthew Whitaker, John Ratcliffe (both might turn out to be excellent).
Some horrific ones (Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Miller...mostly for ethical and character issues)
Some that must be a joke, like Kennedy Jr. (Wish he had been appointed to something in the EPA, which could have been interesting.)

But overall, not a disaster. It's interesting to note that most of the opposition to the truly dreadful picks of Gaetz and Gabbard are coming from Republicans. Will we have the stones to actually stand up to Trump on these crazy ones? Or will we do the expected, and fold on most of them?

January and February will be interesting, and will tell us a lot about what the next 2/4 years will look like under President Trump 2.0, and if Congress feels like it's really part of the Constitutional checks and balances.

[Commenter_XY]

Grade: Incomplete

[SRG2]

How do you grade the choice of Gaetz?

[Stella Link the dog]

"How do you grade the choice of Gaetz?"

Could have been worse -- could have nominated Giuliani or Jenna Ellis or Sydney or Habba.

Maybe none of those would have been worse. The Gaetz haters, everyone who knows him well, seem to consider him to be a pretty smart guy who can figure out quite quickly how to really fuck things up. In other words, a competent buffoon.

[David Nieporent]

Could have been worse — could have nominated Giuliani or Jenna Ellis or Sydney or Habba.

With respect to Trump, you always face the question of how to balance incompetence vs. malevolence vs. crazy to decide which choice is worse. Someone like Jeffrey Clark might be the worst: probably competent, and not crazy, but evil.

[Commenter_XY]

Tell me what the goal is wrt DOJ, FBI....and then I can tell you. Not being facetious.

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. What goal would you like to see with repast to DOJ?

2. Do you think Gaetz is likely to share that goal? If so, do you think he’ll do it well? If not, what do you think his actual goal will be?

[Commenter_XY]

1. A right-sized DOJ, with maybe one-third the current staffing.
2. Yes, and yes.

You (and others) seem to have this idea that the AG must be some kind of legal luminary, eager to break new ground. That is not in the cards with any Trump AG nominee. That is not the goal.

It is not hard to be Neutron Matt, Nas. And Neutron Matt is what is coming (whether it is Gaetz, or someone else). That is the goal. Do you really doubt that? You're a smart man, Nas, you've heard Pres Trump explicitly tell you what he is going to do. Yes, he will do it. Assuming he isn't assassinated, that is.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You (and others) seem to have this idea that the AG must be some kind of legal luminary, eager to break new ground.

What have I ever said that would give you that impression?

I think a good AG should be 1. Smart; 2. Good at managing large organizations; 3. Knowledgeable about how the system works so as to be able to use it to achieve the Department’s priorities (which, in this administration, I’d like to be aggressive criminal prosecution and effective defense of federal and state conservative policy initiatives). Bill Barr is a good example of someone who could do that. I have seen nothing suggesting that Gaetz has any of those qualities, much less all of them. (This is, of course, setting aside the additional concerns about his own misconduct.)

Even granting your rather dubious premise that DOJ staffing is 50% higher than it “should” be, addressing that would be a pretty major undertaking. What makes you think Gaetz is qualified to address it? You’re talking about getting rid of about 35,000 employees. What has Gaetz done that makes you think he can 1. Identify the components and positions that are inappropriately overstuffed; 2. Terminate those tens of thousands of employees in a way that won’t mire the Department in years of cripplingly expensive litigation; and 3. Keep morale and retention sufficient among the remaining staff high enough that the mission still get accomplished?

[bernard11]

XY actually thinks DOJ staffing is three times what it should be.

He provides no reason, cites no analysis, nothing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You’re right, I misread it for the marginally less silly position that we should fire a third of the employees, not cut things down to a third of the current size.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A right-sized DOJ, with maybe one-third the current staffing

Can you expand on why you think that would be a good idea?

Currently, DOJ has about 115,000 employees: a third of that would be roughly 38,000 people.

The Bureau of Prisons alone has nearly 37,000 employees, and like most prison systems is generally considered to be significantly understaffed. Would you cut that further? If not, you’re looking at trying to staff four law enforcement agencies, all federal prosecutors offices, and the people who represent the government in civil ligation with about 1,000 people. Does that seem viable to you?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, a reduction of 50% at DOJ (DC-based bureaucratic staff) seems very do-able to me. I am fine with cutting even more, if we can. The next AG can do that (won't be Rep Gaetz).

Nas, the size of the government bureaucracy in DC is a problem. The FBI leadership (and FBI DC bureaucracy) is a problem. Fortunately, a lot of the problem goes away with staff reductions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you explain a little more about the “bureaucratic staff” in DC that you’re concerned about? The SG’s Office? The Assistant AG for the Criminal Division (who is going to be replaced, of course)? The U.S. Trustee’s Office? The people who manage payroll? How many people are we talking about?

I also note that you said you wanted to cut 2/3 of the department overall, which would mean you want to cut even more positions outside DC than in it. Can you expand on your thinking there?

[Magister]

Well, 1000 employees wouldn't be able to put many people in prison, so that would (eventually) reduce the workforce needed for the Bureau of Prisons. But of course they're certain to go for private prisons just like last time.

[SRG2]

Not good enough. You can agree with the goals while deeming the person tasked with them to be a poor selection,

Anyway, it's moot.

[Commenter_XY]

Yup, he withdrew. It was the right thing to do.

[Stella Link the dog]

Whether or not he returns to the House remains unclear.

[Commenter_XY]

I highly doubt it.

[Kazinski]

I'm quite happy he withdrew, I was against it from the start.

I thought he was a lightweight who might be able to accomplish the necessary purge, but I was concerned he wouldn't be able to attract the people needed to effectively defend Trump's agenda from the inevitable court challenges.

[Don Nico]

Failed. He withdrew.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Some decent ones: Matthew Whitaker

Uh, what?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaetz and Gifford are great choices.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Gifford"

Who? Rufus or Kathie?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he's leaning way too heavy on nominating sitting members of the House, given how close the House is, and that the elections to replace those members are scarcely guaranteed. Is he expecting the new House members to be grateful for the opportunity to displace an incumbent, and so secure a slightly more cooperative House? Is he setting up an excuse for failure on key policies? I donno. I just think it's risky.

His stated objective here, and his actions since the election have been consistent with it, is to break the status quo in DC and make major changes, similar to what Milei is doing in Argentina. You can't achieve that by nominating conventional insiders. Anybody he nominates willing to do what needs doing is going to be attacked by the status quo establishment as a nutcase.

Maybe rightfully, but the attack is predictable.

[Commenter_XY]

Putting it in Libspeak: You need to break a few eggs to make that omlette.

The louder the caterwauling, the better the pick.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Putting it in Libspeak: You need to break a few eggs to make that omlette.

Putting it Orwell-speak: Where’s the omelette?

[Bwaaah]

There being no broken eggs, what are you expecting?

[bernard11]

I like a good omelet as much as anyone, but I'm not big on one filled with nuts.

[SimonP]

Brett, it wasn't that long ago that you were telling me that we could count on our institutions to constrain Trump's worst instincts. Here you're essentially endorsing a Milei-style dramatic realignment of the American government and economy. Gone is any suggestion that Trump ought to be moderated by the branch he runs.

Your sycophancy was always obvious. You were always a cynical authoritarian focused on grabbing power, in order to push through changes that you know will be unpopular. Your lies about Trump were transparent. I'm just noting your rank hypocrisy here.

[Brett Bellmore]

You place the line between "worst instincts" and "ordinary if aggressive policy" differently than I do. In a way that improperly rules out a lot of what Trump legitimately ran on doing, and got elected to do.

And I think you underestimate how popular a Milei style dramatic realignment will prove. But maybe I overestimate it, time will tell.

I think the institutions will stop Trump from doing things like putting American citizens in concentration camps, FDR style. Or having his personal enemies summarily imprisoned or shot. That Handmaid's Tail garbage his foes claimed he'd do if elected, then claimed he'd do if reelected.

I hope like hell they can't stop him from doing what he actually ran on doing.

[SimonP]

He didn't run on forcing the American economy into shock therapy, Brett. Milei's "reforms" have slowed inflation - now under 200%! - while pushing more people into poverty. To think the American economy needs anything like that - or that voters voted for it - is utter insanity.

[bernard11]

will stop Trump from doing things like putting American citizens in concentration camps,

Do you seriously believe you can put 10 million or so people - illegal immigrants - in camps and not accidentally intern a fair number of citizens by mistake or carelessness, or outright bigotry?

[jb]

There are people who are heterodox but competent (Elon probably counts as one such, although sometimes it seems like his competence is waning as he moves away from the mainstream). Then there are clowns who have wild opinions but also no ability to do anything useful with those opinions. Gaetz is certainly an example of the latter; likely Gabbard as well.

That Trump can't tell the difference is unsurprising based on his first Presidency. That so many people who agree with Trump's policies and want them to be put in place seem to be going along with it is amusing to me as someone who is happy that this will make it much harder for Trump to actually do the things he wants.

[Don Nico]

Gaetz will be back in the House in January.

[hobie]

I think it's been great so far. Hucksters, swamp creatures and sexual predators from Trump himself all the way down

[ducksalad]

Gabbard - Interesting but risky choice. She could end up being excellent on foreign policy in a way libertarians have dreamed of for decades. Or could just be wacky.

Rubio - Awful in a normal neo-con sort of way. Unclear how he could possibly work with Gabbard. Apparently Trump thinks it's cool for his subordinates to be at each other's throats.

Kennedy - Remains to be seen whether he'll do more harm than good. I think he's got a bit of health nazi in him, but well see.

Gaetz - So bad he's good. The reaction to him in the long run could lead to reforms.

Miller - despicable.

[Bob from Ohio]

Miller is the best pick so far. Homan a close second.

[SimonP]

Other than the picks where he's just bringing back people from his first term, they display the true shallowness of that idiot's thinking. "He looks good on TV," "She came through for me on the campaign trail and is entitled to one of her top three picks," and so on.

I expect a number of these people will flame out once in office, be quickly fired, become engulfed in scandal, and so on. Same as the first time. I don't think the people hyperventilating over Gaetz, inter alios, remember how many AGs Trump had in his first term.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t think the people hyperventilating over Gaetz, inter alios, remember how many AGs Trump had in his first term.

Two?

[SimonP]

Two (confirmed) AGs is still unusual, over a four-year period. Your pedantic line-drawing aside, the AG spot had a whole crew of seat warmers, during Trump's first term. Starting off with Gaetz only promises to continue that convention.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Trump had two different people serve as acting attorneys general for his first couple of weeks in office before Jeff Sessions was confirmed (as, mutatis mutandis, did Biden with Garland). He then had one person serve as acting attorney general for a few months after Sessions resigned (the only part that’s at all unusual), and then had another acting attorney general after Barr resigned.

I’ve previously noted that anyone smart enough to be a good attorney general is also smart enough to realize that signing on to do it under Trump is probably not a good career move, and whatever else happens, I’m pretty confident Gaetz is not going to be the attorney general on January 19, 2029.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I’ve previously noted that anyone smart enough to be a good attorney general is also smart enough to realize that signing on to do it under Trump is probably not a good career move,"

Well, sure, when you've got a whole organization dedicated to ruining the career of any legal professional who dares to work for Trump. The only people he can get are the people bad enough at the job to take it despite the risk, or the people combative enough to relish the conflict. The boring competents quail at that threat.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Well, sure, when you’ve got a whole organization dedicated to ruining the career of any legal professional who dares to work for Trump."

Naturally, no such 'organization' exists and Brett is once again lying through his teeth.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, sure, when you’ve got a whole organization dedicated to ruining the career of any legal professional who dares to work for Trump.

To steelman this a bit: it’s certainly true that the legal establishment is going to be unusual hostile to the Trump administration, and that a former Trump attorney general can’t necessarily count on being able to waltz into a white shoe law firm partnership afterwards. But that’s only part of the problem. The other part is that the AG is almost certainly going to have a falling out with Trump himself, who will torch their career and future prospecrs on the conservative side of things as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

Project 65

Spoiler: Despite what they say, they do NOT restrict their attacks on "Lawyers seeking to overturn legitimate elections." Anybody who works for Trump in a legal capacity is at risk.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Spoiler: Brett is a lying, conspiratorial nutcase whose assertions of what is or is not true is universally just shit he pulled out of his ass a few seconds prior.

[SimonP]

Care to recall why Sessions and Barr resigned, respectively?

"Not unusual" my ass.

[Noscitur a sociis]

They resigned/were fired out because Trump wanted them to do things that the attorney general shouldn’t do. That part is certainly remarkable: the number of attorneys general isn’t.

[Magister]

Trump fired Sessions, and went after him when he ran for Senate. It's not clear which of Trump or Barr initiated Barr's late departure, apparently because of disagreement about Trump's election Big Lie. And there were multiple acting Attorneys General.

It's not Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre, but it's rare for presidents since then to have had more than one attorney general per term - George W. Bush had two in his second term when Gonzales resigned because of his firing of US Attorneys who resisted prosecuting political enemies; Reagan had two in his second term after Ed Meese resigned amidst scandal; Carter had a second AG after Griffin Bell resigned to return to private law practice. Obama had one attorney general for most of his two terms, and Clinton had one for both of his terms.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Obama had two AGs in his second term; Bush had three AGs in his second term; the other Bush had two AGs in his term. Four of the last six presidents have had two or more AGs, and there have been at least two AGs in four of the last nine four year terms. Trump’s relationship with his AGs and DOJ is certainly unusual (to put it mildly), but the number of AGs that he and (two) really isn’t.

[Magister]

Did you not read my entire comment? I listed those, and qualified it as Attorneys General per term -- two terms, two AGs -- which does not seem unreasonable, as Cabinet members are more willing to move on than Presidents. Obama had two AGs in two terms; Holder resigned citing personal reasons well into Obama's second term. For Carter (a one term president with two AGs), Bell resigned to return to private law practice. The other examples have AGs resigning because of scandals (a common Republican thing). Trump follows Nixon in demanding resignation of AGs who did not support presidential obstruction of justice. And of course Trump only had one term with those two AGs. The number of acting Attorney Generals was also unusual; most resignations delay until Senate approval for the replacement, and that's generally an indication of something off if there's an acting AG between two Senate approvals for the same president. (The something off might just be Senate obstinacy.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General#List_of_attorneys_general

[Ridgeway]

Mr. Picky would like to point out that it should be "inter aliis" if one were using the plural. Alios is masc. acc. pl. You would want fem. abl. pl.

H/T to Matt Gaetz for pointing out the error.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you think Matt Gaetz and RFK use feminine pronouns, I’ll take your word for it. But inter takes the accusative.

[Ridgeway]

Mr. Picky stands corrected and shamefaced. Last time he takes Latin grammar advice from Matt Gaetz.

[David Nieporent]

How would you guys grade Trump’s nominations and staffing so far? I’d give about a C, overall.

I give you the label of "Easy grader." I will wait to give an overall grade until the nominations are more finalized, but there's almost no good choices (Rubio I'll give a B to), and some awful ones, so that codes out as more like a D to me.

[bernard11]

Grade: F

Yes, Rubio seems OK, but Whitaker? And where is Hegseth on your list?

Gaetz (gone now), Gabbard, RFK, are ridiculous. And these are very serious spots, capable of doing immense damage if filled by incompetents or worse - Gabbard.

That outweighs any credit for good choices.

[Randal]

Hm. Conservatives suddenly like the idea of "safe spaces" for female Congresspeople. How quickly you forget your principles. (As the record shows, I've been skeptical of "safe spaces" no matter which side proposes them.)

Another forgotten "conservative" principle: election integrity. No surprise there, of course.

And finally, and this is for Brett: you're going to eventually have to decide whether you like the meritocracy or not. The meritocracy is what gave us elite, competitive colleges that produce elite, smarty-pants corporate execs, researchers, experts, professors, lawyers and bureaucrats. All the college-educated people who run your life and vote Democrat. And that you therefore despise.

So... why are you so into the meritocracy considering that it's the whole reason we have a society and a deep state that's chock full of elites? And considering it's the reason the merely moderately intelligent have become alienated by society and left behind economically?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Elites have such an inspiring history of being correct on political issues beyond their expertise.

Slavery, eugenics, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia...who wouldn't want to follow the guidance of the well-schooled?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does Woodrow Wilson come to mind?

[Randal]

Right so... don't you think it's a mistake for conservatives e.g. SCOTUS to be entrenching the elites into society by enshrining the meritocracy as the only legitimate social sorting mechanism?

[Michael P]

Can you identify where the Supreme Court has done that?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Which of the following areas do you not want the highest skilled and talented people serving:
- law enforcement
- judges
- public defenders
- vehicle design
- architecture
- rule-making
- disaster recovery
- financial management
- mass transit pilot/driver
- fire safety & rescue
- surgeon
- doctor
- nurse
- educator
- public health administrators
- scientists
- researchers
- astronaut
- space flight control/support
- nuclear/drone pilot
- military leadership
- hostage negotiator
- city water manager
- other public administrators

etc. etc.

[Randal]

Uh... that's what we have, and then you guys call them "elites" and don't trust them for cultural reasons. It doesn't seem to me like the current model is sustainable. It's resulting in a class war being driven by an educational divide.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think that is quite right = It’s resulting in a class war being driven by an educational divide

[Randal]

You haven't noticed that educational attainment (or lack thereof) is fast becoming the best predictor of partisan lean?

[Commenter_XY]

That actually is not the case, Randal = educational attainment (or lack thereof) is fast becoming the best predictor of partisan lean

Perhaps you can cite some actual data, and not anecdata to support your contention?

[Randal]

College graduates favored Harris over Trump, 55 to 42 percent.

Voters without a college degree voted 56 to 42 percent in favor of Trump.

That's a bigger split than with either age group or gender.

https://www.investigativepost.org/2024/11/10/the-numbers-behind-the-vote-for-president/

[Commenter_XY]

Randal, black women vote Team D at a rate of 90+%. Seems like race + gender is a better predictor.

Randal, stick to what you know. Statistics and math are not your forte. Stick to law and antisemitism, you're more experienced there.

[Randal]

You seem to be the one with a shaky grasp on statistics.

It’s easy to combine traits like race and gender to find super-specific niches that overwhelmingly vote a particular way. You can tell you’re looking at a niche when the pattern doesn’t hold up in the other direction. That is, men plus non-Black women were close to even, not 90% for Harris.

