Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Well the House and the Senate finally passed a stripped down continuing resolution Friday, and someone in the Whitehouse signed it.

But to get it done Elon and the Republicans insisted the bill be cut from 1500 pages to 150 which left a lot of things out.

One of the things left out was kids cancer funding, here's the story from the Bulwark:
Elon Killed the Budget Deal. Cancer Research for Kids Was Collateral Damage.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/elon-musk-killed-budget-deal-children-cancer-funding-collateral-damage

MSNBC said:
Under GOP bill, funding for pediatric cancer research was cast aside

Newsweek:
Funding for pediatric cancer research removed from spending bill

Heartbreaking, except it was a setup.

The House actually passed the bill, to fund the Gabriella Miller pediatric cancer research bill back in March. But Schumer and the Senate sat on it. It was then included in the 1500 page porkulus along with disaster relief so nobody could vote against the 1500 page bill without being a monster.

Well the 150 page bill without the pediatric cancer spending was passed and all the news stories came out like the ones above.

But then it was pointed out on X, and Elon retweeted it, that the bill had already passed the House, the senate merely needed to vote on the bill and it would be funded, the Senate then voted on it and it passed.

So who is the biggest monster, the GOP for stripping it from the continuing resolution, or Schumer, McConnell, Johnson and Jeffries, for trying to use it as leverage to pass their 1500 page backroom deal?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so it goes. Lying liars gotta lie.
Meanwhile those same outlets are the ones that told us that Biden was sharp as a tack and anything to the contrary was a MAGA (heir to Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy) lie.

[Martinned2]

Coincidentally they also left out anything that might stop US citizens from investing in Musk's new factory in China.

[Mr. Bumble]

Giving new meaning to Omnibus?

[Brett Bellmore]

Was that even in the original 1500 pages of pork?

[Sarcastr0]

Assuming it musta been pork is about your speed these days.

You could look into it...Kevin Drum took a look, if you want to start somewhere...or you could just declare victory and go home.

[Michael P]

And handwaving at a non-argument is entirely your speed these years.

[Sarcastr0]

I noted that Brett assumed it was all pork. Burden is on him to establish that.

That's an argument.

I hope this helps you in your quest to one day write a responsive comment.

[Joe_dallas]

Suffering from both TDS and Brett derangement syndrome

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche has been reduced to trolling Brett; and poorly at that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"handwaving "

I also love how he always waves Kevin Drum around as some sort of objective truth-teller.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha I thankful he gets plenty of things wrong.

Why I like about him is he does the work. In this case of what exactly the change in the CR bills were.

That isn’t opinion. That’s facts. I’m not appealing to his authority, I’m pointing out where you can go if you care about backing your assertions up with facts.

You understand the difference?

[Life of Brian]

Haha I thankful he gets plenty of things wrong.

So am I -- every time I work through one of his half-truthy-handwaving-thinly-disguised-as-careful-analysis pieces it makes it that much easier to dismiss him out of hand as a hyperpartisan tool.

Why I like about him is he does the work.

Case in point: his post on this issue basically just says "CBO didn't score Tuesday's bill so there's no way to know, but I bet the final bill didn't cost any less!" If you consider that "doing the work," that explains a great deal right there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"half-truthy-handwaving-thinly-disguised-as-careful-analysis pieces"

1500 page bill so he selects a handful of facts and reaches some conclusion. Its gussied up opinion .

[Kazinski]

Nobody knew what was in it because the 1500 pages wasn't released until just a day before the scheduled vote.

That should make it automatically voted down.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, Brett could read it now. But he didn’t. Nor should he. But then he shouldn’t post like he knows what is in it.

[Kazinski]

Why should he read it now, its dead?

He's probably got shopping to do, pressents to wrap, and traffic to sit in.

He could read Grok's summary on X:

https://x.com/GavinElwes/status/1869868619049373835?t=eymqFylYRjY-6fTO2pp9zg&s=19

[Brett Bellmore]

Got the gifts all purchased, but, yes, some wrapping and sitting in traffic.

[Sarcastr0]

Nor should he is what I said.

We all agree.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz, this will come up again in March, in the middle of Senate confirmation hearings. It is a poison pill. The antidote? Use those Team R majorities to set a new debt limit, on Jan 21. Buy some time and give yourself some breathing room, say a year. You don't want to deal with the debt limit in March 2025.

Then move on to taxes, deportation of illegal aliens, and right-sizing the DC federal bureaucracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Return to passing regular appropriation bills; something that hasn't been done in almost 30 years.

[Commenter_XY]

Do that in the 120th Congress.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never put off until tomorrow.....

[Commenter_XY]

Mr. Bumble, I would like you to consider something. The 119th Congress with a Team R majority will be in existence just 730 calendar days, or ~440 business days, or ~300 legislative session days. There isn't much time to futz away.

The upshot: Do the quick vote and neutralize that debt ceiling issue. That other, regular appropriations, put off for a year.

There is only so much time, and then it is gone.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, the likely reason Democrats were permitted by their leadership to vote for the reduced bill only after the debt ceiling extension was removed, was exactly to make sure the debt ceiling crisis would reoccur during the early Trump administration, and eat up a lot of legislative attention at a time when Republicans desperately need to rack up wins.

[Sarcastr0]

Likely!
Another vibes-based assertion.

Could be, or maybe there was other stuff in the legislative churn that was the reason.

Or maybe you're right. And that's a pretty legit legislative tactic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, I know: You claim to believe things like this just keep happening without any planning involved.

[Sarcastr0]

In the above comment, I claim to believe nothing.

You're the one with the unsupported assertion. Pointing out it's hardly the only explanation and you need to do more work isn't a belief; it's critical thinking.

[Joe_dallas]

Gas0 still suffering from Brett derangement syndrome

[Bwaaah]

Brett: It is not longer appropriate for you to make speculative remarks when Il Douche is around. Even though you phrase them as speculation, and they are typically consistent with related facts, Il Douche reads them as statements of fact.

Try to treat your audience as if they are retards. That way, we can have Dumbed Down Brett and Il Douche still disagreeing for any reason, because Il Douche suffers from Brett Derangement Syndrome. He's like the Feckless Stalker.

[Joe_dallas]

Bwaaah 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Il Douche reads them as statements of fact.

II douche doesnt read them as statement of facts - He is just suffering from Brett derangement syndrome.

[Sarcastr0]

Really hitting the 'derangement syndrome' hard to day, eh Joe? I count 5 times.

Just an other empty rout to attack people who point out you're regularly full of it claiming expertise across like half a dozen fields now.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 27 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Really hitting the 'derangement syndrome' hard to day, eh Joe? I count 5 times.

Yes you are suffering from serious derangement - how long has Brett been dancing in your head

[Noscitur a sociis]

I mean, Trump tried very hard and explicitly to get the debt ceiling raised in the bill, the House Republican leadership proposed a bill that would do that, and Democrats (with some Republican support) voted it down, with Democrats in the senate saying they wouldn’t let it pass if it got through the house and the White House saying the president would veto it. So I don’t think this requires a whole lot of mindreading.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump did try. But he’s hardly the only player here.

And it’s not hard to see why the bill that did that would be voted down as part of the negotiations to pass the CR independent of the substance of raising debt ceiling.

This is all last minute shambles. It’s chaotic. There is no need to speculate on motives for these minute by minute things when it’s tailor made to be not what it looks like.

[David Nieporent]

Return to passing regular appropriation bills; something that hasn't been done in almost 30 years.

That isn't correct; regular appropriations bills are passed every year (though often late). You might be confusing them with a "budget" — which is not even constitutionally required — which Congress has routinely not passed, but even there, 30 years is an exaggeration. (It may be 30 years since a timely budget was passed, though.)

[Josh R]

There are too many Republicans who won't vote for raisng the limit without deep cuts in spending at the same time. Those cuts aren't likely to command a majority.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why we need a balanced budget amendment: Right now, Congress has three options available to it:

1. Cut spending.
2. Raise taxes.
3. Borrow more money.

#1 causes immediate pain to one group of people.
#2 causes immediate pain to another (overlapping) group of people.
#3 causes even more pain to even more people, but at some point in the future, not immediately.

Take #3 off the table, and it becomes a fight between cutting spending and raising taxes, which is a winnable fight for opponents of perpetually increasing spending.

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps, Josh R. I would note that the entire political landscape has changed, post-election. Politicians want to be re-elected, not to become political martyrs. We haven't seen a situation where a credible threat (with billionaire financial backing) of being 'primaried' out of office has been on the table, before, either. That changes things.

The smart move for Team R is exercise that majority, do a real quick vote, and neutralize the issue for a year. They don't have a lot of legislative time to waste on this.

[Josh R]

Based on what happened last week, there are 34 House Republicans who aren't afraid of being primaried.

[David Nieporent]

If there were a "Team R," sure. But the GOP is deeply split on the issue. Cultists only care about helping Trump, but there are actual deficit hawks who won't agree to raise the debt limit unless they get some cuts in exchange.

[Commenter_XY]

David, politicians are malleable. They will 'change their mind as facts change' or 'evolve their view'. We both know that.

Team R, historically, has been incompetent. Team D has always been much more unified.

Perhaps Team R will up the political competence level. I kind of doubt it.

[David Nieporent]

Team R, historically, has been incompetent. Team D has always been much more unified.

You understand that Democrats say exactly the opposite, right? Team R has always been much more unified, while Team D — well, as Will Rogers supposedly said, "I don't belong to any organized party; I'm a Democrat."

[Commenter_XY]

I know...I find it hysterically funny = You understand that Democrats say exactly the opposite, right?

[David Nieporent]

As one who is on neither team, I find you both silly.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

There is no such thing as "deep spending cuts". 80% of the budget is "mandatory spending".

It's all lies and theater. Nothing out of Washington DC for the past 30 years has been truthful.

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't need deep spending cuts to balance the budget, although we should go for them anyway. All we really need are very modest spending cuts, followed by a spending freeze. In nominal dollars, none of this adjusting for inflation.

But without a balanced budget amendment, the political incentives just aren't there to do anything about deficits until they blow up in our face.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

if $2T deficits didn't blow up in anyone's face, nothing will.

They're going to spend this way to oblivion.

[David Welker]

Liberal rhetoric that conservatives are monsters is much less effective now that people hear from both sides.

Obviously, just pass the bill as a stand alone item.

It should be pointed out that Senate rules need to be reformed. Rand Paul objecting to a bill should matter a whole lot less.

[Martinned2]

Yes, voters are famously understanding and nuanced about politicians who don't want to cure pediatric cancer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which is why the media are generally concealing who was responsible for that: Schumer, by refusing to allow a vote on the stand alone bill.

I think we should probably give each member 1 or more "can force a prompt up/down vote on just one bill" cards, that they can exercise any time they want.