That’s why I quoted both the college-educated and non-college-educated stats. They both skew, which means it’s a true divide.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Perhaps you can cite some actual data, and not anecdata to support your contention?"

Excuse me, where is your citation?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Have you also noticed how educational attainment has become just hollowed credentialism, and not actual education in the classic sense of the word where it meant you know things and stuff?

You can be a high school educated graduate in not be able to read in many Democrat states.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While it’s true that the Republican ticket in this election had much more impressive academic credentials than their Democratic counterparts, I’m not sure that represents a permanent shift.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lmao that's not who the elites are! Oh come on Randal.

[Randal]

You just never put two and two together until now. It's the same people.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

My airline pilot is buying elections for local DA's who don't seek death penalties for illegal alien murder's because it would 'collateral consequences to undocumented defendants.'

My doctor isn't some insulated, unelected bureaucrat living in one of America's richest counties dictated how much water I shit in.

My local fire chief isn't entering in secret global alliances to restrict my ability to travel more than 15 minutes from where I live in order to "save the planet".

The architect I hired for my home isn't also trying to take away my gas-stove freedom.

The police officer that can by when I called about some suspicious darkie jogging in my neighborhood isn't trying to ban me from eating beef.

HTH

[Randal]

Your airline pilot is a proud member of a union that supports trans rights.

Your doctor trusts Fauci and definitely won't prescribe you ivermectin for your COVID.

Your local fire chief is the one trying to take away your gas stove freedom.

The architect you hired for your home is requiring the contractors to include indigenous land statements in the contracts.

The police officer that answered your call is definitely not an elite. But the Chief of Police doesn’t allow the department to contract with companies associated with Israel.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Those things, except one, make them idiots, not one of your elites.

[Randal]

Your definition of "elite" is uselessly narrow. Here's what Newt Gingrich has to say about it:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/20/trump-american-culture-vs-elite-culture/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Do you not know what words mean, like not guilty?

Now you’ve moved on to “culture”.

Just admit you’re wrong and be a man about it.

[Randal]

That’s pretty funny pretending that “elite” and “elite culture” are distinct concepts that encompass different sets of people. Do you have any evidence for that? Obviously not, it’s just the ridiculous rantings of a cornered boy.

I was talking about culture anyway, so you’re wrong twice. (Really thrice, since you’re also wrong at face value.)

you guys call them “elites” and don’t trust them for cultural reasons

Time to admit you’re wrong and be a man about it, Jesus?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don't trust them because they are idiot globalist Marxists, with a vile anti-human ideology.

Not because they like Gefilte fish, Baba ghanoush and put up stupid goofy candles in December instead of celebrating Christmas like humans do.

[Randal]

I’ll take blowing up the conversation with overt antisemitism as that admission. Sadly, you get zero credit, owing to the aforementioned antisemitism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — Except for eugenics, old-time populists pretty much out-nastied the elites. A lot of populists never heard about eugenics, except maybe for connecting it to the notion of livestock breeding as a positive feature of slavery.

Elites, by and large, did a better job than the populists did to leave behind those egregious cross-cultural errors.

For explanatory power to describe more-recent political upheavals, you would do better to look to less traditional ideological vices—stuff more recently invented, like globalism, creative destruction, identity politics for everyone (except low-status white males), open support for plutocracy, and the nasty tendency among more-recent elites to try to shame the people who lost out as those trends took over.

That shaming, by the way, arises to deal with a hangover effect from the older vices. Today's elites have not figured out how to ameliorate economic problems among remnant racists, while those racists still want to deny amelioration to black people.

[EscherEnigma]

"identity politics for everyone (except low-status white males)"
What are you talking about?

Part of Trump's success has been due to him appealing to the identity politics of low-status white males.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Escher — Yeah, I get your point. But don't you know? Trump and the oligopoly are not members of the elites.

[EscherEnigma]

Funny.

[bernard11]

Slavery, eugenics, anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia…who wouldn’t want to follow the guidance of the well-schooled?

Whereas the common folk were abolitionist, anti-eugenics, opposed any sort of religious, ethnic, or racial discrimination, and welcomed immigrants with open arms.

You have a vivid imagination.

[Michael P]

What is "the" meritocracy? Is that like when people complain about "the" Jews?

[Randal]

From Thomas's concurrence in FAIR v Harvard:

I continue to strongly believe (and have never doubted) that “blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.” Meritocratic systems, with objective grading scales, are critical to that belief. Such scales have always been a great equalizer — offering a metric for achievement that bigotry could not alter.

But then you lot go on to despise the people who succeed in "American life" by this very system.

[Michael P]

Even if you meant to respond to my other comment in this thread, that’s not what you wrote earlier or what I asked about. Are you drunk?

[Randal]

?? It is what I wrote earlier and you asked what I meant by meritocracy. This is the answer — I’m talking about the same thing Thomas was talking about. I even bolded it for you.

Are you drunk?

[Michael P]

Randal is one of many commenters here are confused about the difference between "one" and "more than one". Also about how quotation marks are used in English.

[Commenter_XY]

Math is not his forte.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thomas, of course, is emotionally invested in the notion of meritoricracy—so much so that he overlooks that it is not part of American law, and never will be.

To encode meritocracy into law you would have to define merit, specify who has it and who does not, and enumerate the advantages having merit affords to the privileged. While also defining at least by inference the pains and penalties the less-meritorious can expect to suffer.

Given that the less-meritorious will always be more numerous than he others, and under American constitutionalism are entitled to expect political equality, the Thomas Supreme Court cannot be expected to deal forthrightly with meritocracy. They will, however, continue tempted to rely tacitly on meritocracy to decide social policy cases, while writing opinions that never use the word.

[Randal]

He did define it: good grades. In other words, intelligence.

Intelligence is a relatively immutable characteristic. Especially the kind of intelligence implied here, i.e. a sort of raw brainpower, as opposed to emotional, social, or experiential intelligence. It's pretty easy to spot the smart kids amongst the retards from an early age.

Society pours all its resources into those smart kids from the very beginning. They're the future! Essentially discriminating against and creating an underclass of the deplorable normies with insufficient "merit."

[Michael P]

So to you, "the meritocracy" means good grades? How does that relate to your earlier comment about "elite, competitive colleges that produce elite, smarty-pants corporate execs, researchers, experts, professors, lawyers and bureaucrats"? Good grades do not imply "elite" or competitiveness. The modern fad is that everyone gets A's.

[Randal]

You need good grades to get in to the good colleges.

Once you're in, you're in. And a degree from a good college is the ticket into almost all the remaining lucrative careers.

[Michael P]

Lucrative careers like being an electrician or plumber?

[Stella Link the dog]

"Lucrative careers like being an electrician or plumber?"

A plumber or electrician can make a decent living, but they don't make big money. Typically up to $100k or so after years of experience. Those who make the big bucks are the contractors and managers in the contracting companies. Sometimes electricians and plumbers own their own businesses but not as often as in years past, it seems to me.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you think something like plumbing or electrical is AI-proof? Meaning, humans cannot be replaced.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Do you think something like plumbing or electrical is AI-proof?"

Don't know. To be quite honest, I don't have a very good understanding of what AI can be expected to do or not do. I do have difficulty imagining an AI operated toilet snake or wire nut.

[bernard11]

Do you think something like plumbing or electrical is AI-proof? Meaning, humans cannot be replaced.

For the near future, anyway, yes, I do. Plumbing and electrical require actual physical labor, which often takes unpredictable forms. And the problems electricians and plumbers face are often idiosyncratic, difficult to describe in a general sense. Old houses, new houses, this brand, that brand, this earlier jury-rigged system, that inaccessible corner, etc.

So yeah, maybe with some good robotics AI will be able to do it, but I suspect it will be a while. Meanwhile, plumbing continues to leak, circuit breakers continue to break circuits, etc.

[Commenter_XY]

If a parent has money, their child can go to any school they like. Especially the elite ones. They don't need good grades, just a pulse.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's an illusion created by the, I suppose unfair, fact that wealth and intelligence are correlated. I assure you that no amount of money will get your kid into a good college if they're genuinely stupid. It's a thumb on the scale, not a foot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Not sure what to make of George W. Bush? Andover Academy, Yale, and Harvard Business School, without discernible sign of academic excellence.

[Zarniwoop]

re GWB: It's generally dangerous to assume that one outlier example disproves a general observation.

Sometimes the thumb is a bigger thumb, and I'm fairly sure having a US Senatuh (Prescott Bush) as grand-dad, plus being a multi-generational legacy from money and power didn't hurt in the Yale admissions office in 1963/64.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I make of GWB is that he wasn't remotely stupid. Not particularly brilliant, sure, but hardly stupid either. So "just a pulse" is absurd hyperbole.

The children of wealth have an edge on getting into good schools, not a guarantee. They're perfectly capable of being stupid enough to not make the cut even with money backing them.

Democrats have a lazy habit of regarding anybody they politically disagree with as 'stupid'. It causes them to hugely overestimate the number of stupid people in public life.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, apparently you did not know George W. Bush. He not only leveraged wealth and family history into elite schools, he also got a legacy admit to make him a 3rd-generation Skull and Bones member. It could be that Bush's forebears example a correlation of wealth and intelligence. If so, George W. is the counter-example.

[bernard11]

I assure you that no amount of money will get your kid into a good college if they’re genuinely stupid.

Depends on what you mean by "genuinely stupid." People of average intelligence or even less buy their way into good colleges fairly often.

Ever heard of Jared Kushner?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. He's been described as "less than stellar", which is a far cry from "stupid". I think in order to qualify as "stupid" you have to have an IQ significantly below 100; If you're calling more than half the population "stupid", you've largely deprived the word of meaning.

The fact is that a large range of jobs actually do require significantly higher than average IQ to do well, so people can be quite mediocre at these jobs without actually being stupid. They're smart, just not smart enough.

But calling somebody you don't like "not brilliant" doesn't produce that endorphin hit, does it?

[David Nieporent]

If a parent has money, their child can go to any school they like. Especially the elite ones. They don’t need good grades, just a pulse.

Depends what you mean by "has money." If you mean billionaires, then it's a minor bit of hyperbole, but only a minor bit. If you just mean the local car dealer, the richest guy in town who's got a McMansion and several million in the bank, then no. The elite schools have their pick of applicants, including rich ones. They don't need to slum it.

[David Nieporent]

Society pours all its resources into those smart kids from the very beginning.

Society pours all its resources into the dumb kids from the very beginning; the smart kids (or their parents) are told that their kids will do fine no matter what and so don't need special attention, and also it would be unfair to give them opportunities others don't have.

[Randal]

Maybe things have changed, but that was absolutely not my experience. In my day, the smart kids definitely got tons of special opportunities all throughout K – 12. Smaller "honors" classes, extracurriculars with entrance requirements, AP classes, magnet schools, teachers' affections, exemptions from certain requirements like vocational classes / PE, access to and the favor of administrators, priority into space-limited classes and schools, etc. etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

In my experience it's a mixed bag; The smart kids get some special opportunities, but not remotely an efficient amount of them, most places.

My son, for instance, is in a charter school connected to a college, and while he's doing honors everything, the school is still subject to state laws that require every student to be taught the same things in the same years. He could have powered through the K-12 curriculum in 9-10 years instead, and been starting college next year, but instead he's forced to just graduate on the same schedule as everybody, only having benefited from an 'enriched' curriculum.

It's not nothing, but it's inefficiently little. Especially since allowing the bright students to go faster, not just get more at the same pace, shouldn't be more expensive.

[Randal]

Ew. What state is that?

[Brett Bellmore]

South Carolina.

On the bright side, he can start taking college courses in HS at this charter school, as he exhausts the mandatory curriculum, and has the time. That was the primary appeal of this school for us, that and the fact that the affiliated college gives you one year of free tuition if you graduate from the HS, so you can actually graduate from the "13th year of HS" with a 2 year degree.

[Bwaaah]

New York is quite like that, now and when I was growing up. Randal is stuck in the head of endless "all those privileged people" paradigms. There's little relation between his popularly painted perspective and the murky reality he purports to analyze.

[Randal]

My own experience in neither New York nor South Carolina is not a "popularly painted perspective." Sounds like some places have shittier approaches to education than others. Is that like a major surprise to you?

[Kazinski]

Actually Stephen, it is part of American law:

"TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Having different admission standards for Asians, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics clearly affects persons of different races and violates their rights of equal enjoyment.

And the Civil Rights act of 1964 is clear that its "persons" that are protected, not racial classifications.

[Randal]

Considering we're talking about IQ or lack thereof, this seems relevant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — To me, equality of access looks like an opposite of meritocracy. An urge to conflate them seems unwise.

[David Nieporent]

Thomas, of course, is emotionally invested in the notion of meritoricracy—so much so that he overlooks that it is not part of American law, and never will be.

To encode meritocracy into law you would have to define merit, specify who has it and who does not, and enumerate the advantages having merit affords to the privileged. While also defining at least by inference the pains and penalties the less-meritorious can expect to suffer.

Sigh. Once again you talk about law while knowing nothing about law.

A black employee is fired. He sues, claiming racial discrimination. The employer says, "No, you weren't fired based on your race." He says, "Sure I was. I was one of the top few engineers in my department, and yet I was let go while much worse engineers were retained."

Stephen Lathrop's response as the employer's lawyer? "The law doesn't require us to keep the best employees. There's actually no legal definition of merit anyway, so there can't possibly be such a requirement. Who's to say who's good or not? Gotcha! We win!"

How do you think the trial would go if that were the company's defense?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I’m not talking about law this time, I’m talking about politics. See what happens if you openly and avowedly propose to legislate meritocracy as the law of the land. Choose whatever criteria you want to define merit, but no fudging. The standards have to be clear enough so everyone knows right way whether the law judges them meritorious, or otherwise. Same with the benefits, or lack of them, that come with the merit decision. Good luck.

[David Nieporent]

I’m not talking about law this time,

"so much so that he overlooks that it is not part of American law, and never will be."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — If you suppose meritocracy is part of American law, show the citations. The prediction that it will not become part of American law is about politics.

[Randal]

The law doesn’t require us to keep the best employees. There’s actually no legal definition of merit anyway, so there can’t possibly be such a requirement. Who’s to say who’s good or not? Gotcha! We win!

This is close, but not quite right. You're making the exact mistake I've been talking about, which is to assume there's some unwritten, objective definition of "merit" that everyone can lean on.

Better would be:

We get to decide which of our employees are the best employees. There’s no legal definition of merit, so there's nothing for courts to second-guess. Who’s to say who’s good or not? Us! Gotcha! We win!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay.

How do you think the trial would go if that were the company’s defense?

[Randal]

It would depend on how credible the company's take was, which would depend on things like documentation of performance.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not making any such mistake; I'm mocking Lathrop.

Also, it doesn't change the point I'm making, which is that this is not how the law works. A company that used either my formulation or your mildly different one as a defense to a charge of discrimination would not be long for this world.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — But not because of offenses against legally mandated meritocracy. That term would never be mentioned.

I am beginning to think focus on mockery has distracted you. You seem to suppose legal principles of equal access are tacit guarantees of meritocracy. You may be in plentiful company on that, but they are opposite concepts.

[Randal]

Yeah I agree with Lathrop. I think you are making any such mistake.

[Bob from Ohio]

We don't have a "meritocracy", we have a "credentialocracy".

Right pieces of paper, not merit.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Why is it that when Democrats take two to three weeks to count ballots, that Democrats end up winning those elections?

Democrats can publicly announce they are ignoring the law and are counting illegal ballots, and everyone around here goes "You stupid Republicans being racists!"

[Brett Bellmore]

I see they managed to late count Trump just barely under 50.00%, maybe. The counting is STILL not done everywhere.

There aren't enough votes left to count to rob him of the plurality, though.

[Roger S]

The Democrats are stealing votes again. They just cannot steal enough to win the election this time.

[SimonP]

Brett believes that Musk is a genius. That will tell you what he thinks "meritocracy" looks like.

[David Nieporent]

Worse, Brett believes that Trump is smart.

[Brett Bellmore]

SimonP believes that Musk isn't a genius, and worse, Nieporent believes Trump isn't smart.

And all the evidence in the world to the contrary won't persuade them, because they like thinking people they disagree with or dislike aren't smart. The trash talk gives them an endorphin hit that merely paying attention to reality can't match.

[David Nieporent]

You're mistaken. All the evidence in the world has persuaded me that Trump isn't smart.

[SimonP]

Is the "endorphin hit" what you're after, when you lazily attribute to me positions I haven't made, just so that it's easier to mock me?

I'm not going to be maneuvered into complimenting either Musk or Trump on whatever talents they actually have. But suffice it to say I have directly told you what I actually think of Musk, so you should know that your characterization of my distaste for him is inaccurate.

[Martinned2]

I was looking something up in the Swiss Federal Constitution yesterday, and I was struck by the preamble:

In the name of Almighty God!

The Swiss People and the Cantons,

mindful of their responsibility towards creation,

resolved to renew their alliance so as to strengthen liberty, democracy, independence and peace in a spirit of solidarity and openness towards the world,

determined to live together with mutual consideration and respect for their diversity,

conscious of their common achievements and their responsibility towards future generations,

and in the knowledge that only those who use their freedom remain free, and that the strength of a people is measured by the well-being of its weakest members,

adopt the following Constitution:

[Mr. Bumble]

Curious; when was this written?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It sounds like UN-style rhetoric, so I'll guess post- 1945. Let's check...

1999.

[Martinned2]

Fun fact, Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, after a referendum that went 55/45. Back in 1986 a similar referendum went 76/24 against joining the UN.

[Mr. Bumble]

Everyone makes mistakes.

[Kazinski]

Switzerland also didn't give women the vote until 1971.

[Krayt]

Thank you. Flowery words, designed to empower getting in the way and controlling things.

It's amazing how many writers of constitutions don't get it, giving lip service to things like free speech, then leaving holes for control over rights big enough for a SpaceX Starship to launch through.

Or maybe they do know what they're doing.

[Martinned2]

Yes, you got it, Switzerland, a country that famously takes away all liberty of its citizens. Do you know anything about Switzerland at all???