[David Welker]

To be clear, I don't think Schumer is substantive against funding for pediatric cancer either.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think he was opposed to it, he just didn't want it more than he wanted leverage to enact an omnibus bill laden with a thousand plus pages of crap that couldn't pass on its own.

[Sarcastr0]

The Senate not voting on a bill that was going to be included in a CR may not have been an evil Schumer plan; it may have just been logistics.

[Michael P]

May!

[Sarcastr0]

May no, Michael.

Note the burden there - I'm pointing out Brett hasn't met his.

[Michael P]

Maybe you should go back and read what he actually wrote, instead of making yet another straw man to complain about. Your shtick is really tedious.

[Sarcastr0]

He confidently imputes a motive to Schumer with no support, Michael. You're not new here; you know his schtick.

[Michael P]

Where did he do that? The comment you originally responded to just said "refused", which doesn't "impute[] a motive".

[Sarcastr0]

Schemer’s responsibility is Brett making up an intentionality that is not established.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you mean Senator Schemer?

[Michael P]

Won't Gaslight0 be shocked when he finds out that negligence gives rise to all kinds of criminal culpability, not only moral and political responsibility?

[Sarcastr0]

Criminal responsibility? You gonna defend Brett’s thesis you need to stick to Brett’s thesis.

Lots of but for causes. Beyond that, we know nothing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert your standard of evidence for this alleged schmear against Schumer is insurmountable.

Which is why you insist on your sealioning.

[Michael P]

No, Gaslight0, I merely pointed out that you yet again pulled some position out of your ass because you aren't capable of arguing against what was actually written. Moreover, not only can we hold people morally and politically accountable without an intention to achieve the specific outcome, we can hold them criminally accountable -- so even if you were right about what Brett wrote (you're not), your argument still fails on its own terms.

[tylertusta]

It takes an unbelievable amount of foresight for Senate Democrats to know it's better to withhold a bill for 10 months because they planned on including it in a last-minute continuing resolution.

[Brett Bellmore]

It hardly took a lot of foresight to know in advance when the existing continuing resolution would expire, and they've been playing this game over and over for years now.

All that happened is that an effective counter is finally available.

[tylertusta]

You give Democrats too much credit. If they planned this, they wouldn't have used a pediatric cancer provision that the House already passed.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

lol wow, "just logistics" why they sit on a simple bill for 6 months.

You are a sick and twisted gaslighting individual.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know, and neither does Brett.
That is the point.

You're even worse - you don't know or care. You're just here for the passion. Like Sartre's antisemite.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Your reactionary defense of everything Democrat or State isn't passion? What is it? Pathological bootlicking? Crazed worshiping of elites? Some fanatical State Serf duty of yours?

It doesn't take a lot thinking of conclude the politics of this action. Just be empirical look at the evidence, consider who benefits, and draw conclusions and compare to past patterns.

You seem to be a stickler for precision and breadth/depth of evidence when it comes to anything that may besmirch a Democrat elite or Govie.

But you have none of the same standards in the other direction.

That's what makes you the worse of everyone here. Not only do you lie, have no integrity, gaslight, bootlick, and idealize politicians, you're also a one-sided hypocrite poseur. Just like not guilty.

Both of you put on airs, but both of you are partisan pieces of garbage.

[Sarcastr0]

Plenty I don't defend. I don't think the government is great and free of waste, and I say so often.
Or I agree that it violated the 1A.

You just don't see it because you're so blinded by your grudges.

It doesn't take a lot thinking of conclude the politics of this action. Just be empirical look at the evidence, consider who benefits, and draw conclusions and compare to past patterns.
Post hoc justification for fan fiction.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

It's fan fiction that politicians stuff critical funding into larger bills as leverage for passage?

Is the inverse, the "poison pill", also just fan fiction?

>Plenty I don't defend. I don't think the government is great and free of waste, and I say so often.

I loved your justification about governmental completing it's takeover of healthcare. Not for better health outcomes, but for equity. In essence, not just death panels, but racist death panels.

Sure, you're not a pathological bootlicking Statist... lol get a mirror dude.

[Sarcastr0]

I like evidence for everything. I am certain I have some double standards in my critical thinking for stuff I like to believe and stuff I don't. But I at least make an effort.

You, on the other hand, have proudly posted that you don't make any effort.

I have no idea what I said about healthcare; you regularly say I said stuff and then have to pull a 'you didn't say that, but nevertheless...'

Even if responding to you is a good platform to discuss stuff I think others might find interesting, I find your personal targeting of me concerning.
I'm going to put you on mute. You're shitposting energy is amusing to knock down, but it's into something presents a risk of doxxing I do not care for.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>you regularly say I said stuff and then have to pull a 'you didn't say that, but nevertheless...'

Something, which of course you have no evidence for.

>I like evidence for everything

Except for your beliefs and claims, naturally.

You tell yourself that so you don't have to face up to your incessant sealioning.

Your Schick is so common there is a term for it.

Thats how unoriginal you are. You're a living stereotype.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I am certain I have some double standards in my critical thinking for stuff I like to believe and stuff I don't. But I at least make an effort."

Lol.

[David Welker]

The argument that is being made that some politicians do not desire to cure pediatric cancer.

But that argument is generally denied by those accused.

If you are going to be against huge omnibus bills, that means you are going to be against bills that sometimes contain provisions you favor (as well as ones you do not favor).

Trying to turn a procedural objection (against omnibus bills) into a substantive objection (against funding for pediatric cancer) is just partisan propaganda. And it is a less effective sort of propaganda than it used to be.

[Krayt]

Maybe politicians shouldn't jerk around the population by planning to include cancer research in a pork bill so as to force passage of the pork or else you want kids to die of cancer.

You go into power to be corrupt. This is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it from day one, tens of thousands of years ago.

"That stuff's not illegal!" >:(

No, it isn't, is it?

"That's horse trading and is how politics works!" >:(

No argument here.

[Krayt]

Cancer research for kids isn't something they twist arms over to get it passed. It is a club to use, by the corrupt, to get their corrupt pork passed.

In movies and shows, we have a name for those people: bad guys.

Whether they're portrayed as clownish, like the aliens in Battlefield Earth, eternally seeking "leverage!" over each other, or the depressing miasma of House of Cards, bad guys will happily pull cancer-ridden, dying kids in front of their pork like a human shield.

These are bad guys.

Stop assisting them. Stop playing their game.

[Kazinski]

Rand Paul can only object to passing a bill with unanimous consent, there are a lot of bills that are voted on without unanimous consent, it just needed to be scheduled for a vote.

[Frank Drackman]

Such Bullshit, the biggest advance in childhood cancer has been Allogenic Bone Marrow Transplants with the limiting factor being finding a matching donor, how many Congressman/Senators you think are in the registry, how many of YOU are in the registry? (and it doesn't count if you have no intention on following through and only joined to get away from work or to add to your resume) Less than 20,000 transplants a year, so your chance of getting picked is pretty slim, 28 years and I've only gotten the Golden Ticket once, still get a Christmas card from her every year (I'm too nice to tell her I'm Jewish)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Can't guilt me out for not being in the registry; I would be if not for that Lymphoma I got diagnosed with back in 2009, and cured of early the next year.

They're nuts about it: With that sort of aggressive cancer, you're either cured or you're dead, in a relatively short period of time. More than a decade later, I'm no more of a cancer risk for transplant than anybody else. (Less, actually, for some cancers, thanks to the chemo.) But no organ donation, no blood donation, they won't even take my plasma.

Plenty of actual risk factors get treated more casually than that.

[jimc5499]

Been on the Registry a long time. Co-worker's Son had Cancer. The Company paid for anyone who volunteered to be tested and added to the Registry. You did a good thing. Thank you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The country is broke, we are spending more on interest on our existing debt than we are spending for national defense -- there are a lot of good and noble things that WE SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE MONEY FOR...

[Brett Bellmore]

The other side thinks that's nonsense as long as anybody is still willing to loan us money, or use our currency for anything more than wiping their ass. They genuinely believe that what can't go on WILL go on.

Because it's gone on so far, after all.

[Sarcastr0]

In the past you've said you understand why sovereign debt isn't like personal debt. This seems like you don't.

The issues debt causes do not include that we'll run out of people who want to loan us money.

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand why it's not entirely like personal debt. I also understand why it's not magically entirely unlike personal debt.

"The issues debt causes do not include that we'll run out of people who want to loan us money."

Yes, that's the fantasy, that no matter how high our debt becomes relative to our capacity to pay the interest, people will always be willing to loan us more money, so it will go on forever.

It's just a fantasy indulged in by people who simply don't want to stop the spending spree.

[Sarcastr0]

What people do you think currently finance our debt, Brett?

They do exist but they are’t like a bank.

[bernard11]

Brett,

I think there is some validity to your concerns, but you've been panicking about them for ten years or more.

The fact is that no one is suddenly going to stop lending. What can happen is that the market will demand higher and higher interest rates. That doesn't mean we should wait until we're paying the rates Greece was paying not too many years ago, but it does mean we are not in a catastrophic situation today.

Nor do we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. It's a terrible idea. Governments need to borrow. We need to move fiscal policy away from partisan politics based more on ideology than arithmetic or common sense.

[Life of Brian]

The fact is that no one is suddenly going to stop lending.

Probably not "suddenly" I agree, but at some point it seems like the broader happy-go-lucky attitude has to yield to simple math.

The first quick source I landed (happy to see others if you feel this is way off) estimates total global wealth at just over $400T.

Even if half of that is liquid enough to be lendable and everyone behind it were inclined to do so, we're already in hock for a brain-bending 15% of that, and currently growing it by ~1% a year.

Why again do global investors choose to continue to throw money into the black hole of our upside-down financial position ad infinitum? Higher interest rates don't seem like a sustainable answer -- they just make us even more upside down from debt service, and bring us to the end game faster.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, my concern is that with consistent deficits, rising interest rates form a positive feedback loop - you pay more in interest, so you borrow more to pay the higher interest, thus putting upward pressure on interest rates, thus costing more in interest on the debt you are rolling over, thus...

IMHO, we've been spending like interest rates were going to be 1% forever. But I'm old enough to remember 10 year treasuries over 15%.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the right concern - debt financing is at some point inflationary.

It's a nonlinear effect and not at all easy to predict when it kicks in in a material way.

But it will kick in - as you noted, a positive feedback loop is present, and a devil of a thing to deal with once truly locked in.

That's why the MMT folks are wrong - they think debt is like a lever with inflation on this side and employment on the other. Reductive to the point of basically just being wishful thinking.

But there's a lot of room between 'our debt can be infinite' and 'our debt requires radical changes right this instant.'

[SimonP]

It's become apparent that Elon opposed the bill so much because it could hurt his interests in China.

The page count reduction didn't relate to a material reduction in spending. A lot of it was legislation relating to PBMs.

In case you were unaware, PBMs are middlemen for accessing prescription drugs that derive profits from mark-ups protected by anti-competitive practices. They're currently unregulated by the federal government, and state efforts to regulate it are frequently challenged as preempted by (silent) federal law. It's a mess, and an area where uniform, national legislation is needed.

So, good job rubes. Elon got you all fanned up and now declaring victory over a page count. But you don't have a win on spending and you're getting hosed on your prescriptions still.

[Joe_dallas]

SimonP 18 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"It's become apparent that Elon opposed the bill so much because it could hurt his interests in China."

Trump derangement syndrome and Musk derangement syndrome.
Musk's influence got the bill shut down because it was a bad bill full of pork.
What ever good peices of legislation that was in the bill can be passed as a separate bill

[SimonP]

The only "derangement" happening here is your complete shutdown of any independent critical thinking, on your part.

Go look for some reputable reporting - not Musk tweets - on what was excised from the final bill. Most of its length was due to substantive legislation unrelated to spending, so the reduction in page count is a red herring. The debt limit extension pushes out that fight just to March of next year.

[Joe_dallas]

Reputable reporting from who ? MSM? who told us the pediaric cancer bill was killed in the final CR bill yet who failed to mention it was passed in the house but Schumer had the senate sit on it for the last 6-8 months.

The left's concept of reptuable reporting is a joke.

[SimonP]

If you can't think of a reputable news source that you can rely on, apart from Musk's tweets, then I think you may have a problem.

[Joe_dallas]

SimonP - You are the one that got fooled by msm's omissions -

Who cares if it was a Musk tweet - At least the tweet was factually correct unlike the msm that you relied and the rest of the leftist rely on.

[SimonP]

I haven't said anything about the "pediatric cancer bill," if that's what you're referring to. And the "omission" in question seems to be... of who you'd prefer to blame?

[Joe_dallas]

just one of the multitude of omissions from the msm

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I for one appreciate that you keep your comments shorter now, and void of anything even resembling an actual argument or facts.

That should give you plenty more time to go fuck yourself, and maybe get that high school education to which you so often refer as the source of all your profound knowledge.

[Brett Bellmore]

TDS has metastasized, it has now become "opposition derangement syndrome."

They're trying this new line that Musk is really President, and Trump is his figurehead, but it's not getting any traction outside the fever swamps of the left.

Which admittedly does include most of the MSM...

[SimonP]

I'd explain the point behind the rhetoric, Goober, but I realize you strangely idolize the Musk-rat, so it would be futile to do so.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or the alternative is that you can't explain shit.

[SimonP]

No, Bumbler. I'm just trying to be more efficient with my use of time. Goober has established to my satisfaction that engaging with him meaningfully is a net loss.

More to the point: No one seriously thinks Musk is "president." The rhetoric is intended to provoke Trump and inspire a schism, while at the same time summarizing for the American people that the people that voters chose to run the country are out-of-touch billionaires just looking out for themselves.

As I noted upthread, the actually-passed CR didn't meaningfully reduce spending and pushed out the debt limit fight for only a few months. The main "wins" from stopping the earlier version and going forward with the shorter version are just: protecting Elon's interests in China and axing PBM legislation, which impacts everyone in this country with prescription coverage under their insurance plans.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say that given the reduction by at least 1400 pages, there were probably a lot of "wins".

Starting with ditching the provision immunizing everybody involved in the J6 committee.

[SimonP]

The stupidity of your comments has increased as of late.

[David Nieporent]

Starting with ditching the provision immunizing everybody involved in the J6 committee.

Holy shit, they amended the constitution?!?

[bernard11]

I would say that given the reduction by at least 1400 pages, there were probably a lot of "wins".

Have you looked at what was removed? Or are you just using a terrible metric to claim "victory?" with no idea of the substance of want was removed?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm using a reasonable metric: When you need to rush a vote on something before people have a chance to read it, it's crap. No reasonable bill has ever been negotiated in secret for months, and then released a couple days before the vote is scheduled.

[SimonP]

Except for the Trump tax cuts, of course.

[Commenter_XY]

What exactly are those Chinese interests of Elon Musk that are being protected? Are there German interests of Elon Musk being protected, too?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you admit that you're too retarded to search the internet?

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-china-continuing-resolution-budget-deal-proposal-2004103

[Commenter_XY]

The article accurately states Tesla, a publicly traded company in the S&P500, has a factory in China. And that Tesla intends to build another plant in China to meet Chinese domestic demand. Tesla are the #2 manufacturer of EVs in China.

How are Elon Musk's chinese interests being protected by the CR that passed, Jason? Your cite doesn't say.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The article answers why Musk was against the original bill in the first four paragraphs.

Try to be less retarded.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, you've said the reeducation camps were coming for years and years.

Funny you would dress this up as a new thing after Trump.

[Brett Bellmore]

You are constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between things I've said, and things your mental model of me would have said. You can't even reliably do that with my actual words right in front of you.

[Sarcastr0]

What? Everyone on here knows about you predicting the camps of the Dems win at least the last 3 elections.

[Bwaaah]

You can't even use the word "everyone" with legitimate meaning.

BDS...Brett Derangement Syndrome.

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche thinks he is "everyone".

[Life of Brian]

The page count reduction didn't relate to a material reduction in spending. A lot of it was legislation relating to PBMs.

Curious what your threshold is for "a lot of it" -- I'm seeing less than 10%.

The original 1547 page bill is here.

The PBM section (actually the entire "lowering prescription drug costs" section containing the PBM provisions) runs from pages 833-937. That's 105 pages out of the ~1325 stripped from the final as-passed legislation.

As I noted last week, the original bill contained a tremendous amount of the Dems' final wishlist of pet projects/programs/policies/generalized swelling of the bureaucratic machine -- that's amply evident just from reading through the TOC. Stripping all that nonsense out of a supposed emergency keep-the-lights-on bill is most certainly a good thing.

[Kazinski]

Why put it in a 1500 page bill that nobody, including the members can read until the day before the vote if its so important?

Put it in a standalone bill and allow it to be debated, it hardly seems necessary to put it in a stopgap spending bill funding the entirety of government.

[mulched]

PBM rules sound like a great candidate for normal legislation, not something jammed into a CR.

[jb]

Wait, if it was irrelevant whether the cancer spending was included in the bill, then why did Johnson include it in the first pass, and why bother taking it out of the new bill?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Our Navy is so woke that not only can they not manage to run into other ships, but now they are shooting down their own planes.
Yep, the USS Valley Forge shot down a F/A22 on Saturday, injuring both aviator who had to eject.

Question, do you get a Purple Heart if it's a sexually confused USN sailor who shot you?

Trump has some housecleaning to do.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be an F/A 18 Super Hornet.
A full investigation is underway per the USN. Hahahahaha.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, F/A 18 -- my bad.

[Frank Drackman]

why not just say "An Airplane Thingie"??, it was an FA-18F AKA a "Super Hornet"
at least you got the "Aviator" part (partially) right, the Front Seat is a Naval Aviator (AKA Pilot) the GIB (Guy/Gal in Back) is a "Naval Flight Officer", you know, "Goose" in Top Gun, or once in a while, a "Naval Flight Surgeon". Very rare for an Aviator/Pilot to ride in the back, most Super Hornets don't have flight controls in the Aft Cockpit (except for the Ejection Seat handle), and Aviators/Pilots hate that

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know about RIOs, I thought that everyone who aviated, i.e. was flying around in those multi-million dollar thingies, was entitled to be called an aviator.

And wouldn't it be a nice scandal if they shot down a girl.

But please answer my question -- both sailors were injured from the ejection, do they qualify for purple hearts even though it was friendly fire?

[Brett Bellmore]

"The PH is awarded in the name of the President of the United States and per 10 USC 1131, effective 19 May 1998, is limited to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under component authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded, was killed, or who has died or may hereafter die of wounds received under any of the following—

In any action against an enemy of the United States.

In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

As the result of an act of any such enemy of opposing Armed Forces.

As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

After 28 March 1973, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

After 28 March 1973, as the result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

Service members who are killed or wounded in action by friendly fire. In accordance with 10 USC 1129 for award of the PH, the Secretary of the Army will treat a member of the Armed Forces as a member who is killed or wounded in action as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States."

So, yeah.

[Frank Drackman]

Rule of Combat #47:
""Friendly" Fire isn't

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"FA-18F AKA a "Super Hornet""

Do you think they should paint a silhouette of it or a US flag on the Gettysburg's bow like WWII fighter pilots? Four more US planes shot down the ship will be an ace!

[santamonica811]

Ouch!

[Bob from Ohio]

"A full investigation is underway per the USN"

Anyone getting relieved or going before a court-martial?

Maybe the pilot who was shot down can bomb the Gettysburg. Only fair.

[Commenter_XY]

Hard to believe that the USN has been defeated frustrated for 18 months by pirates wearing turbans who shoot missiles we cannot stop and drive motorboats we cannot sink. The Suez Canal is shut down, more or less. That affects ~15% of global maritime traffic. Considering the epic failure of the Afghanistan withdrawal, not surprising. The NatSec team around POTUS Biden is utterly incompetent.

Davey Jones is turning somewhere in his watery locker.

[Martinned2]

Out of curiosity, what is it about the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and literally dozens of other places in the last few decades that makes that surprising? You can't bomb your way to victory if the enemy already lives in caves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, you can if you're willing to collapse the caves, or completely shut down local food sources, and wait for starving people to surrender. Or send troops into said caves.

The problem here is that the US keeps getting into wars that we don't have an existential need to win. (Which is generally the only sort of war you SHOULD be getting into.) And so our leadership are willing to accept an outcome short of actually winning, often way short of it.

Accordingly, our military have adapted to the reality that they're not required to win, and so it has moved down the priority list.

The capacity of our military to win has gone the way of cave fish's eyes. All things decay if not maintained, and if a nation that does not face existential threat, its military's capacity to win decays, as it is diverted to other, politically more important goals.

[apedad]

Our military (and really our nation) has not lost its capacity to win a war.

It's simply a matter of political (and national) will.

The Afghan war was a stupid war and accomplished nothing - except to make a lot of people either dead or rich.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's easy to claim that, when we haven't won a war in decades. "We could if we really wanted to, we just can't be bothered."

[Sarcastr0]

Our victory conditions have become different than they were in WW2.

From the facts of the conflicts of choice we've chosen since then, that seems a lot more evident explanation than the military got too woke.

[Brett Bellmore]

Our 'victory conditions' have been expanded to include losing, that's all.

[Sarcastr0]

WW2 - defeat and attain the surrender of the Axis.

Korea - prevent the China-backed invasion by the communist part of Korea from overtaking the rest

Vietnam - get the country to not go communist

[lots of covert shit goes here. It tried to topple governments that might have allied with the communist bloc. They generally backfired in the long or often short term]

Gulf War 1 - keep Iraq from taking over Kuwait

Kosovo - prevent Bosnian genocide.

Afghanistan - prevent Afghanistan from being so nice to anti-US terrorist organizations.