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Not that you were asking me, but I know that Switzerland was Nazi in all but name during WW2, and it continues to benefit from loot Nazis stole from Jews to this day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Swiss still tithe -- you are required to pay 10% of your income to the church they assign you to.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nobody is assigned to a church.

[Martinned2]

To figure out whether that might be right, I had a quick look at the relevant provision of the constitution. There I found two things: a) if it is true, it almost certainly isn't in all of Switzerland, and b) referendums are still a terrible idea.

Art. 72 Church and state
1 The regulation of the relationship between the church and the state is the responsibility of the Cantons.

2 The Confederation and the Cantons may within the scope of their powers take measures to preserve public peace between the members of different religious communities.

3 The construction of minarets is prohibited.

https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en

[Michael P]

Your search should could use some work: https://steuerhilfe.ch/en/lexicon/church-tax-in-switzerland-explained-simply-tax-lexicon/

[Martinned2]

From your source: "There are 26 cantons in total, and each canton has its own rules for church tax."

So basically what I said was right. I just didn't do as much research as you would have liked, but then again I'm not your research assistant.

[Michael P]

It also says that only one canton doesn't have church tax. Yes, technically what you wrote isn't entirely wrong, it's just misleading and seriously incomplete. Like most of what you post here.

[Martinned2]

If you don't like the quality of my research, you're welcome to ask your money back. Alternatively, you could read what I actually wrote, which was transparent about the fact that I was making a judgment of likelihood based on having read only art. 72 of the constitution. But then again, you normally always attack me over what you think I said, rather than what I actually said, so why stop now?

[Commenter_XY]

I remember the controversy about the minaret clause. It caused a huge stink in EU, as I recall.

[Martinned2]

Yes, because Switzerland is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides in the relevant part:

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, claims at the ECtHR in the immediate aftermath of the referendum failed for lack of standing. More generally it's difficult to know whether anything really happened, because there were (and are) only four minarets in all of Switzerland anyway. There was a minaret planned in Langenthal at the time of the referendum, but that was ultimately not built for unrelated technical reasons.

[Michael P]

Help, help, this building code is oppressing my religious right to build a tower with noise blaring from the top!

[Martinned2]

The building code issue was more whether the court was satisfied that the thing wouldn't fall down.

[Michael P]

My earlier criticism was of your search skills because apparently you found only that result because of poor search skills, but are you now saying that you had read only Art. 72 of their constitution, and not anything directly about church tax or tithes, because you are lazy?

To be precise, you didn't say earlier that Art. 72 was all that you had read, so I inferred you were representing it as the most relevant thing that you had read. If you didn't read anything else at all before commenting, that explains a lot.

[Martinned2]

I explained clearly what I'd read, just like I almost always refer to my sources. If you read my comment and thought that I'd read more than I said I'd read, that's on you.

[Michael P]

I can't tell whether you honestly thought that their constitution would clearly identify the scope of taxes or you are admitting that my earlier point about you making seriously incomplete and misleading comments is entirely true.

[Drewski]

As you could see from your own source had you bothered to read it, these are optional taxes. About 3/4 of the Swiss choose to pay it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Project 2025 on Education: https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2024-07/Project%202025%20Education%20Department.pdf

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Like homosexuals, liberals only reproduce by grooming children.

Banning children and parents from educational freedom and taking away parent's human rights are critical to their survival. Their war against education freedom is an existential fight for them.

[Randal]

Where do you get this stuff? I mean I know the answer — TrolMart — but still it’s pretty shameless.

Libs love educational freedom. We send our kids to bespoke private and boutique charter schools at enormous rates. Our big fear is that the educational system will fracture (even further) along class lines, making it harder and harder for the underprivileged to get ahead. And it feels like that’s the goal of the GOP: drain the public schools of resources, but keep them open as hellish underfunded day care centers for the kids of people without the wherewithal, resources, or credentials to navigate the charter and private school maze. Dickensian workhouses would appear to be the GOP’s end goal for public schools.

So no, it’s not about being averse to choice in education. It’s about ensuring opportunity for everyone. The public schools of the late 20th century did that… not well, but at least passably. Libs just don’t want to lose that egalitarian aspect of America. If we can achieve both choice and egalitarianism, great!

[Commenter_XY]

So you’re totally on board with Charter schools, homeschooling, and allowing parents to use taxpayer funds for sending their children to private religious schools. Good to know we agree on educational freedom. 🙂

[Randal]

Yes, as long as baseline educational goals are being met (no charter schools that in practice turn out to be child labor camps) and the system is fair, not tilted towards the opulent and resourceful.

I assume you too are arguing in good faith and see public funding of madrasas as just as valuable an option in the educational tapestry as the others you mentioned.

[Commenter_XY]

Yup...in for a penny, in for a pound.

[Randal]

Let's see...

1. A bunch of pointless anti-trans posturing

2. Nothing at all about winding down the tuition subsidy spiral that makes college cost more than a house and leaves students with mortgage-sized debts

3. A big fuck-you to red states by shifting the tax burden from federal to state taxpayers

4. A smattering of other good ideas that'll never happen because they require the federal government to voluntarily cede power

5. A war on public schools... but without a coherent plan for what replaces them (concepts of a plan?)

Overall grade: D+ (the D because it's at least rational and the + because it's well-written)

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Nothing but a bunch of ignorant late-night show garbage.

Classic Randal.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Russia has responded to the Deep State's escalations with an ICBM attack on Kyiv.

I guess the Democrats are also "Trump proofing" their bloodlust and cravings for war profiteering by rapidly escalating the conflict.

[Commenter_XY]

UKR has been given 'short shrift' by our MSM. We are sleep-walking into a conflict that is completely avoidable while moving up the escalation chain. Sullivan and Blinken and the Joint Chiefs have made a mess of UKR policy; utter incompetence.

From a military and strategic standpoint, the next 59 days are the time of maximum danger for America. We have maximum vulnerability.

The Congress must speak to this, and quickly. Since American troops are now directly involved (we must enable ATACMS, and provide it with guidance to target), there is a credible threat that RUS retaliation will involve American troops.

Does the War Powers Act apply here?

[tylertusta]

Since American troops are now directly involved (we must enable ATACMS

American troops are not directly involved and are not needed in order to allow ATACMS to shoot into Russia. We previously tried a software solution that limited Ukriane's ability to use our precision weapons in internationally recognized Russian territory, but the Ukrainians worked around it quickly. Since 2022 the only thing preventing Ukraine from using our weapons on Russian soil was a pinky promise- one that they've kept.

... and provide it with guidance to target

Incorrect. ATACMS utilizes GPS/INS, so the "guidance" does not require human interaction beyond inputting target coordinates, something any monkey with opposable thumbs can do.

From a military and strategic standpoint, the next 59 days are the time of maximum danger for America. We have maximum vulnerability.

I agree with you on this. Russia's use of an ICBM in this fashion was designed to send a message that they are capable of escalating, too. The Biden administration's handling of Ukraine policy has been abysmal. They precipitated the war, pushed Ukraine into continuing to fight, and have now escalated the war to the point where Russia is sending ICBM messages to the West via Ukraine.

The idiots are playing with fire and we're two steps short of the brink.

[Commenter_XY]

That is not my understanding regarding ATACMS deployment and use.

[tylertusta]

I do not know where you got your understanding on how ATACMS is used, but ATACMS is fired from the same M270 and M142 launchers that Ukraine has been using since the summer 2022. Those same launchers have already been firing GMLRS rounds since then.

Ukraine first used ATACMS in 2023. After over a year of firing ATACMS at Russian positions, we are now allowing the firing of ATACMS and other precision weapons onto internationally recognized Russian soil.

If US forces were required to fire ATACMS, they would have been in the country for at least a year. This isn't a "now" thing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Since American troops are now directly involved (we must enable ATACMS, and provide it with guidance to target)

Beyond you and a couple other posters saying this hear, I haven’t seen any indication that this is actually true. Can you point me to a source of some sort?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Narrator: No, he could not.

C_XY has been spewing ignorance and Russian propaganda about the conflict from the very start, because he hates Ukraine for their actions in WWII.

His entire schtick is that they were mean to Jews 80 years ago, so all 37 million Ukranians should die at Russia's hands.

[Armchair]

Russia using an ICBM against Kiev is just a waste of resources. It doesn't need an intercontinental ballistic missile. Not even close.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think RUS is particularly concerned with wasting resources, given how they deploy (and throw away) their own troops and the mercenaries they hire.

The ICBM launch was an unmistakable message to NATO, and America. We continue to move up the escalation chain.

[Krayt]

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think they want to know how good the US hardware is at shooting it down.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you may have missed a possible implication, which is that they may just be running low on conventional missiles.

[tylertusta]

I don't think that was the implication.

So far, they only fired one missile. The missile likely did not contain any explosive at all- it likely contains a dummy warhead. The missile's CEP is large enough to rule out a pinpoint kinetic attack. As far as a military attack goes, this was about the most expensive, least effective way of actually attacking a target.

In my opinion, the attack wasn't about causing material damage to Ukraine at all. It was about communicating to the West and to Ukraine that Russia is capable to escalating the war, too. And the method they chose was a not-so-subtle-hint that nuclear weapons may be used.

[tylertusta]

I agree, from a purely military perspective, a ICBM with dummy warheads is a waste (or maybe not- I'm sure the launching crew got some training out of it!)

But this wasn't just a military attack. It was a message.

[Krayt]

And the west should cower, got it.

Dictatorships don't want people to stand up, and sure as hell don't want to get wrecked -- that defeats the purpose of seizing power to begin with, to be corrupt and live in palaces.

It's not in the business model.

[tylertusta]

Who said the west should cower?

[David Nieporent]

What was the message, that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part? Let them use non-nuclear ICBMs all they want; it's not going to change anything militarily. And Putin is not suicidal; he's not using nukes.

And certainly not — despite C_XY's concern trolling — when Donald Trump is going to take over in two months.

[Randal]

Exactly. It's not like we'd forgotten that Russia has ICBMs.

This stunt does little more than to highlight Putin's impotence.

[tylertusta]

What was the message ...

My initial suspicion is that this is in response to the western powers allowing Ukraine to fire long-range weapons such as ATACMS and SCALP into Russian territory, and as a warning to not deliver additional, longer-ranged systems to Ukraine.

For example, Ukraine has requested that they be given Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a 1000+ NMI range.

If Putin can spook enough people in the west, he can prevent deliveries of such weapons.

Let them use non-nuclear ICBMs all they want; it’s not going to change anything militarily.

If Putin changes the calculus such that he prevents deliveries of highly capable systems such as Tomahawk, then he very much has influenced the war in a direction that is to his advantage.

And Putin is not suicidal; he’s not using nukes.

I'm very happy you are not in our government and do not make decisions on behalf of the rest of us.

... when Donald Trump is going to take over in two months.

A supposition: if Biden was contemplating giving Tomahawk to Ukraine, is Biden discouraged from giving the system to Ukraine after this incident? If Biden blinks, perhaps due to domestic US pressure, will Trump be more or less likely to allow Ukraine to use Tomahawks?

[Commenter_XY]

The message was to Europe, tyler: America can't protect you.

[tylertusta]

Nope, that wasn't the message.

[Commenter_XY]

Just so we are clear, David. I want you to be right, and me to be wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ICBM attack on Kyiv"

US officials are [off the record so far] disputing this.

ICBMs are nuclear strike weapons. A launch should have resulted in a US and/or NATO alert.

[tylertusta]

ICBMs are traditionally nuclear strike weapons. However, dummy versions of ICBM warheads exist and have been used for various tests. There’s nothing preventing a missile with dummy warheads from being fired into Ukraine.

That being said, some additional reporting on what anonymous US officials are saying:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-launched-icbm-ukraine-war-putin-rcna181131

The differences between “long range IRBM” and “short range ICBMs” are not many, if any exist at all. The RS-26 qualifies as a “short range ICBM / long range IRBM.”

[Commenter_XY]

You have to wonder what was going on in the Cheyenne Mtn Complex when the ICBM was fired. Hope they changed their drawers after realizing it wasn't headed this way.

[tylertusta]

Apparently shortly before they fired the missile the Russians phoned the US and notified them of the launch.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I can't wait to read not guilty's "legal analysis" of why it's totally legal, ethical, and constitutional, as to why a sitting President should have a delayed sentencing hanging over his head for four years.

Maybe he'll think the General Welfare clause grants Democrat judges to make sure Republican presidents this sort of authority over a President so the judge can make sure the Republican can earn good boy points with the judge by implement the judge's preferred policies.

[Commenter_XY]

If you ask NG politely, and I mean politely, he would probably tell you. Or David Nieporent, who practices in the Big Apple.

The case is on hold for 4 years. Did you expect something different? B/C I expected jail time.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

When Merchan put the sentencing on hold, did he also give a sly wink and mouth to President Trump "you better behave and do what I want while you're president"?

Or is that just implied?

[Commenter_XY]

Jesus...Judge Merchan has not ruled on anything yet. We're at the motions stage. He rules on the motions in the next week or two. Any ruling he makes will be appealed. This case has a long way to go.

The process was the punishment. That was the intent, all along. That, and trying to swing an election.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Someone put the sentencing on hold for four years. Whomever that someone is, did they also give a sly wink and mouth to President Trump “you better behave and do what I want while you’re president ... or that sentence you're gonna get is going to be a doozey?

[not guilty]

No, JHBHBE, no one has put the sentencing on hold for four years. Justice Merchan has yet to rule. Defense counsel have announced that they will be filing a motion to dismiss based on Trump's claim of immunity. The DA has advised the Court, "In response to any such motion, the People expect that we would not oppose Defendant's request for a stay of further proceedings pending this Court's disposition of a motion to dismiss." The state further advised the Court:

Assuming Defendant is permitted by the Court to file a motion to dismiss and does so promptly. the People ask that their response to Defendant's motion be due on Monday. December 9. The People believe that further proceedings before this Court should be adjourned to permit litigation of Defendant's forthcoming motion to dismiss and, therefore, the People: would not oppose a defense motion for a stay of further proceedings before this Court while Defendant's motion is adjudicated.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25345898/ny-v-trump-da-opposes-dismissal-20241119.pdf

Anything you say which cannot be supported by original source materials is unworthy of belief.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, if Judge Juan Javert follows the DA recommendation does that preclude any appeals by Trump?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing "precludes" an appeal, if Trump wants to file one.

[not guilty]

More evidence that JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes is talking out of his ass by claiming that someone put the sentencing on hold for four years: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%2011-22-24%20Order.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see any reason the appeal can't proceed while Trump is in office. The legal theory behind the prosecution is sufficiently novel and dubious I'd expect it to be overturned, too.

[not guilty]

Well, I don't favor delayed sentencing as JHBHBE posits. I favor Justice Merchan's ruling on the forthcoming defense motion to dismiss and pronouncing sentence before Donald Trump takes office as President, but suspending execution of any sentence until Trump leaves office.

The parties' respective positions are set forth here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25345898/ny-v-trump-da-opposes-dismissal-20241119.pdf

If Justice Merchan proceeds as I suggest, there will be a final judgment appealable as of right to the appellate courts of New York. Pursuing an appeal from a state court criminal conviction need not burden the President's exercise of official duties -- the evidentiary record will have been closed and the President (like any other criminal defendant) is not required to appear in court to attend the proceedings. Indeed, the defendant need not himself do anything at all to advance the appeal to its conclusion (perhaps other than paying filing fees and the cost of transcripts).

In Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997), SCOTUS declined to stay the trial a private civil action against the then-sitting President until he left office, ruling expressly that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to do so. The Court there ordered discovery to proceed upon remand.

Every litigator knows that discovery in a civil lawsuit is more onerous and time consuming for a litigant than is an appeal from a criminal conviction while the defendant is out of custody on bond. Indeed, a President's compliance with a grand jury subpoena -- which SCOTUS ordered in Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786 (2020) -- would occupy more of the President's time than a criminal appeal.

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't that a Sword of Damocles hanging over a POTUS Trump while in office? = I favor Justice Merchan’s ruling on the forthcoming defense motion to dismiss and pronouncing sentence before Donald Trump takes office as President, but suspending execution of any sentence until Trump leaves office

I see some issues with that approach. Surprise! 🙂

Suppose Governor Hochul offers a pardon in exchange for POTUS Trump looking the other way on congestion pricing?
OR
Suppose a POTUS Trump tells Gov Hochul to issue a pardon, or NY suffers by budget cuts targeted just at NY?

[not guilty]

If the governor issues an unconditional pardon for any reason, then sentencing becomes moot.

I frankly don't get how the sword of Damocles metaphor applies here. Far be it from me to speculate about Donald Trump's mental state, but I should think that the prospect of facing an uncertain fate after leaving office, which may or may not involve confinement, would be more vexing to Trump than knowing what lies in store.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Suppose Governor Hochul offers a pardon in exchange for POTUS Trump looking the other way on congestion pricing?

How would that be any less of a concern if the case is simply stated for four years?

[Kazinski]

Actually I think Trump and his team favor Merchan ruling on the motion to dismiss, that allows them to start the appeal process and get the conviction thrown out, which is very likely.

[not guilty]

If Merchan overrules the motion to dismiss, there is no reason for him to wait about pronouncing the sentence (provided execution of the sentence is stayed until Trump leaves office. Ruling on all outstanding issues before Trump takes office is the most efficient way to handle things. All issues could be addressed in a single appeal by the New York appellate courts, with the possibility of review by SCOTUS of any federal issues which have first been presented at every level of the state court system.

Kazinski, I am curious as to the basis for your suggestion that "the appeal process [will likely] get the conviction thrown out." The only appellate issues which could theoretically result in a dismissal are (1) insufficiency of evidence (considered in the light most favorable to the government, with all inferences drawn and all conflicts resolved in favor of the government) for any rational trier of fact to have found every element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or (2) a determination that Trump is immune from prosecution for the non-official acts for which he was tried. Vanderbilt will win the Sugar Bowl sooner than any court will rule in Trump's favor on either of those issues.

A finding of any other error (such as evidence being wrongly admitted or excluded or the jury being incorrectly instructed) would trigger analysis as to whether the error was prejudicial or harmless. If the error is determined to be prejudicial, the remedy would be a new trial upon the original indictment.

[Kazinski]

The error was clearly not harmless, because the prosecutor cited the testimony that was permitted in error as "devastating" in his closing arguments.