Iraq 2 - make Iraq more democratic
---------------
IMO, the best model for these 'wars to persuade' is how we defeated ISIS. It was by working indirectly through their enemies. No occupation, no direct troop actions. It took a long time, but it seems to have largely stuck.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, they're too used to losing. It has been over 30 years since Desert Storm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Running your ships into other ships and now shooting down your own aircraft IS evidence of incompetence, unrelated to the conditions of the combat you are in.

[Sarcastr0]

Whatever, Ed. I have no idea how often accidents happen at sea, and neither do you.

You can wang on about IFF and shit, but you don't know what you're talking about.

I expect now you'll explain you spent some time as a real admiral in Massachusetts.

[David Nieporent]

Note that antisemitic conspiracy theorists have long argued that there was no way Israel could have accidentally shot the USS Liberty because it looked totally different from an Egyptian ship. But newsflash: as this shows, stupid mistakes happen.

Though I suppose I can't ignore the possibility that there will be conspiracy theories here. Maybe someone was trying to silence the pilot who was shot down because the pilot was in possession of the evidence against Hillary Clinton.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, look into "thermobaric" weapons -- which consume all the oxygen in the cave, thus killing anyone unfortunate to be inside said cave at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

They are very nasty..

[Frank Drackman]

worked with Japan and Germany

[Mr. Bumble]

Not really, unless you're only talking about "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" in Japan.

[Frank Drackman]

Dresden was on a scale with either, worse if you look at the cultural destruction.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Hard to believe that the USN has been defeated frustrated for 18 months by pirates wearing turbans who shoot missiles we cannot stop and drive motorboats we cannot sink."

If that were true, they would've destroyed our Navy entirely with those unstoppable missiles and unsinkable boats.

A safer conclusion would be that you're just an idiot.

[Commenter_XY]

When the Suez Canal resumes normal maritime traffic levels, the USN will have completed the mission. Hasn't happened. The USN simply have not stopped the piracy, which is why they are there.

You do know Egypt is taking a huge financial hit here as well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, as usual.

[Commenter_XY]

No Jason, the stated mission of the USN is to stop Houthi piracy and to re-open the Suez Canal to normal maritime traffic (~15% of the world maritime traffic once flowed through Suez).

The USN have utterly failed at this mission. The piracy continues, and the Suez has very little maritime traffic (hurting Egypt very badly, less toll revenue).

The USN forgot how to win (not counting the glorious victory over Army last week, lol).

Davey Jones is turning over in that watery locker.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"No Jason, the stated mission of the USN is to stop Houthi piracy and to re-open the Suez Canal to normal maritime traffic (~15% of the world maritime traffic once flowed through Suez)."

You don't know what their stated mission is, or the parameters of it, or the challenges, or the reality of what can be reasonably expected as a result.

As you are notorious for being a lying piece of shit, you're going to have to show your work.

[Sarcastr0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Prosperity_Guardian has been rough going, no matter how you slice it.

"On 18 December 2023, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the formation of an international maritime security force aimed at ending the blockade and countering threats by Houthi forces against international maritime commerce in the region"

But see:
"On 7 August 2024, the head of United States naval efforts in the Middle East, Vice Admiral George Wikoff stated that the American and British approach to combat the Houthis in the Red sea crisis had failed to dissuade the Houthis and stop attacks on shipping through the region, arguing that strikes and defensive efforts had done little to change the Houthis' behaviour"

I presume Commenter is blaming Biden. He's reliable that way.
He has a reductive view of the US military's role in the world. Here, it's place in the coalition, the coalition's mission, and the history of modern asymmetric warfare all add some nuance I suspect he doesn't care to understand.

Look at what the Vice Admiral's complaint is - a failure to change behavior.

Can anyone think of the last time a war succeeded in changing behavior? WW2's occupation forces I think.

[Commenter_XY]

Commenter_XY put the blame exactly where it belonged: The USN.

BTW, you still don't have the chops to make an effective argument.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You have offered nothing but your usual stupidity and ignorance, and have avoided even trying to address the criticisms of your bullshit.

You are the idiot who has failed, is failing, and will forever continue to fail at making any kind of effective argument because the topic has not yet been invented where you will have anything intelligent to say.

[Absaroka]

Is this a different incident where a missile from the USS Gettysburg shot down an F/A-18? And can you share any evidence that wokeness or gender confusion played any part in the incident? I looked at Fox and the NYPost, who I would expect to mention a factor like that, and they aren't reporting what you are saying, so I'm curious what your source is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IF the USN had spent more time on target identification and proper use of IFF protocol (DID the F/A 18 *have* a WORKING IFF?) instead of gender confusion and group gropes, this would not have happened.

[Absaroka]

"this would not have happened"

Confidence: 100%
Evidence: ??

'Friendly fire isn't' has been a thing since long before wokeness.

[tylertusta]

Dr Ed is confused. There was no shootdown of a "F/A22" by a "USS Valley Forge."

[David Nieporent]

Dr Ed is confused.

Evergreen statement.

[tylertusta]

Yep, the USS Valley Forge shot down a F/A22 on Saturday, injuring both aviator who had to eject.

This hurts my brain on so many levels.

[jb]

I guess the whole woke thing must have started under Reagan, if that's what causes the Navy to shoot down the wrong airplane in the Middle East.

[jimc5499]

It was an F/A-18. It happens. In 1987 an Navy F-14 shot down an Air Force RF-4C in the Med. Both of the crew were recovered. The Pilot had minor injuries, while the RIO ended up with debilitating back injuries.
The Pilot of the F-14 was found at fault and lost his wings. The funny thing is that the Obama Administration tried to promote him to Admiral.
I was on leave in the U.K. when this happened. I was thrown off of Mildenhall AFB over this. The RF-4C was based there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Speaking of Trump, what is to prevent him from issuing a bounty on illegal aliens?

Say offering $500 for every male illegal (over the age of 18) who is turned in at any border crossing or port? He doesn't want to even know how you got the illegal there, and the illegal has to be illegal, but it's like bounty hunters, whatever you do is between you and whatever state(s) you do it in.

At least offer this deal in state where the state is unwilling to cooperate with ICE, e.g. California, Massachusetts, etc.

If bounty hunting is legal, than this would be as well.

And imagine what this would do psychologically to the in-your-face illegals. There are a lot of people who could make a good living at $500/per and in the Biden economy, would be quite willing to do so.

It would give a whole new meaning to the term "Shanghied."

[Martinned2]

The constitution. Specifically, the due process clause. Next question.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The same Constitution that permits bounty hunting?
What about the old "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters?

I don't remember Bonnie & Clyde getting a trial...

[Commenter_XY]

DE2, I don't often agree with M2, but he has this one right.

You'd break a lot of laws, probably, attempting your citizen's arrest. And BTW, you might get yourself killed trying to make the citizen's arrest. So don't. ICE can handle it.

Tom Homan has promised to deliver massive deportations of illegal aliens. I am skeptical. By the end of Q1 2025, we'll see if Homan was just talking a big game, or not. That is 90 days away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, "citizen's arrest" IS legal in the US, (In most states at the state level, I don't know about a federal doctrine.) the catch being that,

1. You generally need to have witnessed the crime.

and,

2. You'd damned well better be right.

[Commenter_XY]

There is a #3, Brett. That you can physically restrain the 'perp' and not get your ass beat, or killed. Very unwise to overlook that. 😉

[Brett Bellmore]

True, true. But collecting a bounty? Usually modern bounties are for "information leading to the arrest", not for THE arrest.

[Commenter_XY]

Just theoretically....leaving aside the moral implications.

In theory, a state could pass a law to authorize a bounty to collect illegal aliens and bring them to a central location for processing, and payment. The states, using their police power, have this authority; the Feds do not.

True or false.

(Yes, I know there would be extreme liability for a bounty hunter to make a mistake, just asking the theoretical question if a state could actually do it).

[Brett Bellmore]

You run into the same problem with the bounty that you do with the direct enforcement: That the supremacy clause has been interpreted by the courts to apply to executive branch policy, even policy of refusing to enforce federal laws.

So states aren't allowed to enforce laws that would have the effect of frustrating a President's decision to NOT enforce a federal law.

At least, so Arizona was told.

[Drewski]

I see you've discovered the concept of preemption. Good job! It isn't in fact a vast conspiracy to suppress the states.

[Moderation4ever]

You are right here, and a person might want to consider the fate of Travis and Gregory McMichael who are spending their lives in prison for their attempt at a citizen's arrest. They killed Ahmaud Arbery in the process.

[Brett Bellmore]

That entirely depends on what you have to do to get the bounty, doesn't it?

If all you have to do is locate an illegal, and pass on enough information to catch them, not particularly unconstitutional.

[tylertusta]

You can offer rewards for tips leading to an arrest/conviction already.

What in the Constitution prevents a reward for a deportation?

[Josh R]

What statute authorizes the executive branch to offer a bounty?

[Brett Bellmore]

The same one that authorizes DACA, I assume.

[Sarcastr0]

Prioritizing resources is not the equivalent of spending on a whole new program you made up.

Ed is nuts. You don’t need to go there.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but DACA was a whole new program they made up, and did involve spending, if only to administer, so what's your point?

[Sarcastr0]

I looked up the authority cited by the DACA rulemaking 8 CFR § 236.21.

It cites 6 USC § 202(5):
"The Secretary shall be responsible for the following:
...
(5)Establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities."

Enforcement policies and priorities on it's fact includes deferred action.
It does to include establishing out of whole cloth an unauthorized bounty program.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, enforcement policies include a policy of not enforcing...

Unhappily for Somin, it also includes a policy of enforcing, with a lot less tortured language.

[Sarcastr0]

"(1) Deferred action is an exercise of the Secretary's broad authority to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities under 6 U.S.C. 202(5) and section 103 of the Act.
It is a form of enforcement discretion not to pursue the removal of certain aliens for a limited period in the interest of ordering enforcement priorities in light of limitations on available resources, taking into account humanitarian considerations and administrative convenience.
It furthers the administrability of the complex immigration system by permitting the Secretary to focus enforcement on higher priority targets. This temporary forbearance from removal does not confer any right or entitlement to remain in or reenter the United States. A grant of deferred action under this section does not preclude DHS from commencing removal proceedings at any time or prohibit DHS or any other Federal agency from initiating any criminal or other enforcement action at any time."

You don't know how the INA's discretion works and you have no interest in learning.
You'd rather just make shit up over and over.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Does it appropriate monies for new spending associated with it?

[Sarcastr0]

Appropriation is not authorization.

Absent some specific direction or forbiddance, when Congress ratifies a part of the President's Budget Request, the associated agency generally has authority to determine spending priorities within parameters of the request.
I'm not going to dig into USCIS's appropriations, but I would guess there's plenty of general program dollars for use in administering the department's execution of the Secretary's priorities within the authority authorized by Congress.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

You do science policy, allegedly, can you come up with a policy that confers positive benefits to citizens or non-citizens that is also funded out of your agencies general fund under the color of enforcement discretion?

Like, as part of not enforcing action against NIH grant fraudsters, confer to these same fraudsters new benefits and new spending?

[Sarcastr0]

Grants authority is explicitly for spending on items for the public good.
As opposed to contracting authority which is to procure goods and services for government use.

There are already requirements to report research progress and policies about ensuring research integrity.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

>"(1) Deferred action is an exercise of the Secretary's broad authority to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities under 6 U.S.C. 202(5) and section 103 of the Act.
It is a form of enforcement discretion not to pursue the removal of certain aliens for a limited period in the interest of ordering enforcement priorities in light of limitations on available resources, taking into account humanitarian considerations and administrative convenience

Where is the explicit authority for spending money for the benefits that come with the deferred action?

I understand the part about discretion. I don't understand the part about funding the benefits that DACA also confers.

[Sarcastr0]

You appear to be making a distinction between authorization and authority to spend.

There is no distinction. Money appropriated to an agency is presumed to be in support of authorized activities.

You don’t get two bites at the apple.

[John F. Carr]

The Attorney General has some authority to offer rewards. The U.S. just cancelled the $10 million offer for the de facto leader of Syria.

The Attorney General has essentially unlimited authority to look the other way when federal crimes are committed.

[CountmontyC]

Use a variation of how we reward people who report tax cheaters with the difference being reporting illegal aliens who are employed. Even $100 per illegal alien could add up quickly if you report a company that has 50 illegal aliens employed there. Then fine the employer for hiring the illegal aliens.

[Brett Bellmore]

Slight change: Make it payable only for the first to report, and the illegal aliens themselves qualify, and get the money and a temporary deferral of deportation. Size it so that the money, (Paid for from a fine on the employer.) is enough to support you for that period.

So you can stay in the US so long as you keep reporting anybody who hires you.

[Commenter_XY]

Why fine the employer...imprison them.

If you really want to change behavior, start imprisoning the exploiters who hire illegal aliens.

[David Nieporent]

Again: they're not exploiters. Weird how people nominally on the right are endorsing Marxist rhetoric.

[Commenter_XY]

Does a 'John' exploit the prostitute, David?

The owner of a business who knowingly hires illegal aliens is absolutely an exploiter (of human labor). And a societal vandal, to boot.

[David Nieporent]

Does a 'John' exploit the prostitute, David?

Only if he fails/refuses to pay.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of Trump, what is to prevent him from issuing a bounty on illegal aliens?

The fact that he's way too cheap?

Oh, wait, you meant with government money? What statutory authority allows him to spend money on that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

While reporting Crystal Mangum's recantation, CNN parrots left wing propaganda mascaraing as social science, claiming that false accusations have been shown to be uncommon.

Of course, there is no way to know this, but the studies they use don't establish that a single accusation in their data is true, so the data is consistent with false reporting rates of around 5-100%.

This type of propaganda rightly reduces true people have in what is reported as science.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently CNN has never heard of E. Jean Carroll.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your comment doesn't establish that any of it is 'propaganda,' and instead does establish that you call things propaganda when you're too dumb to understand them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. How does the study establish that false reporting rates are low, as opposed to establishing a floor of 5% or so? (Which really doesn't say anything?)

[Brett Bellmore]

What suggests that false reporting rates are high is the high rate of prosecutors declining to prosecuted reported 'rapes' after investigating. Only about 2.5% of rape allegations result in a prosecution.

The (Paywalled) study referenced above probably refuses to count something as a false accusation unless it can affirmatively be proven false, leaving most of the accusations simply unproven either way, leading to the unfounded inference that the rest of the allegations were true.

Wikipedia notes this issue:

"However, estimates of false allegations are in fact estimates of proven false allegations. These are not estimates of likely, or possible, false allegations. Accordingly, estimating a false allegation rate of 5% (based on proven false allegations) does not allow an inference that 95% of allegations are truthful."

In the most rigorous investigation they found, a jurisdiction that had the resources to pursue every allegation to a conclusion, the reported false allegation rate was about 40%...

Part of the problem here, I suppose, is that women have been encouraged to regard as "rape" a lot of things that don't actually legally qualify as such, like regrets after the fact...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Thanks, I didn't notice that here is a non-paywalled version.

You are correct. Not only does the study (like most other studies of the genre) refuse to count something as a false accusation unless it can affirmatively be proven false, but it doesn't even make an attempt to independently establish accusations that are true, so the study is methodologically incapable of establishing a false reporting rate.

It's sad to see CNN parroting this garbage, but because of this type of propaganda, the claim that false accusations are rare is a truism in left wing circles.

This leads to diminished protection for the accused.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but because of this type of propaganda, the claim that false accusations are rare is a truism in left wing circles."

I think you might have the causality backwards: These sorts of flawed studies, propaganda really, are a product of the left deciding that, for ideological reasons, false rape accusations were not permitted to be a real thing. So compliant sources set out to create 'studies' to confirm that they didn't exist.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What suggests that false reporting rates are high is the high rate of prosecutors declining to prosecuted reported 'rapes' after investigating. Only about 2.5% of rape allegations result in a prosecution.

Such a statistic would suggest that only to someone who already wanted to believe it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're the one calling it propaganda; how about you step up to the plate and actually make some kind of coherent point with examples and logic?

I might as well be asking the Sun to rise in the West, but whatever. Give it your best shot and let's all be surprised.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I've done that above, as has Brett.

but the studies they use don't establish that a single accusation in their data is true, so the data is consistent with false reporting rates of around 5-100%.

the study (like most other studies of the genre) refuse to count something as a false accusation unless it can affirmatively be proven false, but it doesn't even make an attempt to independently establish accusations that are true, so the study is methodologically incapable of establishing a false reporting rate.

The study is linked above, but here

Look at table 2 in the back. Do you think that establishes a low rate of false reporting?

[Nelson]

“ Look at table 2 in the back. Do you think that establishes a low rate of false reporting?”

Yes. Hell, only about a third of cases proceeded, so it isn’t like anything was established at all. Your assumption that if it isn’t proved a rape means it was a false accusation is disgusting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your assumption that if it isn’t proved a rape means it was a false accusation is disgusting."

Wow. Disgusting is a little harsh. If I were making such an assumption, it would be unsupported. But I'm not. Read better.

"...so it isn’t like anything was established at all."

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

[Nelson]

There were stats about what was established. You are trying to pretend that there is more than the 5.9% false reports that were found. You want to insist that we just assume things that weren’t found to be false were actually false. It’s disgusting.

Anything found to be a false report is a false report. Anything else is not..

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Anything found to be a false report is a false report. Anything else is not.."

Sigh. What if it's not found to be true either? Wouldn't that make it potentially true, or potentially false?

[Nelson]

Correct. But it works the other way, too, and given the nightmare of a rape investigation and trial, it is much, much more likely to be true.

Plus, of course, we have decades of evidence to show what happens when we assume the accusation is false.

False rape allegations are rare. Repeated examination (not just this single study you want to pretend is the only one) have shown that to be true.

When multiple unconnected, separate inquiries result in similar results, ignoring that evidence in favor of your preferred narrative is disgusting. Especially considering the horror of the crime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So are you abandoning your claim that this study shows that false accusations are rare? I've demonstrated that it doesn't.

Plus, of course, we have decades of evidence to show what happens when we assume the accusation is false.

Fortunately, no one is claiming we should assume accusations are false.

False rape allegations are rare. Repeated examination (not just this single study you want to pretend is the only one) have shown that to be true.

As pointed out above, all the other studies that show low reporting rates have the same flaw as this. They only establish a lower bound, so even false accusation rate of 100% is consistent with the studies.

And this makes sense. It's difficult to determine whether or not a single accusation is true or false. You're not going to be able to take a sample of significant size and independently determine that a large percentage of those allegations are true, which is how you would establish the upper bound rate necessary to show that false accusations are rare. 

[Nelson]

“ So are you abandoning your claim that this study shows that false accusations are rare?”

Why would you think that? It found 5.9% false reports. That’s very rare. You are just trying to “yeah, but” into a larger number. Feelings and vibes aren’t evidence. You can’t just claim more false reports than the evidence shows.

“ Fortunately, no one is claiming we should assume accusations are false.”

You are. You’re the one claiming that the false reports are anywhere from 5-100%. Did you forget that?

“ As pointed out above, all the other studies that show low reporting rates have the same flaw as this.”

That’s not a flaw, unless you are dedicated to insinuating that rape accusations are just lying sluts lying.

If you are looking for A, saying that A is the same as not-B is about as dishonest as it gets. True is true. False is false. Everything else is indeterminate. Assigning those cases one way or the other is your bias showing, nothing more.

Notice I’ve never said that they are true. Because, like you, I have no idea one way or the other. I’m just honest about it.

“ which is how you would establish the upper bound rate necessary to show that false accusations are rare.”

Without being able to investigate every case, that is an impossible standard. Which is right behind “A is the same as not-B” on the dishonesty scale.

The chances that false reports are multiple times higher than discovered, but true ones aren’t, is pretty much the textbook definition of confirmation bias.

[David Nieporent]

The claim that it's "much more likely to be true" is ideology, not actual fact. And of course many accusations are made outside the criminal justice system — such as in the college disciplinary process — and so there are no "nightmare" trials.

[David Nieporent]

Plus, of course, we have decades of evidence to show what happens when we assume the accusation is false.

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

False rape allegations are rare. Repeated examination (not just this single study you want to pretend is the only one) have shown that to be true.

It has not. No study has. You're simply assuming that the unproven accusations are true because you want them to be.

[David Nieporent]

“ So are you abandoning your claim that this study shows that false accusations are rare?”

Why would you think that? It found 5.9% false reports. That’s very rare. You are just trying to “yeah, but” into a larger number. Feelings and vibes aren’t evidence. You can’t just claim more false reports than the evidence shows.

No, that's not what it found. It found at least 5.9% false reports.

Imagine you have an opaque jar of 100 beads. I start taking them out and handing them to you for cataloging. I first hand you 6 blue ones. Then I hand you 10 red ones. Then the lights go out, and you can't tell the color of any of the other beads. Did your research show that only 6% of the jar's beads are blue and therefore blue ones are rare? No, it did not. The only valid conclusion you can draw is that at least 6% of them are blue, and that blue ones can be very rare or much more common than green or equally common or anything in between.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why would you think that? It found 5.9% false reports. That’s very rare."

It found that 5.9% were false, and the rest may or may not have been false. That's not necessarily rare.

"Everything else is indeterminate. Assigning those cases one way or the other is your bias showing, nothing more."

Uh, yeah, so stop assigning those cases. And I said, the data in the study shows that false accusations represent 5.9% - 100% of accusations. That may or may not be rare.

[Nelson]

“ so the data is consistent with false reporting rates of around 5-100%.”