And Trump's lawyers objected to the testimony before it was given.

Here is Trump's lawyers pre-motion letter to Merchant from July 1, which succinctly makes the argument.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Letter-to-JusticeMerchan-immunity-decision.pdf

[Noscitur a sociis]

But again, that would just mean that Trump gets a new trial, not that the case would be dismissed.

[Kazinski]

It means Trump would get a new trial in 4 years, if the new DA wanted to pursue it.

[not guilty]

Harmless error analysis considers the record as a whole, Kazinski. And the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence results, at most, in a new trial being ordered upon remand.

[Kazinski]

Sure it considers the record as a whole.

Including the DA's emphasis on how crucial the testimony was in closing arguments, which the DA said was "damaging", " utterly devastating", "critical pieces of the puzzle" (see pg 17 Trump motion to dismiss).

The whole trial was a stretch, now you are claiming that improper evidence that the DA relied on in closing arguments was "harmless".

[not guilty]

I'm saying that it is the kind of alleged error that cannot result in the indictment being dismissed. The appellate court must first determine whether the admission of testimony over defense objection was error at all. If so, that triggers analysis of the entire record at trial as to whether admission of evidence that should have been excluded was harmless or prejudicial to the appellant.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: even given the Supreme Court's absurd decision, most of her testimony is not implicated by it at all. Why do you think the DA was referring to the small amount that arguably was when he said those things?

You mistakenly treat the Supreme Court's decision as holding that a government official can't testify at all against the president, as with the spousal privilege. But SCOTUS's terrible ruling was that certain topics may be off limits. So you have to analyze the specific testimony she gave, piece by piece, for this analysis.

[Commenter_XY]

That sounds like a very long, drawn out process = So you have to analyze the specific testimony she gave, piece by piece, for this analysis.

Is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case the factual record scarcely matters. The appeal will be entirely on the basis of legal questions that require no participation by Trump at all.

I really see no reason to put things on hold, save to delay the conviction being overturned so that Democrats can spend 4 years calling Trump a convicted felon.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I don’t favor delayed sentencing as JHBHBE posits. I favor Justice Merchan’s ruling on the forthcoming defense motion to dismiss and pronouncing sentence before Donald Trump takes office as President, but suspending execution of any sentence until Trump leaves office.

Since you and I both agree (based on things you've written before) that a custodial sentence was extremely unlikely in this case, why would execution of the sentence even need to be suspended?

[not guilty]

Unless New York law is vastly different from other jurisdictions I am more familiar with, a suspended sentence ordinarily carries conditions of probation which, if violated by the defendant and notice and a hearing are afforded, can result in placement into effect of the original sentence. That would be problematic while the defendant is serving as POTUS.

[Noscitur a sociis]

While obviously not as onerous as actually being in prison, being on probation or the equivalent involves restrictions on liberty that aren’t really consistent with being the president: to be effective, it also has to be backed with the possibility of incarceration (and additional court proceedings), which would also be a problem. (Does New York allow a felony to be punished with just a fine? That might be feasible, I guess.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is always the King David approach -- draft the judge and send him on a one-way mission.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're really getting weird these days, you know that?

[David Nieporent]

Is Trump a king?

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. State judicial officers are statutorily excluded from being drafted.

2. Removing the judge assigned to a criminal case (even by killing him) doesn’t make the case go away: it just means that the case will be assigned to a different judge.

Other than that, great point!

[Roger S]

Because sentencing Trump would allow him to get exonerated by the appeals court.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bingo!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's basically my conclusion: The sooner he's sentenced, the sooner he can appeal this travesty and be acquitted. The delay would be to preserve the appearance of guilt.

[not guilty]

An appellate court does not acquit a criminal defendant unless the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the government, with all inferences drawn and all conflicts resolved in favor of the government, is insufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found every element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Otherwise if the appellate court finds reversible error, the matter is remanded for a new trial.

[Roger S]

There is no crime, no admissible evidence, and no provable element. Any judge but a partisan hack will exonerate Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that's what I'm expecting: That on appeal the legal theory used to elevate some stale possible misdemeanors to prosecutable felonies will be rejected.

[Sarcastr0]

What legal theory? It's the law as written.

[David Nieporent]

I can’t wait to read not guilty’s “legal analysis” of why it’s totally legal, ethical, and constitutional, as to why a sitting President should have a delayed sentencing hanging over his head for four years.

Trump was convicted of a crime (a whole bunch, actually). He can be sentenced now, or later. He can't legitimately demand that he not be sentenced now and that he not be sentenced later.

[Roger S]

There is no crime, and no legal way to sentence him. Yes, Trump can demand that the verdict be dismissed, and he never be sentenced.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting decision by the House Ethics Committee yesterday, telling the Senate, in effect, "Bite me". There will be no leak, I mean hack release of the report on Rep Gaetz.

Relatedly, MTG had this observation: If we’re going to dance, let’s all dance in the sunlight. -- LOL, say what you will about MTG, the woman has a way with words (Jewish Space Lasers, aside).

To her point: If you release one, why not release all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There will be no leak, I mean hack release of the report on Rep Gaetz.

The susbtance of the report has been leaked already: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/20/gaetz-investigation-house-ethics-committee-vance/.

It sounds like the senate is leaning towards a committee hearing at which I would expect the report to be presented: if that’s how things unfold, I wouldn’t necessarily expect it to get leaked beforehand. If not, there is absolutely no way it doesn’t come out.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas, I agree…Rightly or wrongly, it absolutely comes out. I personally think the House Ethics Committee should find a way to share the information with Senators who wish to view it.

The Pandora’s Box: The question now is what else will come out, from motivated leakers hackers. It is going to happen.

If Gaetz’s report is shared and released, why not share and release all of them? Is MTG wrong about everyone dancing in the sunlight? Why or why not? What's the ethical or legal issue?

[Dr. Ed 2]

MTG is enough of a loose cannon to release everything else, and they all know that, which means it won't be released.

Remember this was Mann Act and just because the other guy was guilty doesn't mean Gaetz is.

[not guilty]

"Remember this was Mann Act and just because the other guy was guilty doesn’t mean Gaetz is."

That depends on whether there was a relevant nexus between Joel Greenberg's conduct regarding the 17-year-old and that of Gaetz. Greenberg has pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.378538/gov.uscourts.flmd.378538.105.0.pdf Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

It appears from the plea documents that Greenberg's sex related misconduct occurred during 2017, so any related prosecution of Gaetz commenced after 2022 would be untimely.

[Michael P]

Some number of those charges relate to Greenberg having impersonated a school teacher/former political rival in order to (falsely) frame that other politician as having had illegal sexual relations with a child. The cyberstalking and harassment charge were definitely that; I'm not sure whether the identity theft was that or impersonating a police officer.

[not guilty]

"Some number of those charges relate to Greenberg having impersonated a school teacher/former political rival in order to (falsely) frame that other politician as having had illegal sexual relations with a child. The cyberstalking and harassment charge were definitely that; I’m not sure whether the identity theft was that or impersonating a police officer."

The factual bases for the plea to the various counts are recited in the plea documents I linked above. The § 1591 charge was the plea to Count One.

[Longtobefree]

Better still, release the full unredacted DoJ/FBI report of all the reasons no charges were filed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Okay!

[David Nieporent]

Do you think DOJ writes reports of "all reasons no charges were filed" whenever they close an investigation without prosecuting? That's something unique to the special counsel context.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If Gaetz’s report is shared and released, why not share and release all of them?

Fine by me!

[Commenter_XY]

I would like to see that happen, Nas. = release and share ALL reports, going back decades.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I take her words to mean Trump’s corruption is unexceptional, matched by many, especially among Democrats, and hence not worth discussion, let alone action. In short, like other MAGAs, MTG is an enemy of American constitutionalism, and proud of it.

[Martinned2]

Yes, isn't it terrible when hackers release confidential information to damage a politician?

[Armchair]

Investigators could just re-interview the witnesses. They were generally found to be unreliable by the DoJ, which is why the DoJ dropped the investigation.

But by putting the "Congressional Seal" upon it, it makes the report look more reliable.

[Zarniwoop]

a bit late to the party now that Gaetz has resigned, but a lawyer for one of the Gaetz accusers said that testifying is difficult for his client (in the sense that it reopens the wounds that she'd rather move on from), that the testimony presented to the House is complete and accurate, and forcing her to repeat the traumatic experience is a poor choice compared to just releasing the report and the testimony therein.

One can believe that forcing a victim to re-live a crime against them in a media circus is the entire point, because sooner or later they give up, or have a flat affect in testimony that then gets attacked. And money + power is very, very useful and effective in beating crime victims down that way.

[EscherEnigma]

Her threat may be scary to other members of congress, but as a normal citizen, I would have no problem with her releasing every ethics report she can.

[Stephen Lathrop]

With farcical cabinet appointments, Trump and the MAGAs advising him attempt to so beclown institutional government as to make it not worth defending. Fascists have noticed and now exploit a vulnerability of institutionalism; it hampers response in kind to nihilistic brute force attacks.

[Martinned2]

Yes, the point is to destroy the whole idea of sound government.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the idea that the existing government is actually sound, sure.

[Martinned2]

No, the point is to undermine the idea that government can ever be the solution to any problem. That's been the objective of some factions within the Republican party as far back as Reagan or even Goldwater, but now that the "burn it all down" people have taken over the party, it's official GOP policy.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett posts freely on the Internet, healthy and free in the richest country in the world, that America's government is not sound.

Utopian claptrap. Reforms are always called for, but burn it all down ignores the evidence of your own life.

[Brett Bellmore]

Asserting that a bridge is unsafe is not the same as asserting that it has already fallen.

We are running, persistently, huge and growing deficits, year after year after year. In 2023, a $1.7T deficit; $4.47T in revenue, and about $6.2T in spending, including $658B in interest costs. The interest costs were 38% higher than the previous year, and are expected to be $892B this year, and to keep rising in subsequent years.

And not in time of existential war, like WWII. Not even cold war. This is in perfectly ordinary times, so what happens when an actual emergency arises?

This is NOT a description of the behavior of a sound government. This is government careening towards a fiscal cliff.

[Sarcastr0]

OK dude. Move away then.

You won't because this is a nice place and functions by and large well.

That's how utopianism works, from Communists to theocrats to your dumb ass. Ignore your current state, and ways to actually improve stuff (however you define improve) for some bullshit you've constructed that you have decided is so much better lets burn it all down.

Go hang out with the Marxists. Your next step for America has a lot in common with them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's going to be a nice place until the shit hits the fan, and when the shit hits the fan it's going to get ugly all over, not just here, because the US is not alone in running crazy high deficits.

In the mean time, I'm in my 60's, too old to find a new job, and hardly so flush as to be able to retire without becoming dirt poor. It's my fate to live in interesting times, if I live much longer, I suppose.

[Sarcastr0]

So based on a apocalyptic prediction (one that does not seem to be yet borne out by other countries with large per-GDP debt than us), you want to create a political apocalypse.

Yeah, again, this is basically you quoting Das Kapital but for your particular libertopian nonsense.

I’m in my 60’s, too old to find a new job, and hardly so flush as to be able to retire without becoming dirt poor.
Congrats on being comfy as hell, but still discontented. Like a housecat.

[SimonP]

In the mean time, I’m in my 60’s, too old to find a new job, and hardly so flush as to be able to retire without becoming dirt poor.

Gosh, if only there was a political party that was in favor of protecting retired and elderly people from living the rest of their days in poverty and squalor.

Just another MAGA voter, frustrated by his circumstances, voting for the party that has only promised to make them worse.

[Noscitur a sociis]

We are running, persistently, huge and growing deficits, year after year after year. In 2023, a $1.7T deficit; $4.47T in revenue, and about $6.2T in spending, including $658B in interest costs. The interest costs were 38% higher than the previous year, and are expected to be $892B this year, and to keep rising in subsequent years.

Something Trump is no doubt gravely concerned about!

[SimonP]

We are running, persistently, huge and growing deficits, year after year after year.

Which is why the incoming Congress has made clear that its first priority is extending and expanding tax cuts without pay-fors, leaving the hard work of cutting costs to a non-governmental organization that will "work" for a year and a half before issuing a go-nowhere report on July 4, 2026.

[Bob from Ohio]

"healthy and free in the richest country in the world"

Correlation is not causation. That does not prove our government is "sound".

"despite" or "in spite of" are also possible conclusions.

[Krayt]

Our nation is great because it is free, not because it is a democracy.

The vote is an abstraction of might makes right, and blowing the winds of political hot air is the exact superpower of demagogues through history. It is used to abridge freedom, which is to say, freedom from them.

It’s a long stretch from using it to decide an issue, to using it as justification for anything the power hungry want to do, because they won.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Bob.

An unsound government is not like some minor headwind - that's just suboptimal government.

Unsound is more fundamental. Brett goes there because he wants to end it all. Because he's got his eyes set on libertopia and can't see what's in front of him.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Unsound is more fundamental. "

Says you, Brett [and I] disagree.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's apocalyptic language, and defending 'destroy the whole idea of sound government' says otherwise.

[SRG2]

There's an alternative explanation. Trump is a starfucker and he gives greater weight to TV celebrity as a mark of competence than qualifications.

[Bob from Ohio]

He thinks good communication skills are a qualifications for public facing positions. Is he wrong? A cabinet officer spends a lot of time talking about stuff on tv and radio and before Congress.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, to the extent he thinks that presenting well on cable news shows is an important qualification for a cabinet officer, he is wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

It might not be the most important qualification but effective politicians are also effective communicators.

[Bwaaah]

Not only do they have to be effective communicators, they have to have shown an ability to persevere despite the worst kind of public character assassination. I know I'm justifying the work of the devil here. But make no mistake about it: the naysayers will successfully resurrect the image of the devil.

Anybody who can't withstand being massively maligned and hated is unqualified to lead effectively. Substantive change, progress, is on the other side of that malignant hatred, always sowed by the minority party.

[Krayt]

Speaking of star fuckers, how was Hollywood's choice?

It's bizarre to pose oneself as superior on this issue.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/19/kristin-wolter-memphis-florist-rejected-trump-supp/

Hmmm... I'm really confused. I thought it was "liberals" (like Ms. Wolter) who fervently believe that a private business owner should not be allowed to discriminate among his potential customers. (I, on the other hand, would let him discriminate to his heart's content.)

re: "lack of decency"
Hmmm... I'd say that refusing service to someone based on who they voted for demonstrates a "lack of decency" (just like refusing service to someone based on their skin-color).

re: "standing up for what I believe in"
I wonder if Ms. Wolter has ever heard of Jack Phillips? He too "stood up for what he believes in." But the government -- fully supported by the likes of Ms. Wolter! -- came down hard on him for it.

"[P]olitical persuasion, unlike race or sex, is not a protected category under Tennessee law."
Why not?! If the government punishes Business Owner 1, who hates blacks and doesn't want them in his establishment, why should Business Owner 2, who hates Republicans, get a pass?! I say: either everyone is free to discriminate -- my preferred solution -- or no one is!

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be conflating immutable characteristics with ideology, or indeed specific actions.

There are fine arguments about where one should draw the line when addressing the unfree conditions brought about by private discrimination.

Step one is to be clear about your terms. Unless, of course, your push is just to yell about libs inconsistent, in which case starting by equating the unequal is exactly how you'd want to start.

[EscherEnigma]

"I say: either everyone is free to discriminate — my preferred solution — or no one is!"
Feel free to get on with making your dream a reality anytime you want.

In the meantime, most states have not included political affiliation in their non-discrimination laws because generally speaking including mutable characteristics in such laws is silly (Religion being the biggest exception, largely for historical reasons).

[Commenter_XY]

Following up from Monday Open Thread, the Univ of Rochester antisemitic incident. I stated the behavior was reprehensible, but asked if it was illegal.

Looks like it was illegal. Four students charged with felony criminal mischief. Does that come with jail time?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/399529

[Frank Drackman]

I heard that Gaetz abandoned a young woman to asphyxiate (not drowned, there's a difference)

[Michael P]

The WaPo admits that bike lanes aren't really for bikes, but instead are motivated by gentrification and making it miserable to drive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/20/bicycle-lanes-dc-traffic/

[Sarcastr0]

Opinion piece.
Offered as though the author is in DC government.

When you read purely instrumentally, this is the kind of elementary media literacy fail you will make again and again.

[Michael P]

One might point out that this is an example of you wanting to change the topic and not engage with what somebody else wrote. One might also point out that you're a hypocrite who projects his own failings onto others. But one would merely be re-treading oft-visited grounds and pointing out the sadly obvious and unchanging facts.

[Sarcastr0]

I engaged with what you linked – I explained why it did not support what you claimed it did, based on the author and category of the article.

And I explained why you wouldn’t understand why those were legit objections.

And you absolutely delivered.

[Michael P]

No, you engaged in a particularly stupid ad hominem based on a straw man assumption about why the article is relevant. Which is, sadly, totally par for you.

[Sarcastr0]

I made a straw man assumption based on what your wrote: "bike lanes aren’t really for bikes, but instead are motivated by gentrification and making it miserable to drive."

Who creates bike lanes, Michel? And so who would be able to speak to the motive behind their creation?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Who creates bike lanes"

Idiots?

[Michael P]

Road owners create bike lanes. And lots of people can observe and report on the motives for doing so, chief. Do you ask such stupid questions all the time because you are not merely a moron, but an abject moron?

[Sarcastr0]

Yet again, this wasn't reporting, it was opinion.

[SimonP]

I read the piece. It's shit. Among other things, the author commits the common error of assuming that streets should be designed to suit "demand." He also makes this bizarre implicit assumption that Black and brown residents of DC don't bike.

Put simply, bike lanes belong everywhere you would put a sidewalk. They belong there because cycling and other forms of micromobility don't mix well with pedestrians, and they don't mix well with drivers. You put them on arterial streets because arterial streets are often "arterial" precisely because they're quick and direct routes to where people want to go, which in and of itself attracts cycling traffic.

Bike lanes also often have the effect of slowing down and calming traffic. That's usually seen as a good thing, because it reduces traffic fatalities for users of every mode (including drivers themselves). But it is hard for man-children writing in the WaPo about their feelings to understand that transportation design is an engineering problem.

[Jmaie]

“Bike lanes also often have the effect of slowing down and calming traffic. ”

Slowing yes, calming not always. A few years back the city of Richmond (CA) took a 2 lane in each direction arterial street down to 1 lane plus a bike lane. It increased accidents because folks trying to enter said arterial now had to contend with (when busy) double the volume in the remaining lane. It was not unusual to have bumper to bumper traffic for more than ten blocks, and in case you weren’t aware, Cali drivers are not inclined to make room for others wanting to merge in. The overall calmness did *not* increase…

I might add, that in a six month period of daily use I saw exactly (1) bicyclist.

Cheers.

[SimonP]

I don't know Richmond, and I don't know what street there you're talking about. But if you're talking about Barrett Ave., you're misunderstanding the road geometry a bit. It hasn't gone from two-way, four-lane to two-way, two-lane; they also added a central turn lane, which should help traffic to flow with less congestion around turning drivers. You're also ignoring the two parking lanes.

As for why more cyclists might not be riding there - well, I'm not surprised. Barrett is an arterial street connecting two major highways that plow through a largely suburban town. The street is still designed for high speed, the bike lane is unprotected, and the underpass at the train tracks is stupidly unsafe-feeling. It's also not at all clear that there is anywhere for cyclists to go along this route. If I were biking in Richmond, I very likely would look for alternatives to Barrett as much as possible - though again, I have no idea where I'd be going.

Not every bike lane is a good one.

[Jmaie]

For someone who doesn't know Richmond, you made a good guess - Barrett is in fact the street I had in mind. And I'm not misunderstanding the geometry at all - you're just missing my point. The issue isn't with folks making a left turn into a side street, it's folks trying to turn from the side streets onto Barrett. The parking lanes have no relevance, except in some cases partially blocking the view of oncoming traffic of said folks coming from the side streets...

Those bike lanes were not wanted by anybody who actually lived there, they were simply a sop to the anti-car brigade that infests California politics.

[Commenter_XY]

“I’ll tell you this, they don’t have to help us, but they need to get the hell out of the way because we’re coming. We’re going to do it. Which means if I [have to] send twice as many resources to that sanctuary city, twice as many agents, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. I’ve been saying for the last several days that they need to study the law.

They cannot help, but don’t impede us and don’t cross certain lines. There’s a statute under Title 8, United States Code 1324, that talks about knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien from ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. They need to read that statute and become familiar with it, because if they cross that line, there will be consequences.”

Is Thomas Holman correct about this? I had never heard this before. What's the line?

[Michael P]

Title 8 USC sec. 1324 isn't very complicated: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

I wonder what the outreach program currently includes.

[Life of Brian]

I wonder what the outreach program currently includes.

🙈 🙉 🙊

[John F. Carr]

The line that government officials must cross to be convicted of immigration violations is unclear. I can point to two cases from my area that were finally resolved in the defendant's favor on political rather than legal grounds.

1. United States v. Henderson. A regional homeland security director was charged with employing an illegal alien. A jury convicted her. The judge did not think she deserved to be convicted and ordered a new trial. The US Attorney for Massachusetts dropped the case rather than appeal, apparently on orders from Washington.

2. Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley Joseph was charged with obstruction of justice for helping an alien evade arrest. Charges were dropped by the Biden administration because he was acting as part of the resistance against the Trump administration.

To successfully lock up Mayor Wu the Trump administration would need to have the case over and appeals resolved before a Democrat becomes president.

[Commenter_XY]

Interesting....so Holman might not just be talking smack. There really is a line, however blurry, and government officials have been prosecuted in the past.

What is 'harbor and conceal' b/c that seems really ambiguous.

[Armchair]

Just remember... Trump is not a convicted felon, legally speaking. Repeat, Trump is NOT a convicted felon, legally speaking.

One is only a convicted felon in the state of NY after sentencing. And that hasn't happened.

[Martinned2]

Oh, that's fine then.

[hobie]

Dude, we are so over all of Trump's crimes. You need to let it go

[apedad]

OK, make the sentence a $1 fine and boom – convicted felon.

And Trump should NOT be jailed for this.

Just do a fine and move on with whatever comes.

[Kazinski]

Then Trump can appeal after sentencing and get his conviction overturned.

A key part of the testimony involved an official conversation between Hope Hicks and Trump in 2018 when she testified about Trump's motivation for reimbursing Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payoff.

That testimony clearly would not be allowed under the Trump v US, as it was a.conversation about motive with a subordinate discussing official business with the President. The official business was the likely questions she would have to deal with from the press over the Jan 2018 NY report in the NY Times about the Stormy Daniels payments.

[Roger S]

Trump hasn't committed any crimes, either.

[David Nieporent]

One is only a convicted felon in the state of NY after sentencing.

Still not true the second time you say it!

[Armchair]

Still True...

https://nypost.com/2024/06/08/us-news/yale-law-professor-says-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-despite-guilty-verdict-heres-why/

[David Nieporent]

The months old article does not say what you think. It does not say that "One is only a convicted felon in the state of NY after sentencing." It says that one is a convicted felon in NY when a judgment of guilt is entered. In federal court, sentencing is relevant. In state court, it is not.

[Armchair]

Here’s another more recent article. Says Trump …..isn’t actually a convicted felon….

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/11/why-trumps-manhattan-case-is-headed-for-a-four-year-freeze/

But since you’re a lawyer, can you pull out the LEGAL DOCUMENT that shows he is a convicted felon in NY? Not just the decision by the jury, but the legal conclusion.... (Keep in mind, I can’t prove the negative).

[Noscitur a sociis]

I certainly don’t want to pretend to an expertise on New York law that I don’t possess, but isn’t there some merit to this position? At least as applied to disabilities and enhanced penalties, it looks to me like New York doesn’t consider the conviction to have occurred until sentencing, not merely after the guilty plea/verdict. People v Fabian, 85 N.E. 672 (N.Y. 1908); People v. Schiller, 224 A.D. 3 (1st Dept. 1928).

[David Nieporent]

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a jury verdict is sufficient in NY for the judicial system to deem someone a convicted felon. (Though I do think that a jury verdict is sufficient for everyone on the planet other than the judicial system to deem someone a convicted felon.) What I'm saying is that unlike in the federal system, in which the conviction isn't deemed official until sentence is imposed, in New York there's a step, before sentencing, that makes someone a felon: entry of a judgment of conviction. In NY, that's separate from the sentencing. (Though of course it can occur in the same proceeding as a sentencing.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Fair enough.

[Armchair]

And has that Entry of a Judgement of Conviction been put into the official legal record by the Judge?

Can you pull it out? No?

[Kazinski]

The judgement isn't final, that's why Merchan is entertaining the defense's motion to dismiss.

[Martinned2]

Breaking news:

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges

[Michael P]

Secret arrest warrants for Jews, written to ignore October 7th. Nazis gonna Nazi.

[Martinned2]

Tell me more about how Grand Jury proceedings are secret and don't allow anyone assistance of counsel.

[VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)]

Fuck off Nazi scum.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Grand jury proceedings do allow the assistance of counsel, you antimsemitic doofus.

[David Nieporent]

Huh? I mean, I don't know what grand jury proceedings have to do with the ICC, but in the U.S. that's generally not true.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You don’t have the right to public counsel (although in my experience the federal government, at least, is pretty generous about providing it), and you don’t have the right to have the lawyer actually in the grand jury room with you. But anyone appearing before the grand jury certainly has the right to have counsel advise them during the process, including, in every jurisdiction I’m familiar with, taking reasonable breaks for consultation during their testimony.

[David Nieporent]

Okay… but now you're talking about grand jury witnesses, and I thought the topic was Netanyahu et al. who were targets.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don’t really know why Martinned brought it up, but he did say that grand jury proceedings “don’t allow anyone assistance of counsel.”

Even in the case of a grand jury investigation where the targets or subjects aren’t being asked to testify, they’re still allowed to have counsel, there just isn’t much that counsel do most of the time.

[Martinned2]

I brought it up because the process of issuing an arrest warrant by a pre-trial chamber at the ICC is equivalent to a prosecutor seeking an indictment at a grand jury in the US. Which is a famously opaque process that certainly doesn't involve the accused making submissions about anyone's jurisdiction.

[Mr. Bumble]

There is no State of Palestine.

[Martinned2]

I have considerable sympathy for that view, but the PTC is bound by a previous PTC decision to the contrary.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-its-decision-prosecutors-request-related-territorial

(For the avoidance of doubt, the trial chamber and the appeal chamber won't be.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

To the extent that there is a state of Palestine, it's at war with Israel. Any attempt to capture its servicemembers is a belligerent act, and merits a belligerent response.

[Martinned2]

Indeed, but not a response that amounts to war crimes under the Rome Statute.

[Commenter_XY]

How does one of the 120 countries who are a part of ICC actually arrest Netanyahu, Gallant?

Are these countries obligated to force 'Wings of Zion' to land on their territory, and they arrest the PM and drag him off in handcuffs?

How does arrest and arraignment work?

[Martinned2]

Netanyahu or Gallant sets foot within the jurisdiction, they get arrested. The theory of it isn't very complicated. The practice, on the other hand, can be a bit more complex, as the Putin case also shows. States might be pragmatic when it comes to executing the arrest warrants because they think Trump might send the special forces to break Netanyahu out of prison.

[Commenter_XY]

That is what I am asking. How does that work...the arrest part?

BTW, what if they 'resist' arrest? Then what?

[Martinned2]

What if anyone else resists arrest?

[Commenter_XY]

You don't know, then.

[Martinned2]

It depends on what country you're talking about. In the US people who resist arrest usually get shot, in the Netherlands people who resist arrest usually get arrested. There are many possible answers.

[Absaroka]

"In the US people who resist arrest usually get shot,"

Someone is feeding you bad data.

[Michael P]

He feeds himself bad data.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think Israel needs US special ops teams. Their special ops have a pretty good record of success.

[Martinned2]

Yes, but the diplomatic fallout of Israel sending special forces aren't the same if it's Uganda or, say, a (Western) European country.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, so you think they would be much more accepting of a US led operation?

[Martinned2]

I think it's much easier for the US to get away with such nonsense than Israel. Even under Trump it's still the biggest elephant in the room.

[Bob from Ohio]

"nonsense"

Rescuing kidnap victims is not "nonsense".

[Martinned2]

When someone is arrested, they're not being kidnapped.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are if the "court" issuing the "warrants" has no jurisdiction.

[Yes, I know ICC claims jurisdiction, but Israel is not a party so that is just BS.]

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ah yes, the old, "It's not kidnapping if you say you're a court" defense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"States might be pragmatic when it comes to executing the arrest warrants because they think Trump might send the special forces to break Netanyahu out of prison."

The US taking reasonable action in response to an act of war? Imagine that!

If European states don't want that to happen, don't start wars.

[Commenter_XY]

M2: The issuance of the arrest warrants is a travesty, and rooted in antisemitism.

[Bob from Ohio]

"issued warrants of arrest"

"The ICC has made its decision, now let it enforce it" Ghost of Andrew Jackson, probably.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Further vindication of the wisdom of the Service-Members Protection Act.

[apedad]

Jan. 6 rioter who assaulted D.C. cops gets another conviction for planning ‘assassination missions’ on FBI agents

A Jan. 6 rioter from Tennessee who was found guilty last week of breaking into the U.S. Capitol and assaulting police officers just got hit with another conviction for plotting to kill the FBI agents who investigated him.

Edward Kelley, 33, was convicted once again on Wednesday — this time in the Eastern District of Tennessee — on charges of conspiracy to murder federal employees, solicitation to commit a crime of violence and influencing a federal official by threat following a three-day trial, the Department of Justice said. He’s due to be sentenced in May, a little over a month after he’s scheduled to be sentenced in his Washington, D.C., case for his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks.

“Every hit has to hurt,” Kelley said in one recording. “Every hit has to hurt.”

Kelley is facing a maximum sentence of life in prison, per the DOJ.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/jan-6-rioter-who-assaulted-d-c-cops-gets-another-conviction-for-planning-assassination-missions-on-fbi-agents/

These guys . . . they're not very smart.

He's going to spend decades in jail and for what?

A half a chapter in a future history book?

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I doubt he'll get half a chapter. A line or two would be doing well.

[SRG2]

He must be one of those political prisoners I've read about.

[Zarniwoop]

He’s going to spend decades in jail and for what?

Or this another "patriot" Trump will pardon because it plays well on right-wing media, and lets him stick out his jaw and pretend he's Mussolini.

[Moderation4ever]

Another Trump attorney is coming under scrutiny. My local newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal, reported yesterday that Michael Gableman's conduct is under investigation for his behavior during his investigation of the 2020 Presidential election. Gableman was contracted, under pressure from Trump, by Republican lead Wisconsin Legislature to investigate the 2020 Presidential Election. Gableman spent a reported 2.5 million taxpayer dollars in a sham investigation that included numerous violation of the rules. Eventually fired by the Legislature. Robin Vos, the Republican leader of the Wisconsin Legislature did not comment for this report but has in past public statements said Gableman should be disbarred.

[Zarniwoop]

Yep, as a WI lawyer myself, I'm all about disbarring this asshat. Disgrace to the profession.

[Moderation4ever]

I just finished the book "Ten Lessons for a Post-Pandemic World" by Fareed Zakaria. First published in late 2020, I purchased the book soon after publication but was slow getting around to make time to read the book. If you are open minded about the pandemic, I would encourage you to read the book. I think Fareed does a good job in his presentation and making his case. I do worry that in current state of the world the lessons are not getting the attention they deserve, if any at all. We appear to be in a world where countries are retreating into themselves and not working together enough.

[Commenter_XY]

What were the three most important lessons, in your view?

[Moderation4ever]

All the lessons are of value. My picks for most important;

Lesson Two: It is not the quantity of government but the quality. I have long advocated for smart government over either big or small government. The US did too much in the pandemic and most of what it did was wrong.

Lesson Four: People should listen to expert and expert should listen to people. We need experts, but for experts to be effective they need to understand their audience. No point giving your opinion to people turned off and not listening.

Lesson Eight: Globalization is not dead. We live on a small planet and need to accept that people around the world must work together. Living in our own little silo will not work. There have been period of peace and cooperation. Countries can keep their own priorities and still work together on common interest. Multinational trade agreements are often more successful that unilateral sanctions and tariffs.

[Commenter_XY]

Good picks, M4e. Much to think about.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Biden be joining Jimmy Carter in hospice care prior to Jan. 20?
He looks more confused than ever.

[Sarcastr0]

Really can't let go, can you?

[ThePublius]

And why not? Biden is obviously in serious mental decline, the administration had been lying about it, covering it up for YEARS, and yet, he remains POTUS in a very dangerous and tumultuous time. We are literally headed toward WWIII - some say we're already there - and Biden is AWOL. Not that Harris would be an improvement, in different ways. Maybe it's best to leave whoever's pulling Biden's strings (Obama?) in charge until Jan. 20.

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"We are literally headed toward WWIII – some say we’re already there"

That you believe them or even listen to them is irrefutable evidence of your stupidity.

[Moderation4ever]

Maybe Jimmy, Joe and Donald can get a room together. With that McDonalds diet Jimmy and Joe might last the longest.

[ThePublius]

Trump is obviously in much, much better mental and physical condition than Biden. One need only listen to him, watch him move around, look at his schedule of events, and so on. To say not is denial, projection.

[apedad]

Yeah!

Trump's medical records back that up too!

What? Nevermind.....

[Sarcastr0]

Obviously!

[Jerry B.]

And, once again, why is Biden, who obviously isn't capable of being president, still president? Staying in office to shield Harris is moot now, so why not let her mess things up in advance of the Trump presidency?

[David Nieporent]

Not to steal Sarcastr0's shtick, but: "Obviously!"

[Michael P]

We already knew you are both incapable of defending Biden's ability on the merits. You don't need to prove it further.

[ReaderY]

I couldn’t help but notice Professor Volokh’s recent post that the Hoover Institute is seeking educational partnerships with other institutions and developing educational courses leveraging its strengths.

The University of Nevada, perhaps uniquely in the country, has programs related to human sexuality that (although they don’t say so directly) are rumored to provide educational opportunities to women seeking careers in a certain rather old profession.

The Hoover Institute would seem a natural fit for a certain part of the practical curriculum.

[John F. Carr]

Earlier this month the Ninth Circuit ordered the Department of Education to reconsider its disqualification of Grand Canyon University from receiving federal funds. The school had formerly been explicitly for profit. The owner loaned the reorganized nonprofit school the money to buy itself back with the debt secured by the school's revenue. The question for the Department and the Courts is whether the private equity creditor is functionally a shareholder. The definitions of a nonprofit are different under the Internal Revenue Code and the Higher Education Act so an IRS determination is not dispositive.

Grand Canyon University v. Cardona, case 23-15124 in the Ninth Circuit.

This reminds me of an interview I heard recently with Doyne Farmer. He makes macroeconomic forecasts with computer simulations of many small actors instead of the traditional forms of voodoo. If you tell the computer "here is a new financial instrument, it works like this" the computer can tell you "you're getting a bubble then a crash". I doubt the computer can anticipate creative schemes like the one where a private equity firm owns a for-profit school that is legally a nonprofit. Or back 15 years ago, the computer model works fine if you teach it about mortgage-backed securities but can it anticipate them?

[Krayt]

They've known for at least 30 years all supply and demand relationships, which include predator prey in the animal world, are inherently unstable and will chase each other up and down. "Steady state" ratios are flat out wrong, and unstable.

Discrete simulations with many little actors will show that, but it's also been done with differential equations.

Politics quickly turns into idiots hoping for up cycles so they can lie they caused it, and not being in the unlucky down cycle, where they lie the previous guy caused it.

[Sarcastr0]

all supply and demand relationships, which include predator prey in the animal world, are inherently unstable and will chase each other up and down.

This is wrong in a lot of hilarious ways.

[Krayt]

No, it's not. They are unstable. The assumption they reached a steady state is proven wrong.

[Sarcastr0]

Predator prey, or educational budgets?

Man what a terrible analogy, used to support something it absolutely doesn’t support even if the analogy held.

[John F. Carr]

It's probably a lot easier to tweak the model than derive the equations for what happens in novel situations.