Yes, 100% of rape allegations are false. Jesus, I thought misogynistic bullshit like this was a thing of the past. But here’s a shameless “it’s false unless they’re prosecuted and convicted” assertion, with Brett joining the “they’re all sluts” chorus.

“ You are correct. Not only does the study (like most other studies of the genre) refuse to count something as a false accusation unless it can affirmatively be proven false”

Because to call something false, you have to prove that it is false. That’s literally the point.

You are trying to assume that anything that isn’t prosecuted and proved is automatically a false accusation. That is completely untrue.

Rapes are hard to prove if it’s he-said-she-said, juries are notoriously willing to believe the accused rapist over the victim (especially if the defense slut-shames successfully), prosecutors avoid hard cases, etc. the assumption that all accusations are false unless proved otherwise is why rape continues to be an under-prosecuted crime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes, 100% of rape allegations are false."

Sigh. There are obviously good reasons to believe that not all rape allegations are false. But you won't find them in this study.

"Because to call something false, you have to prove that it is false. That’s literally the point."

And to call something true, you have to prove it true. No one is claiming that this study establishes a high rated of false reporting, we are claiming that it fails to establish a low rate of false reporting, which is what it's being cited for.

Again, read better.

[Nelson]

“ And to call something true, you have to prove it true.”

But it isn’t identifying true reports. It is identifying false reports. And only 5.9% are false reports.

There aren’t only two options, because there is a vast swath that are undetermined. Without evidence, you can’t just assume they are what you want them to be.

None of the others are false because, to be a false report, you have to find that there is something false. The other 94.1% of cases are, by definition, not false reports.

“ we are claiming that it fails to establish a low rate of false reporting”

But it does, actually, establish that. Undetermined/unpursued/unconvicted are not false reports. Only false reports are false reports.

Again, think better.

[David Nieporent]

Undetermined/unpursued/unconvicted are not false reports.

Um, some of them are. You bizarrely seem to think that a false report isn't false if it hasn't been proven to be false. But whether the report is false is determined by whether it accords with what actually happens, not whether we can prove it.

[Nelson]

“ Um, some of them are.”

No, some of them may be. There is a difference. The rape apologists and “don’t believe the victim” advocates want everyone to worry about the potential outcome of a false allegation for the accused, but ignore the potential outcome of a true allegation for the victim.

Having a culture where rape is a crime that must be definitively proved true or it’s assumed to be false (especially given the difficulty in proving such a crime beyond a reasonable doubt) makes it more likely that rape is allowed and excused.

“ You bizarrely seem to think that a false report isn't false if it hasn't been proven to be false."

Correct. If you assert that something, you have to actually support that assertion. Saying “Well, I’m sure somewhere between some and all of them are false” isn’t a valid argument.

Evidence is important. The cultural and investigatory biases against believing rape allegations are strong and have a long history. The likelihood of an undetermined accusation being false is much, much less likely than the liklihood it is true.

This is because of the difficulty in achieving the requisite level of proof, discouragement by investigators (especially in a setting where institutional reputation is at stake, like colleges), and the emotional/personal pain that the process involves, among other things. Trying to process a trauma while being accused of being a lying slut is hard, especially when both parties know it’s true.

“ But whether the report is false is determined by whether it accords with what actually happens, not whether we can prove it.”

Correct. And there are usually only two people who know what actually happened. Everyone else should err on the side of belief, not rejection. Especially since we have seen what happens when we give the benefit of the doubt to people like the Stanford swimmer. It isn’t just a problem from the past.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The rape apologists and “don’t believe the victim” advocates want everyone to worry about the potential outcome of a false allegation for the accused, but ignore the potential outcome of a true allegation for the victim."

Why don't we worry about both?

If you assert that something, you have to actually support that assertion. Saying “Well, I’m sure somewhere between some and all of them are false” isn’t a valid argument.

Certainly true. For the unknown allegations, somewhere between none and all of them are false, and we don't know where that point lies.

Folks who assert that no more that 5.6% of the data in the study are false are asserting that the unknown allegations are true, without supporting that assertion.

Everyone else should err on the side of belief, not rejection.

1. Why not simply not err, and admit we don't know if the allegation is true or false.
2. I'm glad you are admitting that the claim that false accusations have been shown to be rare is an error. Erring on a particular side is still erring.

[David Nieporent]

No, some of them may be.

No, some of them are. It is not a realistic scenario that exactly 5.9% (or whatever) of rape accusations are false and we have definitively identified each and every one of them.

Having a culture where rape is a crime that must be definitively proved true or it’s assumed to be false (especially given the difficulty in proving such a crime beyond a reasonable doubt) makes it more likely that rape is allowed and excused.

You continue to make up this strawman. Nobody has suggested that all unproven ones are "assumed to be false." (Though of course for legal purposes, any accused is presumed innocent unless and until the accusation is definitively proved true. (Even in a civil context, the burden of proof is on the accuser, though the standard of proof is substantially lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.))

Correct. If you assert that something, you have to actually support that assertion. Saying “Well, I’m sure somewhere between some and all of them are false” isn’t a valid argument.

It literally is a valid argument, though of course — to reiterate — nobody has said "all of them."

The likelihood of an undetermined accusation being false is much, much less likely than the liklihood it is true.

Weird, because I recall someone just saying a minute ago, "If you assert that something, you have to actually support that assertion." The truth is, you actually don't know about those relative likelihoods.

And there are usually only two people who know what actually happened. Everyone else should err on the side of belief, not rejection.

That is nothing but ideology. I happen to think that the presumption of innocence is a good thing.

Especially since we have seen what happens when we give the benefit of the doubt to people like the Stanford swimmer. It isn’t just a problem from the past.

Brock Turner was convicted. The complaint in that case was about the perceived light sentence.

[Nelson]

“ nobody has said "all of them."

TIP literally said between 5 and 100% could be false. So yeah, someone did.

“ The truth is, you actually don't know about those relative likelihoods.”

You are correct. I pointed out the reasons that false accusations are far less likely than true accusations, given the things related to each scenario, but I am not asserting it either way. I’m speculating.

“ That is nothing but ideology. I happen to think that the presumption of innocence is a good thing.”

Presumption of innocence in a trial is a good thing. It forces the burden onto the government, with the goal of making it harder to make a mistake. Just like the unanimous jury, it is a safeguard against government abuse.

Accusations, however, should always be assumed to be honest reports. If you start by requiring a victim to justify your willingness to believe them, very bad things start happening very quickly. If, in the course of an honest investigation, you discover evidence that the accusation is false, great. But starting there is a terrible system.

"Brock Turner was convicted. The complaint in that case was about the perceived light sentence.”

No, it was the attitude that the judge displayed, that the damage to the rapist’s life was tragic and the damage to the victim’s life was unimportant.

That is, unfortunately, the direction that sympathy tends to run in rape cases - towards the accused and away from the victim. At the investigatory level, the trial level, and the sentencing level. Starting by assuming a report is honest is the least thing that can be done.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TIP literally said between 5 and 100% could be false. So yeah, someone did."

And that's correct, based on the study. The study didn't show that any of the accusations were true, so they all could be false.

[David Nieporent]

“ nobody has said "all of them."

TIP literally said between 5 and 100% could be false. So yeah, someone did.

No. What he said was that the only conclusion one can draw from the study was somewhere between 5 and 100%. He did not say that he thought that.

[David Nieporent]

Presumption of innocence in a trial is a good thing. It forces the burden onto the government, with the goal of making it harder to make a mistake. Just like the unanimous jury, it is a safeguard against government abuse.

Accusations, however, should always be assumed to be honest reports. If you start by requiring a victim to justify your willingness to believe them, very bad things start happening very quickly. If, in the course of an honest investigation, you discover evidence that the accusation is false, great. But starting there is a terrible system.

It is impossible to compartmentalize like this. One cannot go around in one's daily life thinking accusations are always true and then set that aside when one serves on a jury. But even if one could, the presumption of innocence is a societal good, not merely a criminal justice good. It's not a "safeguard against government abuse" at all; it's orthogonal to "abuse." The presumption of innocence is a basic principle we should always start with. An accusation should never be believed simply because it's made. Not rape, not any other.

Of course, our standard of proof in daily life need not be the high beyond a reasonable doubt standard for trials. And we can factor in what we know about the people involved, even if that wouldn't constitute formal evidence in a trial.

(To be clear, there are contexts in which one should assume the accusation is accurate: when one is the accuser's family member, priest, therapist. That sort of thing. When one's job is to provide comfort to the accuser, rather than to mete out judgment.)

[Nelson]

“ One cannot go around in one's daily life thinking accusations are always true”

I didn’t say accusations are always true. I said they should be assumed to be honest unless evidence supports otherwise. The one thing that no investigation should ever do is start from an assumption of falsehood.

“ An accusation should never be believed simply because it's made. Not rape, not any other.”

Agreed. And it should never be assumed to be false, either.

There aren’t only two possible states. For everyone except the principals involved and any direct witnesses, there is an indeterminate middle. That massive middle ground can shift one way or the other based on, as you said, the individuals involved.

For me, the bottom line is that an assumption or assertion that there is rampant false reporting of rape isn’t supported by logic or data. Additionally, the factors that would mitigate one way or the other overwhelmingly mitigate against falsity, given that following through on even a true accusation is a nightmare that some people can’t handle.

There is a desire from a disturbing number of people to create the impression that false rape accusations are common and that women should be viewed skeptically when they report. That, to me, is a horrifying reality. Any investigation that doesn’t start with the assumption that the report is credible (not true, just honest) increases the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice at the expense of a group that has historically had a difficult time getting treated fairly in these cases.

[Martinned2]

So? Anyone up for invading Panama?

[Commenter_XY]

No. Been there, done that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

What did Panama do *this* time?

[Martinned2]

It pursued its own national interest in setting the tolls for the Canal, which is making Trump unhappy, because only he's allowed to look out for Number One.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's much more complicated than that. Panama is a big player in illegal aliens. and now is getting in bed with the Chinese Communists. 2/3 of the shipping going through there is to or from a US port, we have a very serious national interest here.

And it would only the the THIRD time we invaded Panama.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's gratitude for you when the US created your country and built the canal.

[Krayt]

Wasn't there some king of agreement to not get in the way of the US in exchange for returning it? I can't believe Carter would be that dumb.

[Bob from Ohio]

"making Trump unhappy"

Little countries cannot afford to make a very large country unhappy.

[Commenter_XY]

MoA...They (the Panamanians) have managed to irritate The Donald. So he has something to say about it. The Donald believes the fees and tolls Panama charges to transit the Canal are excessive and hurt America. Now Panama knows the fees are an issue (POTUS Biden apparently didn't notice, heh, surprising), along with Chinese ownership of ports on the Canal.

The Panama Canal is critical if there is conflict in the Pacific.