[SimonP]

I work in an industry where all of the actors make money through financial engineering, at the furthest limits of what the law apparently allows. Every once in a while, some actors come up with a new way to make money, make a whole lot of it, and then inspire the entire market to move with them, creating systemic risks.

The stuff I'm seeing them do now... well, maybe it'll hold together as long as the economy keeps humming and businesses can pay or refinance their loans. But I'm not sure any of this is designed to endure shocks like massive tariffs or undermining global confidence in the dollar. A lot of people may be about to get hosed.

[Ridgeway]

I'd [seriously] love to hear some examples.

My experience of financial engineering in the PE world mostly involved PE firms disguising ownership percentages and liquidation pref amounts via contingent warrants, but that is more than a decade old now. Also disguising equity as debt, but that has been going on for a century.

[hobie]

Turkey prices are at the lowest they've been in 5 years. I got three at $0.39/lb. Protein is protein and that is damn cheap, so I'm loading up. Prices like that are only found in honkey supermarkets, though. Here in the food desert hood, our local chain is price gouging at $1.39/lb. It's either them or the convenience store...and they know it

[Commenter_XY]

hobie, I have to confess, I am not a big turkey fan. I eat it, but not enthusiastically. The leftovers are the problem; namely, what to do with them. Even the dog gets 'turkey'ed out'.

Pretty good price per lb in the honky supermarkets (0.39/lb), was there a minimum spend to get that price? Organic, pasture raised turkey runs ~10/lb here in the People's Republic of NJ.

[apedad]

Thanksgiving leftovers you say!

Two words: Stuffing Waffles.

Add a little water or broth to leftover stuffing and put some on the waffle iron.

Once the waffles get a little crust, then remove and add some gravy, turkey, cranberry sauce, etc. on top, or just regular maple syrup . . . .

Leftover heaven.

You could also do this in a cast iron skillet for one big stuffing pancake.

[Mr. Bumble]

I suppose this all depends on how big a turkey and how many people attend.
The lack of even enough leftovers to make a sandwich the following day had me making two turkeys (20 + pounders) and multiple batches of stuffing for many years.
As for any leftovers there is turkey soup or a pot pie.

[apedad]

Leftovers are built into the equation!

[Commenter_XY]

Oooooooooooooooh.....waffles. Never thought of that one. And Commenter_XY does have a special waffle iron he uses on occasion.

Regular syrup, or something else? I could see trying to make a syrup sweet and sagey to top it.

[Moderation4ever]

I find the key to turkey is better uses than just roasting. I like to have my frozen turkey's split, on a band saw. I then use only a half at a time. Turkey parts make great stock and I often bone the turkey halves and use the meat in different recipes.

[hobie]

I'm deboning my main turkey which gives a round, even package. All the bones go for stock making. All the leftovers will go into individual pot pies. I got my technique down where my pies approximate my idol's: Swansons

[SRG2]

I have on rare occasions served roast goose. More traditional and infinitely preferable.

[Moderation4ever]

How do you address the fat? Only cooked goose once and it was a mess. Fat render and burned in the oven, very smokey.

[Commenter_XY]

Farberware rotisserie is your friend.

[SRG2]

I use the method Chinese cooks use. The day before, I put the goose in a large pot of boiling water and turn the heat off. When the water has cooled down I take out the goose, pat dry, and put in a cool place. When it's roasing time, prick the skin all over and the first hour roast at a relatively low temp, no basting or anything. The fat melts off. Drain it into an appropriate container (use for sauteed potatoes, etc.). Turn up the temp, baste with whatever you want, and presto!

[Jmaie]

My mother decided to try goose one year. Our regular roasting pan was unavailable for some reason so she purchased one of those single use foil jobs from the supermarket. Well into the cook, she attempted to baste the bird and pierced the foil pan dropping what was probably a half gallon of fat onto the floor of the oven.

We were able to re-enter the apartment several hours later and start cleanup...

[EscherEnigma]

Make pot pies with the leftovers, then freeze them before you bake 'em. They'll stay good for months.

When you want one, just pop it in the fridge the day before, then bake it at 350-400 for about an hour.

[Commenter_XY]

This is an AWESOME suggestion. Regular pie crust?

[Brett Bellmore]

Turkey is both incredibly cheap this time of year, AND it's my favorite meat. When I was single I'd roast a turkey every month, and eat leftovers for a week or more after.

I've pretty much topped off the freezer at this point, with about 90lbs of turkeys. Most of them will get broken up for pieces at my convenience, and then repackaged in family meal sized portions and as frozen stock.

A family favorite is Turkey leg quarter confit, so I'll vacuum pack those in the rub, in order that they can get the required curing time while thawing.

But Thanksgiving dinner will be a traditional roast turkey with stuffing, using a sweet tea brine.

[ThePublius]

Price gouging? That's not price gouging. It's what the market will bear. There are alternatives, as you point out. It's not like Thanksgiving is a disaster and turkey is a commodity necessary to sustain life, and it's otherwise unavailable.

The cheapest I've seen turkey around here is 49¢/lb, "on sale." It's $1.49 at my favorite market. I just paid the $1.49. They didn't "gouge" me. I could have driven 2 miles down the road and gotten one for 49¢/lb. I couldn't be bothered.

Why do liberals, progressives, Dems always throw the "price gouging" card? It seems they do so as often as they throw the Nazi, racist, misogynist, bigot cards. Such bullshit.

[ThePublius]

By the way, I'm opposed to restrictions on and laws against so-called price gouging. "Surge pricing" is actually beneficial to the society at large, curtailing hoarding and making sure there is ample supply of needed commodities like food, fuel, water, and so on.

During superstorm Sandy many gas stations in South Jersey just closed, rather than be forced to deal with desperate, irate, and sometimes violent customers at regular prices. There would have been more gas available had they been able to charge what they wanted, i.e., a price commensurate with the risk and trouble they were taking staying open. (I know, I had to rescue an elderly person down there, and took off from MA with my tank full, two 6 gallon gas cans in the back, and a piece to defend myself during refueling. (Thank goodness I wasn't driving an EV!))

[ThePublius]

Correction: I just checked my receipt from Shaw's and the turkey was $1.99/lb., but I paid 49¢/lb., on sale, I think with one's loyalty membership.

I may go out and get a few more, I like the 10 to 12 lb. young turkeys. I smoke them, roast them, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

49cents a pound, which is what I'm paying, too, is a loss leader price, which is why they're limiting numbers and/or requiring a minimum purchase.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hell hath no fury like a Nikki Haley scorned.

[Moderation4ever]

I am guessing that late endorsement of Trump was a mistake on her part. She got nothing for selling out.

[Martinned2]

Who could have seen that coming?

[Bob from Ohio]

"mistake on her part"

You imagine she had a GOP future if she made no endorsement.

I like her but she's finished in GOP politics.

[apedad]

The China Threat

The counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts emanating from the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party are a grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States.

The Chinese government is employing tactics that seek to influence lawmakers and public opinion to achieve policies that are more favorable to China.

At the same time, the Chinese government is seeking to become the world’s greatest superpower through predatory lending and business practices, systematic theft of intellectual property, and brazen cyber intrusions.

China’s efforts target businesses, academic institutions, researchers, lawmakers, and the general public and will require a whole-of-society response. The government and the private sector must commit to working together to better understand and counter the threat.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-china-threat

Some people on the right think illegal immigration (II) is a big threat to the US but II doesn't come close to the harm China has and will cause.

[Krayt]

“Financial engatement with China will convert them to passive agreeability.”

Kane is throwing a party to celebrate poaching the last of the quality writers from the other papers, to work at his paper with its promise to look out for the little guy…

Berenstein and Leyland

[Moderation4ever]

There is no doubt that China is a competitor that it is a threat. But you cannot address the threat unilaterally or by retreating from the world. The US has a choice, be a leader or let China lead. I fear we are choosing the later.

[Michael P]

China paid the Bidens for the latter.

And the Deep State called it Russian disinformation when somebody revealed that.

[Moderation4ever]

What are you talking about? This is nonsense and doesn't even address my point.

[Sarcastr0]

Worldwide leadership? Trump is not a fan of NATO, and his proposed SecDef wants Russia to take Ukraine.

Meanwhile what do you claim that Biden did or did not do re: US international leadership in return for this bribe you fervently assert?

[apedad]

Nebraska accuses truck makers of conspiring to force transition to electric vehicles

The state of Nebraska filed a lawsuit against the nation's four leading truck manufacturers and a trade association, accusing them of conspiring to limit the availability of semi trucks with internal combustion engines in favor of trucks with electric engines.

The state and two trade associations, Energy Marketers of America and Renewable Fuels Nebraska, claim in an antitrust-consumer protection complaint that the collusion is in response to a series of regulations imposed by California and other states.

They say the manufacturers signed an agreement called the "Clean Truck Partnership" (CTP) in which they promised not oppose state electric-truck mandates as well as to reduce the output of diesel powered semi trucks.

“Eliminating diesel-powered semi-trucks is practically impossible to accomplish and would impose enormous costs on Nebraska and Nebraska companies," Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement.

https://www.courthousenews.com/nebraska-accuses-truck-makers-of-conspiring-to-force-transition-to-electric-vehicles/

First of all, the CTP is not anti-trust because it's an agreement between the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), and truck manufacturers that represent over 90 percent of California’s truck market.

It is not an agreement between the truck manufacturers - which could be anti-trust.

This is just anti-zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mouthbreathers flapping their wings in Nebraska.

[hobie]

Why, I swear. This appears to be lawfare. Trying to force private businesses to make things they don't want to make

[Jerry B.]

You mean California, of course.

[John F. Carr]

The agreement stands even if the CARB regulations are not legally binding. It should not be protected by the usual state regulation exception to antitrust law. String them up. Or whatever the noncriminal version of string them up is.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Statement by President Joe Biden on Transgender Day of Remembrance [11/20]

"Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, we mourn the transgender Americans whose lives were taken this year in horrific acts of violence. There should be no place for hate in America – and yet too many transgender Americans, including young people, are cruelly targeted and face harassment simply for being themselves. It’s wrong. My Administration has taken significant action to strengthen the rights and protect the safety of all Americans, including working across the federal government to combat violence against transgender Americans. Every American deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and to live free from discrimination. Today, we recommit ourselves to building a country where everyone is afforded that promise."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/11/20/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-transgender-day-of-remembrance-2/

The House of Representatives went another way.

[Roger S]

Biden celebrated Transgenderism instead of Easter. The people voted against that nonsense.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Transgender Day of Visibility was created by trans advocate Rachel Crandall and has been marked on March 31 every year since 2010 to celebrate transgender people and recognize the adversity they face.

While TDOV falls on March 31 annually , the date of Easter Sunday changes, and will fall every year between March 22 and April 25 on the Sunday of the first full moon on or after the spring equinox.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/biden-did-not-set-transgender-day-visibility-annually-coincide-with-easter-2024-04-05/

Statement from President Joe Biden on Easter

Jill and I send our warmest wishes to Christians around the world celebrating Easter Sunday. Easter reminds us of the power of hope and the promise of Christ’s Resurrection.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/31/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-easter-2/

Some voters were guided by “nonsense,” it is true, though how much a plurality of the voters who went for Trump cared about this specific anti-trans nonsense is quite unclear.

[Roger S]

That's right, a 2000 year tradition by half the world got replaced by a 14-year-old trans activist demand.

[David Nieporent]

The difference is that one is crazy and the other is based on delusion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was no “replacement.”

BTW, Easter arises from a range of beliefs, including those who celebrate it without believing in a literal resurrection of Jesus.

[Bob from Ohio]

"horrific acts of violence"

When is Victims of Illegal Aliens Day of Remembrance?

[Sarcastr0]

Can you spot how Bob is trying to equate unequal things? It's not very hard!

[hobie]

Poor old Bob. He'll tolerate new levels of indecency in his politicians, but he wants his immigrants impeccable

[Bob from Ohio]

You are right, many more people are harmed by illegal aliens.

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge recently blocked Lousiana's Ten Commandments law. Yesterday the Fifth Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal. A motions panel had previously limited the scope of the injunction to the school district defendants, ordering an administrative stay of the rest. Media reporting implies that that administrative stay is dissolved. The court order does not say one way or the other.

Because the motion for a stay was referred to the merits panel, I infer that the case drew a liberal panel by Fifth Circuit standards and Ho in particular was not on it. The identity of the panel has not been revealed.

In my opinion the partial stay was the correct ruling. Under Supreme Court precedent the plaintiffs are entitled to relief for their own children. It is none of the plaintiffs' or the court's business whether other school districts in Louisiana compel students to worship God as state politicians imagine Him, under penalty of death, dismemberment, expulsion, ostracism, or eternal damnation. It becomes the court's business if students of other school districts file their own lawsuit.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69369985/roake-v-brumley/

[not guilty]

"Media reporting implies that that administrative stay is dissolved. The court order does not say one way or the other."

The administrative stay was granted pending the Court's disposition of the motion for stay pending appeal. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848/gov.uscourts.ca5.221848.32.2.pdf So the denial of the motion for stay pending appeal extinguished the administrative stay.

"A motions panel had previously limited the scope of the injunction to the school district defendants, ordering an administrative stay of the rest."

I did not see any limitation of the scope of the injunction noted on the Court of Appeals docket sheet. What am I overlooking?

[John F. Carr]

The administrative stay granted the following request in docket entry 12:

For these reasons, the Court should immediately enter an administrative stay of the Notice Provision pending the Court’s disposition of the State’s forthcoming motion for stay pending appeal (to be filed no later than Friday, November 15).

The "Notice Provision" is this part of the District Ccourt's order:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Brumley and BESE Members shall be responsible for providing notice of this order and H.B. 71’s unconstitutionality to all Louisiana public elementary, secondary, and charter schools, and all public post-secondary education institutions.

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Carr, does the law become 'Kosher' if the LA legislative language changes from 'shall display' to 'may display'?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The law still would show religious favoritism, including to a certain form of the Ten Commandments.

Wallace v. Jaffree is of some relevance. There the justices struck down a law authorizing 1 minute of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer."

Concurring justices granted a moment of silence could be authorized as could voluntary student prayer. But, the specific law was found to have an illegitimate purpose and effect.

This is an interesting essay too:

https://verdict.justia.com/2024/11/18/louisiana-ten-commandments-case-and-much-more-could-be-headed-to-scotus

[Longtobefree]

When the 'school prayer' madness got started in the sixties or seventies or whenever, a comedian summed it up quite nicely:
As long as there are history tests, there will be prayer in public schools".

[John F. Carr]

The legal situation is the same if a school district displays the Ten Commandments on its own initiative without any state authorization.

If I were a judge I would not issue an advisory ruling on a "may display" law but wait for a real controversy. What, exactly, is the specific school district going to do? The current law is clear enough for the judge to reject the state's argument that a school could comply with the law and the constitution.

[John F. Carr]

A new state "economic development" law allows Ticketmaster to prohibit resale or other transfer of tickets sold in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, "The goal of the measure apparently is to cut down on resellers charging exorbitant prices on the secondary market." I think the reasoning is, price gouging is bad and monopolies are good.

I don't do business with Ticketmaster. Obviously, many people do. If your teen daughter doesn't see Taylor Swift or Sabrina Carpenter she will die.

[Swede425]

Donald Trump broke Rob Reiner. Without having to lift a finger.
Rob Reiner just checked himself into a nuthouse.
He should see if there's room for Jen Rubin in there as well.
Poor Meathead.

[Roger S]

I enjoy Hollywood actors who stay in character.

[Kazinski]

I'm glad Reiner is getting help, no one should be so consumed by politics that they are that distressed by politics.

While I don't agree with Rob's political opinions, he's to be admired for crafting a sterling career as a director for such massive cultural monuments as Spinal Tap, and The Princess Bride despite starting out as a limited supporting actor overshadowed by his massively talented father.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Important international story:

Paws up! Police find shoe thief at a kindergarten is actually a weasel. Police in southwest Japan installed cameras after nearly two dozen children’s shoes went missing from Gosho Kodomo-en kindergarten in Fukuoka. The culprit? A weasel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/21/weasel-shoe-thief-japan-kindergarten/

Japanese children coddle criminals:

“None of us were expecting this to turn into such a big media story,” he said. “The kids love the weasel. They think it’s so cute when we show them the video.”

Japanese police excuse criminal behavior:

“This was something we’d never seen before, so I ended up doing a lot of research into the species after this,” police deputy Inada said. “I believe the weasel was simply bringing the shoes back to its nest to keep warm now that it’s getting cold.”

The mystery lingers:

The missing shoes have never been found.

[Unodir4]

I feel like we should be talking about impoundment of appropriated funds considering Pres Trump desire to cut $2T much already appropriated ....Executive check against Legislature so Impoundment Act unconstitutional (Jefferson/Nixon/others)? Line Item Veto so facially unconstitutional regardless of Act?

[EscherEnigma]

Last I checked, there still wasn't a FY25 budget, and we were running on a continuing resolution through December 20th.

While it's possible a lameduck congress could finally get it's act together and push through a budget, it seems more likely they'll just adopt another continuing resolution through spring, and the new Republican congress --with Trump in mind-- will get to set the budget for the last half of FY25.

Which is to say, it probably won't matter.

[David Nieporent]

No, it matters. Budgets and appropriations are different things. Only the latter are what are relevant for these purposes.

[Sarcastr0]

Gaetz has resigned, and now withdrawn from AG.

Unclear if Trump asked him, or the risk that the Senate report could come out worked a charm. (It may still come out).

What could be next for Private Citizen Gaetz?

[Zarniwoop]

“ JUST IN: Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said on social media he is withdrawing as President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general. This comes a day after he met with GOP senators on Capitol Hill and as he faced scrutiny over sexual misconduct allegations.”

Sounds like several GOP Senatuhs told him the report is going to be made public and scrutinized if he wants to be confirmed… and he’s got enough to hide that he’d rather slink away.

Trump, picking the best people.

[Zarniwoop]

Welp:

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Mississippi), chairman of the House Ethics Committee, told CBS News on Thursday that former congressman Matt Gaetz’s (R-Florida) decision to withdraw from consideration to be the attorney general ends “the discussion of whether or not the Ethics Committee should continue to move forward in this matter” — referring to deliberations on whether the committee should release the report on its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Gaetz.

“He has withdrawn his nomination, he is no longer a member of Congress, so I think that this settles any involvement,” he said.

I expect that to be the solid GOP line following the resignation.

Now we see if he tries to rejoin the House in early January. I have no idea how the resignation letter was worded – if it has effect only for the current Congress, or the next one as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Private Citizen Gaetz"

Congress on January 3. He resigned, but a new term starts then and he was elected earlier this month.

[not guilty]

That is true. The vacancy is for the remainder of the 118th Congress. There would be no impediment to Gaetz taking office on January 3 when the 119th Congress convenes.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, then the ethics report becomes a live issue again.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, resumes being a dead issue...

[David Nieporent]

or the risk that the Senate report could come out

*House report.

[Kazinski]

His resignation letter said that he resigned from the 118th Congress and “intended” to not take the oath for the 119th Congress, so I think he could withdraw that intention.

He won re-election with 66% of the vote, so it would also be an option to run again in the special election anyway.

I don’t think the ethics report will hurt him much, the allegations were well known in his district, already as well as the the credibility problems of his accusers.

[Kazinski]

According to Derek Muller on X, House precedent states that stating an intent not to take the oath does trigger a vacancy for next term. but I don't think the precedent he cites is all that definitive, because the member did not appear to take his oath and attempt rescind his intention.

And of course it would also not keep Gaetz from standing for his seat again.

[Zarniwoop]

I have no dog in this fight, but I admit I'm curious how much support Matt "one of the most hated men in the House" Gaetz would get from his fellow GOP representatives, if it came down to a vote.

Of if the voters of FL would vote him back in in a special election with the order-of-magnitude higher attention on the allegations, and his backing down (twice now - House resignation, then withdraw as nominee) to prevent the facts from seeing the light of day.

It may seem hokey, but this seems like a situation where voters - even FL voters! - would sense that one doesn't try to hide the facts this hard if there's nothing to hide.

[Frank Drackman]

The new US Senator from Florida

[Bored Lawyer]

Gaetz withdraws from consideration as AG.

https://apnews.com/article/gaetz-trump-fbi-justice-department-248b46ba0c882dd46d661568e8bd3bd7

Man, that guy should try out for the part of Joker in the next Batman series.

Now we can debate if the whole thing was a ruse, or Trump and Gaetz really thought he had a chance. IOW, venal v. stupid.

[Zarniwoop]

Mark Hamill voicing Gaetz: shut up and take my money.

“Venal v. stupid”? Why not both?

[EscherEnigma]

If I were being cynical, I'd say it was a test to see if Republican senators would rebuke Trump.

If I were being cynical in a different way, I'd say that Trump, once again surprised at having won, just didn't put much thought into it and was just rewarding a loyalist (remember, between Gaetz and a few other nominations, it's clear that vetting and candidate research just isn't happening, and that Trump is likely going off vibes).

And if I were being really cynical I'd say that Trump is intentionally putting up bad nominees to force Republicans to rebuke him, and then he'll use that as an excuse for following through on that batshit plan to send congress to recess and flood in recess appointments.

[Noscitur a sociis]

and then he’ll use that as an excuse for following through on that batshit plan to send congress to recess and flood in recess appointments.

As I’ve pointed out more than once, that “plan” would require the cooperation of the senate, and thus doesn’t seem well-calculated to actually accomplish anything. (Not, of course, that that proves Trump isn’t thinking about it.)

[EscherEnigma]

If the senate cooperates it's easier, but the version I saw was that supposedly the president has a never-before-used power to send congress to recess under his own authority, whether they like it or not.

I'd see if I could find it again, but as I've already dismissed it as batshit that sounds like a lot of effort.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s the theory, but it’s wrong.

Each house of congress can’t recess for more than three days without the consent of the other. There is some basis in the cosntitutonal text that suggests that if the tow houses can’t agree about adjourning, the president can decide. (But maybe not, see this post: https://reason.com/volokh/2024/11/15/thomas-berry-cato-institute-on-trumps-recess-appointment-plan/)

Usually, Congress knows ahead of time that both houses are going to agree to adjourn, so the vote is formality, and they pass a single resolution adjourning their own house and giving the other house permission to do the same. The “trick” is to have the house pass tst resolution, on the theory that the senate would have to either agree to it as a whole package and adjourn, or refuse to consent and thus create a situation where Trump could break the disagreement and force a recess.

This is of course wrong: the house has no legal authority to demand that the senate adjourn, and there’s no need for the senate to take any action on such a request except ignoring it. If Trump tried it, any actions taken by anyone given a recess appointment would be almost immediately challenged and enjoined. But again, I will concede that the pointlessness and stupidity of the plan doesn’t, in and of itself, mean Trump isn’t thinking about it.

[EscherEnigma]

Cool story bro.

Wasted effort though.

If Trump decides to go through with the batshit plan, legality will be damned, and the only question will be if SCOTUS decides to let him get away with it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean sure, if everyone empowered to stop Trump from exceeding his authority decides not to do anything, then he’ll be able to exceed his authority. That doesn’t seem like a very interesting observation though, especially in the context of Trump backing down after Senate Republicans indicated they were going to stop him from doing something he wanted to do.

[EscherEnigma]

"That doesn’t seem like a very interesting observation though [...]"
It's a batshit theory; there are no interesting observations. That's kind of why I've been dismissive to your attempts to critically examine it.

[David Nieporent]

So that’s less than a Scaramucci.

[Zarniwoop]

well played, sir.

[SRG2]

Sage advice

[Noscitur a sociis]

The media reports that Matt Gaetz will not be nominated for attorney general.

I will choose to interpret this optimistically, as an indication that the system can indeed refrain Trump’s worst impulses.

I expect this feeling to last at least until the next name comes out.

[SRG2]

He should set up a lobbying firm with George Santos.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court of Illinois ordered dismissal of charges against Jussie Smollett, who was accused of faking a hate crime against himself. The local prosecutor dropped charges. A special prosecutor reinstated charges and won convictions. On the facts of this case, the local assistant prosecutor's filing a nolle prosequi in return for forefeiture of $10,000 bond was an enforceable nonprosecution agreement. The payment by the defendant distinguishes Smollett's case from a unilateral nolle prosequi, which is not final.

The state would have liked the $10,000 payment to be treated as a generous gift by the defendant. I have seen a lesser version in traffic court. A defendant paid for traffic school before his first court appearance hoping the judge would take mercy on him. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled the $10,000 was consideration, not a gift.

The opinion leads with

“The public justifiably expects the State, above all others, to keep its bond.” Bowers v. State, 500 N.E.2d 203, 204 (Ind. 1986).

People v. Smollett, 2024 IL 130431

[tylertusta]

We can thank Kim Foxx for this.

What a fine example of a Democratic Party prosecutor.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. But the court's correct. A deal's a deal.

[Michael P]

Doesn’t this effectively give local prosecutors an unreviewable pardon power? What if the good and valuable consideration is $5 instead of $10,000?

[Sarcastr0]

Prosecutors can even choose not to prosecute someone at all!

[Michael P]

That doesn't bar a different prosecutor from prosecuting, you moron.

[John F. Carr]

Yes, local prosecutors can sabotage a case so nobody else can try it.

The proper procedures must be followed. I recall a case from New York where a generous plea bargain was rescinded because the original charges included felonies and the plea was in a local court which only had jurisdiction over misdemeanors.

In some jurisdictions there are heightened procedural rules for dismissing DUI or rape charges.

[tylertusta]

Welcome to the wonderful world of "progressive" prosecutors who abuse their office to allow criminals to escape serious consequences for their actions.

Jussie Smollett had the right kind of politics and the right skin color, so he gets off easy.

[Sarcastr0]

Any evidence that's what happened here?

And any evidence black people are all being let off easy by prosecutors nowadays?

[John F. Carr]

All members of the Georgia Maternal Mortality Committee have been dismissed. The Committee was thought to have leaked confidential medical information to Pro Publica for political purposes. The leaker could not be identified so the whole body will be dissolved and reconstituted. Pro Publica reports:

https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-dismisses-maternal-mortality-committee-amber-thurman-candi-miller

The Committee is supposed to investigate cases of maternal death and determine what could have been done differently to save the woman's life. All states have a similar body. It is usually even more obscure than the organization that publishes building codes. (Somebody died of sepsis, let's ask the doctors to wash their hands. Somebody got electrocuted, let's turn all the plugs upside-down.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

why turn plugs upside down.

[John F. Carr]

Traditionally outlets have the ground connector on the bottom. There was a proposal to change building codes so ground is on top. An object falling into the gap between plug and outlet will contact the ground rather than the hot conductor.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I thought Gaetz was a bridge too far & he was not going to be confirmed. His withdrawal is somewhat surprisingly premature.

We should keep an eye on the ball on who is chosen & how they are likely to use/abuse their powers.

Meanwhile, various other very problematic choices like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. are still active.

[Randal]

Seems like the Ethics Committee came up with a secret plan to force Gaetz to withdraw short of releasing the report. They were acting very cagey yesterday after their meeting.

Or, this may have been Trump's and Gaetz's plan all along to get Gaetz off the hook, and Trump was getting impatient and wants to move on with his real pick now.

[Zarniwoop]

It would not surprise me if one or more GOP Reps on the Ethics Committee voted no in the meeting yesterday, with adjournment to Dec. 5 ... and then told Gaetz "withdraw "voluntarily", or I change my vote to release the report. Ball is in your court."

The cynic in me wonders if Gaetz was just a sacrificial pawn so that other folks with credible allegations of sexual abuse with police reports, cash settlements, and predating their nomination (cough*Hegseth*cough) don't look as bad in front of the Senate. But, if that were true then Gaetz withdrew too soon for best effect, so probly not.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You can hypothecate some 5D chess motivations for things like this. But really, when has Trump ever actually done something like that?

[Zarniwoop]

True true, Occam's Razor for the win in this situation.

[Roger S]

That would be blackmail. Trump needs to appoint someone who cannot be blackmailed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, ceteris paribus people who aren’t desperate to conceal their past misconduct from the public probably are better candidates for high level government positions.

[Zarniwoop]

Then perhaps picking an AG nominee who doesn't "party" with paid 17 year olds and MDMA would be a good start.

Give him some credit, it's the 2010s version of coke and hookers! Those are sooo passé now, Matt G. was just keeping it fresh! For his younger constituents, he's a man of the people!

[Zarniwoop]

Seems like the Ethics Committee came up with a secret plan to force Gaetz to withdraw short of releasing the report. They were acting very cagey yesterday after their meeting.

I concur: it's pretty easy to think they temporarily adjourned with a verbal communication to Gaetz ... I quoted this above, but it seems relevant here:

Rep. Michael Guest (R-Mississippi), chairman of the House Ethics Committee, told CBS News on Thursday that former congressman Matt Gaetz’s (R-Florida) decision to withdraw from consideration to be the attorney general ends “the discussion of whether or not the Ethics Committee should continue to move forward in this matter” — referring to deliberations on whether the committee should release the report on its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Gaetz.

“He has withdrawn his nomination, he is no longer a member of Congress, so I think that this settles any involvement,” he said.

[SRG2]

Racist Las Vegas cop kills black homeowner who called 911.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckglp4nz75zo

Racist? Sure - if you call a 43yo black man "boy", you're a racist.

[EscherEnigma]

Hrm. That article doesn't include that allegation (that Bookman is racist or that he called Durham "boy"). Is it in the video?

[SRG2]

Curiously the original story said "boy, drop the knife" but now the story says "hey, drop the knife". Assuming the revision is accurate, my initial observation is withdrawn.

[Randal]

Well, at least we can take solace from the fact that the officer, though likely to go unpunished in this life, will, according to the King James version of the Ten Commandments (as well as the Charlton Heston version), writhe and burn in hell for all eternity.

[Lennyk78]

“Unlike a civil case, in which an individual’s negligence is at issue, criminal cases require proof of a person’s criminal intent,” David Roger, general counsel for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said in a statement to CNN. “While Mr. Durham’s death is tragic, Officer Bookman was doing his job and did not intend to commit a crime.”

This is patently untrue. There are many crimes which don't require intent, involuntary manslaughter for one.

[Zarniwoop]

ah, flashbacks to the many parsings of "intent" in first year Crim Law.

1) Intent varies widely depending on state law (and from Model Penal Code)

2) as an example, a drunk driver may often be convicted of "involuntary manslaughter". But they voluntarily A) drank then B) got behind the wheel. So there's some "intent" - enough for recklessness - but not knowing/deliberate/intentional "intent".

You're not wrong wrong, but ... it's ... more complicated than that. The defense lawyer isn't wrong wrong either, but he's also oversimplifying on behalf of his client.

[not guilty]

The various degrees of murder and manslaughter in Nevada are listed here: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-200.html#NRS200Sec010

A federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for deprivation of life without due process under color of law requires a specific intent to deprive of a right which has been made specific by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 104 (1945) (plurality).

[Bored Lawyer]

"Intent" here means a state of mind. Mens rea for the Latain lovers.

Involuntary manslaughter does not require purposeful intent to kill the person, but it generally requires reckless conduct.

[Lennyk78]

Agree with you and Zarni, but I think the lawyer is being intentionally misleading.

[EscherEnigma]

Not a lawyer, but how do you look at someone firing a gun at a person six times and avoid the conclusion that they either intended to kill, or were incredibly reckless?

[Lennyk78]

He probably means that there was no intent to do so in an unjustified or criminal manner, which is begging the question, of course.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The video is available in the story: I don’t think there’s any way you can conclude he said anything other than “hey”. I also note that the woman who appears to have been the actual offender is also black. Whether or not the shooting was defensible, I don’t see much basis for the charge of racism.

[Randal]

Sexism, though, for sure. Do you shoot the one in the ski mask? Not if it's a woman! Always shoot the dude.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It looks to me like she’s wearing a hoodie.

[Randal]

Turning the corner of an L-shaped hallway, the officer finds a shirtless Mr Durham wrestling over a knife with a woman wearing a ski mask, later identified as 31-year-old Alejandra Boudreaux.

Since when did the BBC get so bad at writeups. First "boy," now "ski mask."

[Krayt]

There's what looks like the leftovers from a big hurricane spinning around Michigan and Toronto right now. This happens from time to time as they hit the continent and push northward.

But I'm not aware of any such thing the past few days. Did I miss something?

[Randal]

There was a deep cyclone off the Pacific Northwest Coast on Tuesday, maybe that stirred things up?

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-storm-reveals-itself-eastside-wind.html

[John F. Carr]

Brazilian police have recommended that Jair Bolsonaro and 36 other people be criminally charged with attempting a coup following Bolsonaro's election loss two years ago. The charges must be approved by the Supreme Court and a prosecutor.

Some individuals had previously been charged over Brazil's counterpart to the January 6 protest/riot/tour/insurrection. Bolsonaro is already disqualified from running in 2026.

[Lennyk78]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/21/entertainment/jussie-smollett-conviction-overturned/index.html

Thugs. All of them.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Racist coward says what?

C'mon Verochax, you're so proud of your views, why not stand behind them with your real name?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's now racist to call out this injustice. Jussie created a fake hate-crime hoax to give Kamala a talking point for her failed 2020 presidential bid.

You people are pathetic.

[John F. Carr]

AP reports on statements by Judge Carl Nichols as he agreed to postpone trial of a January 6 defendant until Trump takes office:

Blanket pardons for all January 6 defendants or anything close would be beyond frustrating and disappointing, but that’s not my call. And the possibility of some pardons, at least, is a very real thing.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-trump-pardons-judge-carl-nichols-17d0d2587ee5635218428c2eaafad821

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Judges should concern themselves with pardons only by recommending pardons if they think the jury wrongly convicted someone. As far as changing the schedule of trials, if there's actually a pardon then by all means drop the case (there's no alternative), but if there hasn't been a pardon yet go on and conduct the trial.

[Zarniwoop]

I agree, and that agreement is regardless of political valence.

A pardon is hypothetically available to every defendant (ok, most, some states vary), so until it’s granted it’s a mere possibility.

How is a judge supposed to asses that possibility? What possibility is enough to forgo the normal operation of the judicial process? Is it … slightly possible, more likely than not, clearly likely, beyond reasonable doubt going to happen?

I’d have tried the guy so it’s all on the record; Trump can pardon an even higher number of “his” insurrectionist supporters if he wants. I think the judge I clerked for would have as well (I can’t speak for him, of course, just a speculation).

That said, District Court judges work hard and long hours, and I can forgive a judge for not tilting at windmills.

[EscherEnigma]

"How is a judge supposed to asses that possibility? "
I mean, in this case, the president-elect has openly talked about it. It's not like this is a reach.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Now, one reason to postpone the trial would be not knowing if the new prosecutor is going to prosecute any further. That's a matter directly in his courtroom which he should consider.

[Krayt]

Is he postponing because he thinks it’s inevitable, and hence starting a trial now is wasting time?

May be true, but doesn’t seem like it should be a concern of justice. And right to a timely trial and all that.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Carlson continued, “I can’t imagine a more desperate or evil thing for Tony Blinken, who I think is desperate and evil, in my view, to do. Leave him with a war?”

“A lame-duck president trying to start a war with the world’s largest nuclear power, Russia. What do you make of that?” Carlson asked Vought.

Vought responded, “It’s incredibly insidious, and then add to the fact that he can’t put two sentences together and he is largely not in control of his own government,” referring to Joe Biden.

---

Wow, powerful stuff. It's stunning how all the Leftists around here are suddenly so pro-nuclear war and support these "insidious" actions by Permanent Washington.

[SimonP]

You are free to continue citing known Russian propagandists.

Why you would choose to discredit yourself in such an obvious fashion, one cannot guess.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/200/368/147.jpg

[Jmaie]

"You are free to continue citing known Russian propagandists.'

Carlson or Vought?

[Michael P]

Probably Hunter Biden's laptop.

[Drewski]

When the next Congress is decimates entitlements there will be almost infinite tragedies in America. But a silver lining may be that some of the more prolific commenters here will probably be limited to posting during library hours. I feel very fortunate that I have a good job with a stable employer and no serious health problems.

[Paladin_44]

Can Gaetz reclaim his seat? Kinda like "sorry, my bad, guess I want my old job back after all". Sure hope not!