[Moderation4ever]

The free market tells us that price is set by supply and demand. The Panamanians are charging what they feel the market will pay. If you don't like that you go elsewhere. Not back to the imperialism.

[John F. Carr]

The canal market has a high barrier to entry. It's not like the gas station business.

[Moderation4ever]

A high barrier to entry does not justify imperialism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps we could build a new canal cross the Southern-most route available in the territorial US: Our border with Mexico.

OK, would cost about $1T, but it WOULD be under our direct control.

[Commenter_XY]

That could solve a number of problems....

[MoreCurious]

Pretty soon Elon will be able to pay for it.

[bernard11]

Are you saying that the US Navy couldn't sail through the canal at will, without dropping a coin in the box?

Or is it like that scene in Blazing Saddles where Bart and the Waco Kid set up a toll gate in the desert, and charge LePetomaine's men a dime to go through, when they could just go around it?

Imagine an admiral yelling, like Slim Pickens, "Somebody's gotta go back and get a whole shitload of dimes."

[Absaroka]

"Are you saying that the US Navy couldn't sail through the canal at will, without dropping a coin in the box?"

I dunno. There is a treaty. That sounds like even the US Navy has to pay tolls, but Panama can't e.g. ban US vessels from passage. Sorry, googled that earlier, spent as much time as I was willing to invest, corrections welcome.

[Voize of Reazon]

Panama should charge tariffs, they are the answer to every problem.

[John F. Carr]

If Panama declares war again we'll have to invade again. Otherwise let's not.

[Bwaaah]

Second.

[Commenter_XY]

Third.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Kathy Hochul: Since I took action to make our subways safer, crime is down and ridership is going up.

I guess going up in flames is a kind of going up.

[Mr. Bumble]

I assume you are referring to this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14219921/Suspect-arrested-woman-set-fire-subway.html

[TwelveInchPianist]

And this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"He had entered the United States and was detained by border patrol agents in June 2018, but did not appear to have any previous criminal history in New York...."

$500 each, FOB your nearest ICE Office -- that's $52K a year, a new car...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two a week is $52K a year.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the AntiTrumpers are now forming a mutual defense coalition (as if they don't already have one) -- and it is about time that someone starts questioning where all of this "nonprofit" money is coming from.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/anti-trump-forces-network-aid-targets-incoming-administration-rcna184791

I particularity choked on the part where the FBI wouldn't ever go after someone without cause, and how DOJ attorneys would be worried about the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. Ya, right....

I know the "it's not RICO" mantra, but I can see the arrogant and corrupt leftists actually manage to violate RICO before they are done.

And for some real fun, imagine if Trump issued a blanket commutation for all Jan 6thers during his Inagurational Speech. Heck, he could even license the use of force to liberate them, i.e. say "if they are not free by 5 PM tonight, I also pardon anyone for anything done to facilitate their freedom."

[Martinned2]

Seems prudent.

And for some real fun, imagine if Trump issued a blanket commutation for all Jan 6thers during his Inagurational Speech. Heck, he could even license the use of force to liberate them, i.e. say "if they are not free by 5 PM tonight, I also pardon anyone for anything done to facilitate their freedom."

I'm not sure what's so fun about taking a wrecking ball to the rule of law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Playing bomb thrower this morning?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What rule of law???

[Mr. Bumble]

Os course there is this:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/23/joe-biden-commutes-sentences-37-murderers-death-ro/

[SRG2]

It's not as if they're being pardoned or released, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh, I feel much better now that you pointed that out.

[Frank Drackman]

"Imagine"?? that's exactly what's going to happen.

[David Nieporent]

Heck, he could even license the use of force to liberate them, i.e. say "if they are not free by 5 PM tonight, I also pardon anyone for anything done to facilitate their freedom."

Prospective pardons are, of course, not valid.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Thursday Kazinski commenting here bought and attempted to re-sell a preposterous story published by the New York Post. I may never have seen published a news story making a consequential claim which offered so little evidence to support it. Nor has anyone else. Because less is impossible. Zero evidence was presented. Not even anything to inform readers by what process the story was discovered or researched. Even around the periphery of the claim, nothing checkable was offered.

Which does not mean the story's single boldly unsupported assertion could not be true. I am not writing now to discuss the truth or falsity of that story. I am writing to discuss the implications of the fact that Kazinski bought it, bought it uncritically, and urged it on others.

It is literally true that an AI LLM in full hallucination mode, making up everything, would have delivered a narrative far more workmanlike and worthy of belief than the one the NY Post published. That is the fact which needs attention. Because Kazinski bought it, as did so many other motivated would-be amateur analysts whose motivations had need to feed on the story's single empty assertion—which after all, could be true.

Of course, given a certain frame of reference, that story looked plausible, to some. AI LLM writing is already the most efficient source of plausible-looking factually unrelated falsehoods on the planet. Flood the internet with those non-stop, and no sensible person will continue to waste time on the internet, except to socialize, buy products, or maybe to seek porn.

Such AI fake stories will shortly be massively mobilized by political actors around the globe who think they have an interest to discredit the notion that reliable news reporting is possible, and who want to demoralize any readers who expect it. They know Kazinski-like news consumers will buy a better-looking fake even more readily than a laughably deficient report which nevertheless could be true. Millions and millions will do that.

That threatening capacity has arrived at a time of particular vulnerability for the public life of this nation, and perhaps by extension for the world. The particular vulnerability is today's state of over-concentration among publishers, plus an ever-thinning supply of professional news gatherers, along with a near-extinction of the former custom to supply editing and critical review of would-be news contributions before publishing them.

Making it all more threatening, even the over-concentrated media—with a dismaying display of ideological fecklessness practiced in unison—have lurched suddenly toward displays of obeisance to government power. To keep government power away from media practice has never been more important.

Consumers of internet publishing as it is now would be wise to consider whether it needs root-and-branch reform, and if so, how to go about it. I suggest an emergency need to break up giantistic platforms, multiply many-fold their smaller successors, encourage by policy those successors toward mutual competition on the basis of the broadest range of ideological diversity, and to restore private editing prior to publication.

I understanding the last bit mentioned is likely to be widely unpopular. I call for creative thought about what yet-unpracticed business mechanisms, or policy changes, might be implemented, to keep free access for everyone maximally available.

[Mr. Bumble]

The above was generated by a LLM.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Then you will have to add identity theft to their list of malign tendencies.

[Bwaaah]

Logorrheic Language Model?

[Commenter_XY]

Bwaaah...I was trying to help lathrop with his logorrhea problem earlier this year. Didn't work. You can take a wordy editor out of the newsroom, but never the wordiness out of the editor.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — Can't figure out how to put two paragraphs together? You are wise to keep it to less.

Capacity-wise, that may make you a guy pushing a boom, but polite society honors folks according to character, not capacity. Let that console you.

Also? Don't take advice from a guy with a broom in his hand.

[Kazinski]

That's pretty amusing Stephen, because ABC has had plenty of opportunity to deny since the story came out and in fact declined to comment, while Disney and Stephanopoulos didn't return calls asking for comment.

Have they since denied the story? I don't think so.

But one reason I was willing to believe the story, and still do, is I surmised before the Post story came out there was internal communications before the show that indicated they knew the claim Stephanopoulos made was false, and Stephanopoulos made the claim 10 times knowing it was false:

"I think the reason ABC would settle a case like this which on the basis of known facts could be a close call, because of unknown facts they do not want the judge and a jury aware of.

Here's the giveaway "He repeated the phrase ten times during the interview". I think discovery would reveal extensive preproduction meetings on just what they could probably get away with, and guilty knowledge that it was not technically correct and a decision to go with it anyway."

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/14/the-trump-v-abc-defamation-decision-that-led-to-the-15m-settlement/?comments=true#comment-10835550

[Stephen Lathrop]

Q.E.D.

[Z Crazy]

those who file defamantion suits are at least one of arrogant, desperate, or innocent. Disney bet 15 mil on innocent.

[David Nieporent]

And I reiterate that the claim wasn't false.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's close:
Mace: "It's wasn't rape, it was sexual abuse."
...
Stephanopoulos: "The judge affirmed it was rape."

[TwelveInchPianist]

And it bears mentioning that Stephanopoulos is an asshole for bring up Mace's history.

[David Nieporent]

Stephanopoulos: "The judge affirmed it was rape."

The judge did in fact do that. He expressly ruled that 'rape' was an accurate characterization.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In a different context. He said it was an accurate characterization in the context used by E. Jean Carrol.

In a context where someone is making a distinction between being found liable for rape or sexual abuse, it's not accurate to say he was found liable for rape.

[Bwaaah]

"He expressly ruled that 'rape' was an accurate characterization."

Yes. But not under the statutory definition by which his ruling was bound.

I'd call that an ad hoc "smear" from the bench.

[Mr. Bumble]

Judges behaving badly. NY has them by the truckload.

[Sarcastr0]

Do they? Or did you just decide it must be true?

[David Welker]

I like your point about ideological diversity.

Editing before publication? Definitely for professional news media. The internet overall? Not so much.

[Kazinski]

There were two Pretty horrific instances of violence from migrants this week.

The first was a Saudi national who had been given asylum in Germany for intentionally drove through the Christmas market in Magedeberg, currently the deàth toll is 5 dead and 200 injured, although authorities expect the death toll to go higher.

Then a Guatemalan immigrant set a sleeping woman on fire on the Subway in NYC and watched her burn to death.

Maybe we should do background checks on immigrants before we let them come here to live.

My mother-in-law recently immigrated to the US, and they required a clean police report showing she had never been convicted or arrested for a serious crime. They rejected the first one, because it was more than 3 months old (she got that one to get a tourist visa to Australia), so she had to get a new one.

My niece when she married a Brit, had to get a police report for her fiance so he could get a green card, that turned out to be a problem because they had lived together in China for 18 months teaching english, and Chinese authorities won't issue police reports for foreigners. But eventually they got that taken care of.

While lawful immigration procedures are burdensome, it seems absurd to completely throw them out the window if you can reach the southern border.

[Commenter_XY]

Mass deportation of illegal aliens cannot happen fast enough. Tom Homan has talked a big game for the last 45 days, post-election.

Memo to Tom Homan: If you cannot deport more illegal aliens than the 'Deporter-in-Chief' Pres Obama (at least 400K annually) in 2025, then you have failed. And to be clear, 400K deported is a grade of D-; barely passing.

Too bad NY doesn't have the death penalty. Unless this guy is truly insane, and if that is the case...send him back to Guatemala.

[bernard11]

Just like this, right, XY?

People, cattle, all the same to you.

[Commenter_XY]

I was thinking more along the lines of this. 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIlKBr9Nr8A

[bernard11]

Well done, XY.

But somehow the roundup and deportations seem more likely to look like my clip than yours.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They arrived in a stampede like cattle, they deserve nothing more than to be sent back as cattle.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How many horrific instances of violence occurred around the world by non-migrants this past week?