[EscherEnigma]

If nothing else, he can run in the special election that Florida is supposed to be setting up.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

He won the election for the 219th Congress and resigned from the 218th.

Clever.

[dwb68]

When Gaetz was nominated, a lot of people speculated this was Trump playing 4D chess to remove a thorn from the House. They predicted Gaetz would withdraw.

I never saw Gaetz as a serious pick, and his withdrawal happened way faster than I expected.

Biondi, a relatively stellar pick with credentials and experience, was waiting in the wings. I think she will sail through.

The Gaetz nomination did its job, by putting the career people on notice.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Notice of what?

[dwb68]

Notice that the career people need to find other jobs. The FBI has turned into a joke.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I strongly suspect that most career FBI employees are not looking for other jobs rights now.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean really what do you think the plan was here? “You guys better watch out! If you’re not careful, I’m going to not nominate someone you’re really not going to like!”

[Longtobefree]

How can they be looking for jobs?
They are all in line at the shredder.

[dwb68]

Fair

[SimonP]

On notice that... Trump is a charlatan who engages in performative displays to capture news cycles and is uninterested in the business of governing?

Bondi is "relatively stellar" primarily insofar as she seems like she'll understand the job she's being asked to do. Her record of apparent corruption and loyalty to Trump is, unfortunately, to be expected of any Trump pick.

[Riva]

Her record of apparent corruption? WFT? You clowns have apparently been put off balance a little. Ill-equipped to manufacture the sexual scandals that are the usual Democrat staple, now resorting to some pathetically weak corruption nonsense. Good luck with that. And, if you really want corruption, just wait until she starts exposing some of the Biden area weaponization of the DOJ.

[David Nieporent]

Bondi, not Biondi, is of course a corrupt figure in the Trump orbit. As AG of Florida, she buried an investigation of the Trump University scam right after he made a $25,000 donation to her. (Did I say after he made a $25,000 donation? I mean, after he had the Trump Foundation, a not-for-profit, illegally make a $25,000 donation to her. That was of course not the only time he looted the Trump Foundation for his personal benefit. He tried to blame this one on a clerical error.)

[Riva]

Uh huh. No shortage of made up leftist fantasy corruption stories I'm sure. And, when you're tired of fiction, you might start to look into some of ol'Joe's dealings through his crackhead bagman son. $25,000 is a relative joke compared to the millions involved in the Big Guy's operation.

[Randal]

Dumbott.

[Riva]

Just some friendly advice, for the next “corruption” story you and your little troll buddies manufacture, try for a something more convincing than $25,000. The Big Guy would laugh you out of his office if you offered that. And one would probably not live to see the sunrise if they dared to insult Hillary with that amount.

[Randal]

So your position is yeah she's corrupt, but $25,000 is sofa change, so it doesn't really count?

This is how we know you're a bot. No human has so little shame.

[Riva]

No little Randal, I’m pointing out just one reason why your laughably stupid corruption fiction is laughably stupid. You could also say I’m mocking you. And I’m also pointing out that there is a universe of evidence showing the real corruption of the Big Guy that you clowns are just fine with.

[Randal]

We all know that’s a lie. If there had been even a shred of evidence, let alone a mountain, Biden would’ve been impeached.

Poor poor Jim Jordan. After all his huffing and puffing, the only house he managed to try to blow down was Mayorkas. And not based on evidence of a crime, just policy differences. So it didn’t crack, not even just a little bit.

Rivabot, your rhetoric is the most divorced from reality of anyone here.

[Riva]

That’s your logic? Biden wasn’t impeached, therefore he is innocent of any allegations of corruption? I think I’ll have to award you the f’ing stupidest comment of the post award for that. Congratulations.

Incidentally, witnesses and documentary evidence tend to run counter to your view of the Big Guy. Won’t it be amusing to see what else turns up after some accountability is brought to the DOJ/FBI?

[Randal]

The best part of this whole thing is that you’ve finally, after decades and decades, come to the same conclusion as the rest of us lefties: the law enforcement apparatus cannot be trusted.

You are going to experience very little resistance to tearing down the DoJ and especially the FBI. Defund the Police!

[Bwaaah]

Riva intimated the importance of increased accountability in law enforcement. And you, like a moron from 2020 that Democrats have been trying to live down ever since, liken that to a call to, "Defund the police!"

You seem relatively impervious to learning. You are a good example of why people should join the other side. Keep at it.

[Randal]

Accountability lol. Durham already tried that and didn't find any thing. Jim Jordan too. In other words, there already is accountability. You just don't like it when they prosecute white criminals, because you're not afraid of them.

So if you look at what Trump's actually planning, it's to defund the police.

[Sarcastr0]

I believe the kids call this copium. Kinda wild you seem to need it when your guy won.

[Bored Lawyer]

Given that Bondi was put forward as the substitute nominee within a day, I suspect that this was the plan all along. If Trump had been serious about Gaetz, it would have taken some time to pick a sub.

That's my inference, anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

That assume Trump mulls over who he could pick with real consideration.

That seems a highly dubious proposition.

[David Nieporent]

For a normal administration, yes. But since Trump clearly does zero vetting before making these announcements, he presumably just reflexively picked his second choice.

[Commenter_XY]

All of this misogyny about Bondi, David. 🙂

[Randal]

Looks like the ICC finally got around to issuing its arrest warrant for Putanyahu.

With that, Israel finally passes Syria to become the fourth most evil country in the world (after North Korea, Russia, and Iran). Can it break into the top three? Maybe it'll catapult itself into the #1 spot by nuking something!

[Noscitur a sociis]

I normally just put blatant and unapologetic racists on ignore, but for some reason I haven’t with you. So I guess instead I’ll take advantage of the opportunity to ask: why does the issuance of this warrant make Israel more evil?

[Randal]

why does the issuance of this warrant make Israel more evil?

It doesn’t, really. It’s like when Trump got indicted, it didn’t make him more of a crook than he already was. But it supported the case that he is one.

So I agree with you, in retrospect, Israel was already more evil than Syria. But now we know for sure.

I normally just put blatant and unapologetic racists on ignore, but for some reason I haven’t with you.

Probably because you realize deep down that I’m not a racist, blatant and unapologetic or otherwise. Which is the same place that Eugene ended up. He recognizes that there’s a lot of room for criticism of Israel that doesn’t imply racist motives. They’re at war, and not everyone is on their side. If you were on Russia’s side against Ukraine, I wouldn’t call you a racist (although I might call you other things).

(Anyway, in case you didn’t put it all together, I still have Iran as more evil than Israel, so to the extent the war is between those two — which really, it is — I’m on Israel’s side.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I used to think that criticism of Israel wasn’t necessarily antisemitic. And of course, it’s still logically possible that it could be. What I’ve learned in the last 13 months is that you don’t actually see a lot of it. And this is the last time I’m going to read anything you say, you antisemitic buffoon.

[Randal]

Oh no, you really hurt my feelings! Anyhoo, your attitude towards those who are skeptical of Israel is only going to make people more skeptical of Israel. It's the same as how the woke left calls everyone who disagrees with their approach "racists." How effective has that been, do you feel like?

Maybe you should consider the possibility of diverse viewpoints when it comes to Israel.

[Michael P]

You're not just "skeptical of Israel". You hate Jews because they're Jewish, and so you see Israel as inherently evil.

[Krayt]

More evil than Syria!

It's like saying a dungeon is less evil because the people are so dominated nobody fights back.

[Randal]

You hate Jews because they’re Jewish, and so you see Israel as inherently evil.

Yes, tell me what I think Miphael, that always works.

Israel isn't inherently evil, it just has evil tendencies. It's been particularly evil over the last 20 years (and even more so in revent months) mainly due to malevolent leadership.

[Riva]

You forgot to add “from the river to the sea,” little Randal, just to show how you are obviously not an anti-semite but just committed to diverse viewpoints.

[Randal]

Since you mentioned it, and as I've said many times before, Israel is going to have to clear out the Palestinians from the river to the sea at this point. But just because it's necessary doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility. You think people hate Israel now, wait til it's ethnically cleansed millions of people in the name of the Lord.

[Riva]

Is that what the little anti-semite protestors/rioters mean when they chant “from the river to the sea”? Gaslighting with an antisemitic twist. You’ve outdone yourself.

[Riva]

The ICC is a disgrace. Israel and the US will treat this garbage with the utter contempt it deserves.

[ThePublius]

I agree, though I confess I don't know a lot about them. I wonder how many nations will respect and enforce their warrant? I know that idiot in Canada, Trudeau, has said he will arrest Netanyahu. He hasn't said anything about the Hamas leader, though it's pretty certain he's dead.

The U.S. and Israel are not ICC members. It could certainly raise international tensions if Bibi gets arrested somewhere, especially with Trump in office.

[dwb68]

“I am leaving the US!! But will all you racist assholes please spend your hard-earned US Dollars watching my latest [series, movie]” — some celebrity.

[SRG2]

Pam Bondi is an intelligent choice. There's no doubting her experience - unlike the perv Gaetz so widely defended by ridiculous Trump supporters - and she's 100% loyal to Trump. Trump made many pre-election promises, most of them either bullshit or impractical. But his promise to go after enemies is one he will carry out, I think, and there is every reason to suppose that Bondi will go along with it because obeying Trump will be her Prime Directive.

[Don Nico]

I expect that you're correct. She shifts the pressure to Gabbard, Hegseth, and Kennedy. I predict that Hegseth is the next one to withdraw

[Bored Lawyer]

Why do you think Hesgeth will withdraw? He's much more solid than Gaetz.

[Sarcastr0]

Sexual assault allegations aside, he's a TV host.

[Frank Drackman]

So was Reagan

[Frank Drackman]

If Shawn Duffy had withdrawn he wouldn’t have 9 kids

[Sarcastr0]

Republicans who say their personal finances are worse than a year ago just dropped 14 points

https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/trackers/us-personal-finance?crossBreak=republican

[ThePublius]

The best I can tell from that goofy graph is that it dropped 10% from Nov. 11 to Nov. 18. Is that what you mean by "just?" I think that may be due to the election results. Even before Nov. 5 the markets reflected a view that Trump would win, and surged. I bet many, including many Democrats, are feeling better about the economy with the Trump win.

[ThePublius]

This was supposed to be a reply to Sarcastr0, but I experienced some Reason comments section goofiness - again. This commenting system really sucks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ditto.

[Sarcastr0]

I bet many, including many Democrats, are feeling better about the economy with the Trump win.

The markets have been fine for like a year and a half, dude.

What this represents is Republicans lying about the economy, perhaps to include lying to themselves.

[ThePublius]

Or, Sarcastr0 lying:

Stocks soar after decisive Trump victory

[Sarcastr0]

Dow Jones over the past year

I'm hardly a financial guru, but I know enough to discard noise when thinking about personal finances.

I can never tell if you’re legit dumb or just don’t care, but either way your ‘no their finances really did get a ton better over the past 2 weeks’ is utterly, shamefully, financially illiterate.

[ThePublius]

Did stocks not soar after the election? Is that not an indicator of things to come?

I'm all in on equities now, and even as a not very knowledgable financial guy, I think it's a good move; my financial adviser agrees. Look at how the economy did during Trump's previous term.

So, where's your money? Have you made any moves since the election, or in anticipation of it?

Do you think we were better off financially under Biden?

[Absaroka]

Just FWIW: you can get a used copy of 'The Boglehead's Guide to Investing' off Amazon for under $5. It's a pretty skinny book.

You may or may not agree after reading it, but anyone saving for retirement is cheating themselves if they don't at least expose themselves to the argument (which is that low cost buy-n-hold investing has a very high probability of leaving you better off than trying to time the market).

[Commenter_XY]

^This x1,000,000

[ThePublius]

Where do you get it for under $5? It's currently about $16 on Amazon.

[Absaroka]

On the Amazon page for it, under the Kindle/Hardcover/Paperback section, I see a line of "Other used and new from $4.50".

But I looked and they lie! They aren't including shipping, which is a few bucks (not all used books at amazon add shipping, sorry I didn't check first). If you go to bookfinder.com and search by title, I see 4 copies under $8 including shipping. It's pretty common at libraries, as well.

[Commenter_XY]

Just pay the money. It is an EXCELLENT resource. I've been a Boglehead style investor for many years. That book changed my entire investment life...that is how good it is.

If you're under 50, going 100% equities is probably fine, if you plan to retire at FRA.

Sarcastr0 is wrong about a lot. He is not wrong about having some bond investments. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again. A total intermediate US Bond market index fund from Vanguard or Fidelity would be fine for your bond investment.

Location matters too: Taxable, Tax-deferred, Tax Free.

[Sarcastr0]

All in on equities does not sound great to me; I try to maintain at least some bonds hedge for all my accounts that aren't my 'lets play the market' fun money account.
But you do you.

But your portfolio didn't get a ton more secure in the last 2 weeks, I don't care what your investment mix is.

[Absaroka]

That reads like ‘we need some clicks’ journalism.

Here is a ‘growth of $10k’ chart for VTSAX (it’s a ‘Total Stock Market’ fund I could remember the ticker for). Click the ‘1Y’ (date range of last 12 months) button. What has happened since the election looks like the usual noise.

Journalists describing that noise as ‘soars’ or ‘plummets’, as journalists are wont to do, are not doing the public a service.

Investors may be happy with the election or not, but the proof isn’t in the data.

heh. We used to have a local paper that printed two daily horoscopes, side by side. I presumed it was to make the not so subtle point that horoscopes are bunk, because if you looked at the prdictions for Sagittarius or some other sign, they were frequently – indeed usually – wildly different. If you follow the Wall Street pundritry over time, you see the same pattern. The predictions of future behavior aren’t accurate, and the explanations of recent behavior are all over the map.

FWIW, the Oracle of Omaha is reported to be stockpiling cash (well, treasury bills). I don’t think he makes predictions, but he’s at least as good at it as the pundits. After all, if they could predict as well as he can, they wouldn’t be banging out copy for some rag.

(sorry, all the Wall St punditry is a pet peeve of mine)

[Jmaie]

The S&P 500 closed at 3310 the day before election day in 2020. It closed the following Friday at 3509 for a 6.0% increase. This year the S&P 500 closed at 5713 the day before election day. It closed the following Friday at 5996 for a 5.0% increase.

Take from that what you will.

Fully agreed regarding punditry. Anytime there’s a small sell off with no news. It is referred to as, “ profit-taking.”

[Jmaie]

And since we’re giving Trump the credit for market performance, subsequent to his election, we might as well give the same credit to Biden. Over that four year period the S&P 500 went up 72.6%. A bit over 14 1/2% annually, pretty good by historical standards.

I am not a Biden fan, I did not vote for him. But if we’re going to consider the presidents effect on equities, we might as well discuss actual numbers.

[ThePublius]

We have to balance them against the inflation and increase in prices of things like food and housing. Even though the inflation rate is coming down, the prices that have ratcheted up over the last four years remain high.

[Bwaaah]

It occurred to me that as administrations switch from Republican to Democrat and back, as popular but poorly justified claims get shouted around this way and that, I find myself typically NOT disappointed by the shifts of political winds. I find this despite the degree to which I disagree, often emotionally, with so many of the popular pronouncements of the times (from left and right).

To the contrary, I find a trend toward congruence between the actual movements of government and my feelings about how things should go. Why would that be?

Answer: Despite my high hopes and strong opinions, I have very low expectations for the future. In my lifetime, governmental institutions in the U.S. have been slow to change; the status quo has been its most persistent aspect.

This is rationally consistent with my belief that we have already reached, in government, some level of optimization (read: "maturity") of the [competing] interests expressed therein. I expect improvements to be few, slow in coming, and incremental in benefit. Similarly, I expect large changes to be more destructive than beneficial. (As has been said: it's easier to break than to fix; easier to destroy than create; easier to tear down than build up.)

Though our unmet needs and wants remain great, that doesn't grant us an innate ability to solve those problems (of individuals), en masse, through government, efficiently. Almost all "solutions" floated as "practical" will, in effect, produce mixed results and unintended consequences that do not satisfactorily match the projections by which they are purported to have been justified. The only concrete measure of a solution will be its cost, as a government expenditure, typically much greater than the cost justified in the plan. Valuation of benefits, however, will be a matter of endless conjecture and the designs of dreamers. Debt, ever growing, will never be too much.

For those of you who are seriously disappointed by the political winds... You are either young, or you are failing to learn from experience. If you are seriously disappointed and politically active, I think your unrealistic expectations fuel some of the most destructive forces in politics and in culture.

High expectations? Low tolerance for slow progress? Seriously disappointed? Loud? It doesn't look to me like you are grasping the problem(s) in any pragmatic sense. These problems are much more difficult to solve than you purport. Try to learn from experience.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bwaaah — You overlooked a great advantage of the remedy you praise—to learn by experience. I could not agree more that as a measure of political outcomes, experience is preferable to ideology.

The overlooked advantage is that costs inflicted by political experiments, and measured by experience, can be recognized, compared to objectives, and ended if experience shows the experiments fall short. Even if great political successes are less common than failed experiments, the successes can be exploited perpetually, or at least until they no longer serve.

A political success such as Social Security more than offsets costs generated by a host of failed experiments properly abandoned because they did not deliver. Political tendencies to demonize policy experiments are thus pernicious.

Those tendencies seek to disarm capacity to respond constructively to continuous change. Human ingenuity being what it is, the supply of baleful change expands if the powerful get shielded from political experiments to offset their schemes.

[Bwaaah]

It would be nice if government social projects were run with the culture and discipline of “experimentation.” But alas, that is not the nature of the enterprise. There is typically no measurable theory of performance advanced, no method of program performance measurement, no planned evaluation phase in which a determination is made of success or failure.

Government programs are rarely experiments. More typically, they are just funded measures. Under almost all circumstances, interested parties will seek to renew funding of those measures, regardless of their performance.

The spirit of science and experimentation are wrongly applied here. Most government programs are animated by people seeking to take other people’s money to use for their own preferred purposes (either as program employees or as beneficial recipients). It’s not an experiment, and it’s not animated by people who are oriented toward a culture of improvement. It is mainly just resource reappropriation with little attention to performance, especially vis-a-vis return-on-cost.

Your theory of experimentation describes the exceptional government program, not the typical one. Please correct your perspective to account for the prevailing ways stuff is actually done. They’re not experiments. They’re appropriations.