It is unfortunate that you don't have the required organ to think through your comments before spreading your partisan stupidity.

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic that you're stealing Sleepy Joe's line from his State of the Onion back in February, ironic in that you're plagiarizing a plagiarizer.
Next do Monica Lewinsky.

Frank

[bernard11]

Let's be more concrete. How many occurred in Alabama? Should we deport everyone in Alabama?

(Let's not. I have friends there.)

[Frank Drackman]

The Saudi, a Psychiatrist, would have passed with flying colors, being a Shrink, another one of those jobs Amuricans won't do (Righteous $$$ for listening to someone whine for 45 minutes and writing a Prozac Scrip) He was also a "Political Refugee" so he had that going for him, which is nice, strange thing is supposedly he's "Anti Islamist" and was upset the Polizei wasn't hassling Moose-lums enough.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- remember the Voodoo Scientist who shot up a US base back in 2011 or so?

But what's weird here is that he allegedly supports the far right and doesn't like Muslims.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty shitty deployment of confirmation bias in service of bigotry Kaz.

[Kazinski]

Not in service of bigotry, in service of background checks and following current immigration law which requires them.

If we want more immigrants, then just expand the number of visa available under current law, there is a 10 year backlog of applications of people that paid a hefty fee to file (currently over 600$), but once the yearly visa quota is up for the categories then they stop processing them.

[Sarcastr0]

Anecdotes don’t support that either.
This is don’t let a crisis go to waste, for a very small definition of crisis. And for a specific subgroup while ignoring the rest of the population.
A great way to rationalize going after a subgroup.

You clearly want more refs of immigration. Though I’m not sure you know what the current policy is; you haven’t mentioned it.

[Kazinski]

Actually I think I do know what current requirements are for legal immigration, since I have submitted and had approved two different I130 immigration petitions, and recently submitted a 3rd.

Lot of people use lawyers for that because it can be a little complex in some cases, but actually easier than setting up an LLC and getting Subchapter S status, which I've also done, more than once.

[Sarcastr0]

So you know there is vetting.

So what is your beef?

[Absaroka]

We thoroughly vet legal immigrants, who apply for visas and so on.

The beef is, I think, that when we catch illegal immigrants we tell them 'you are free to go, show up for a hearing in 8 months', and don't do much when they don't show up for the hearing.

You seem like a pretty politically aware guy...kinda hard to think you don't realize this.

[Sarcastr0]

You issue with illegals is that...we don't vet them. This every single crime is the fault of our.

What, our lack of zealous deportations?

You've cut a lot of sides from your analysis. Beyond that, this vetting thing is a bank shot more than the issue (and I do not deny there is a messy and tangled issue here)

[Absaroka]

D- for reading comprehension.

[Drewski]

There were five mass shootings this week in America by white American citizens. What say you?

[Commenter_XY]

The needles can go into their arms, too.

[jb]

Sure, but does it lead you to conclude that white people are generally bad or, to draw the analogy of the background check, maybe there should be some restriction on who can buy guns?

[Commenter_XY]

No, it lead me to conclude that those 5 perps should get the needle, after a properly conducted trial, and a pastor to pray for their soul.

[jb]

Right. So examples of immigrants committing crime and you decide that mass deportation can't come fast enough, whereas examples of white people committing crimes lead you to think that those individuals are bad people and deserve to be punished. That's the kind of sterling logic we should be using to make policy decisions for sure!

[Kazinski]

There are restrictions on who can buy guns, no felons, or persons who have e been involuntary detained for treatment of mental illness.

[jb]

That's true (although with some workarounds or people just flouting the law, just as with immigrations). I was mostly just asking if you thought the same sort of logic justified those rules. (i.e., not asking if the rules exist but whether you support them)

[Kazinski]

I do support not allowing violent felons, or illegal aliens, to own, posses, guns.

I do question whether its proper to restrict the spouses of felons from keeping guns in the same household with a felon.

[Kazinski]

I'm not claiming deporting illegal aliens will solve our crime problem, but if it results in just one fewer woman burned alive on the subway, one fewer mass casualty event at a Christmas market, then I am in favor of it.

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck this bullshit you just did here instead of thinking.

‘Anecdotal benefit is enough, not gonna even bother to consider costs.’

Awesome way to ignore the humanity of a lot of innocents, among other costs.

[Absaroka]

"Awesome way to ignore the humanity of a lot of innocents"

Illegal immigrants are surely human beings - as are squatters and trespassers and crooks in general. But they aren't innocents, by definition, because they have broken the law.

You may think that a 70 mph speed limit, or MJ being illegal, or prostitution being illegal is an outrageous assault on liberty. I'll even agree on some of those. But given that we have enacted a speed limit, arresting people going 120 on a rural interstate isn't denying their humanity, it is enforcing the rules we have democratically agreed on.

[Sarcastr0]

they aren't innocents, by definition

That's pretty reductive - mixing up malum prohibitum with actual malum in se crimes.

But you're doing more than that- you're taking them entirely out of your equation.

The reason why people are reacting so strongly to this argument is that it's saying lets only look at the criminals in the group to figure out how to treat the group.
That looks like demonization. It does not look like policymaking (because you ignored multiple costs to people and economics and transition etc etc. on the other side of the ledger)

[Absaroka]

That's a non sequitur. I responded specifically to your comment that I quoted: "ignore the humanity of a lot of innocents".

I disagree with, e.g. outlawing pot. But if you get caught with a doobie in your pocket, you are definitionally not 'innocent', and saying so isn't 'denying your humanity'.

It's fine to disagree with what Kaz posted: I wouldn't disagree if you said 'your anecdotes don't apply to most illegal immigrants'. But "ignore the humanity of a lot of innocents" is not a reasonable reply to what Kaz posted. You can disagree with his position without mischaracterizing it.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, is focusing on actual murderers.
You appear to be conflating that with jumping the border, as both rendering people not innocent.

Are you reading what he is saying? ‘If even one life is saved…’ is an argument made entirely to short circuit any further analysis of the problem.

I want a massive overhaul of the immigration system, including more transparent bright line rules on enforcement. But you don’t get there by shallow demonization.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"more transparent bright line rules on enforcement."

Huh? How about, if you're allowed to be here, you can be here. If you aren't, you can't.

[Bwaaah]

"if you're allowed to be here, you can be here. If you aren't, you can't."

Sarc calls that "reductive." I think he means the law is the law, sort of, not really.

I believe, in his professional life, he helps make government policy. (Sort of. Not really.)

[David Nieporent]

Are you reading what he is saying? ‘If even one life is saved…’ is an argument made entirely to short circuit any further analysis of the problem.

Notably, the people who say "if even one life is saved" were not saying this about covid restrictions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That's pretty reductive - mixing up malum prohibitum with actual malum in se crimes."

Um, malum prohibitum is still malum. It's right there in the name.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Maybe we should do background checks on immigrants before we let them come here to live.

Kazinski — Likewise for all firearms purchases? Maybe there is common ground, and bi-partisan support among the public?

[SimonP]

I had no idea your family was responsible for fast-tracking so many immigrants into the country, Kaz. Seems like Trump's approach to immigration might make it harder for people like your mother-in-law too get into the country, wouldn't it?

[Kazinski]

Trump has actually proposed expanding legal immigration, I saw him endorse it in one of his stump speeches, and other than his 7 country Muslim ban he didn't restrict legal immigration his first term.

Certainly Elon, JD Vance, and Ramaswamy are all pro legal immigration.

[SimonP]

Was your mother-in-law a skilled worker, taking a job that couldn't be filled with an American citizen? Or was she an example of what MAGA derisively refers to as "chain migration"?

The terminology used by the liars-in-chief is to unmoored of reality to be useful. There are forms of legal immigration they oppose and describe as "illegal" immigration. Never mind that they never commit to anything they "promise."

[Kazinski]

My mother-in-law used the same visa category used by Melania's parents.

You don't really think voting for a candidate means you endorse any position they've ever held.

Or do you think the government should pay for gender transition surgery for prisoners and undocumented aliens? Or building the wall as after Kamala pivoted to that?

[SimonP]

So, "chain migration." Thanks for clearing that up.

No, I perfectly well understand that most Trump voters support him while believing he will do things completely contrary to everything he has said and promised. The magical thinking among your ilk is strong. Here's hoping your mother-in-law didn't fudge any of the facts when she applied. That's the sort of easy-pickin' Homan's going to go for.

Day 1. Maybe get your attic ready.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Can the President force a pardon on someone against their will? Does a pardon imply guilt?

Prof. Volokh went into the latter issue a few years ago at

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/24/accepting-pardon-doesnt-admit-guilt/

As interpreted by some, this could turn into the ultimate Catch-22 situation - the only way for an innocent man to get out of prison would be to admit he's guilty.

I doubt the Constitution enacts Joseph Heller's novel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, a President can. You don't exactly have a right as a legally innocent person to stay in prison, or have the government treat you as guilty, after all. The pardon doesn't requires acceptance to have its affect.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not per John Marshall:
"...A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.” Marshall continued to hold that to be noticed judicially this deed must be pleaded, like any private instrument.271"
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/14-pardons-and-reprieves.html

[Brett Bellmore]

So, say I'm sitting in a federal prison, and the President pardons me. Are you trying to say I'm entitled to remain in prison if I turn it down? I can obligate the government to keep me locked up?

Seems unlikely.

[John F. Carr]

"You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm not saying anything, only pointing out Marshall's opinion.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If Marshall was/is correct, nothing would happen until the recipient of the pardon actively presented it to a court of competent jurisdiction. The recipient's confinement would already have been decided, and would simply continue, until something happened to change it.

I don't know what the government would do in practice. If before conviction, they could unilaterally abandon the prosecution as being pointless?

A "get out of jail free card" need not be played.

[Krayt]

I suppose the prez could commute your sentence, too, then they spring you whether you want it or not, accept it or not.

The right to refuse a pardon came from a case where they pardoned a guy to force him to testify (since it could no longer be used against him, the 5th doesn't apply) and he didn't want to do that.

[Absaroka]

Sort of related: heard of a guy who refused to leave jail when his time was up. I can't remember why, maybe he was homeless and 3 hots and a cot was better than outside. Anyway, what do you do? Answer ... arrest him for trespassing. He gets his wish!

[Drewski]

Plot twist: You can refuse a pardon but not a commutation. There's not even a mechanism to refuse a commutation - a prisoner can apply and that's the last input they have in the process (unlike a pardon, which must be delivered and signed).

I understand that some states allow refusal of state commutations but I'm not sure how that works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wrong Brett, you can refuse a pardon.

[Brett Bellmore]

But, can you refuse the consequences of it? Can the prison keep you locked up despite the pardon?

[Z Crazy]

Why would a pardon imply guilt.

I heard its the same as an acquittal.

Bering pardoned won't stop the victims from winning a lawsuit against the pardoned person.

But in a civil case, the pardon itself wouldn't say anything if the pardoned person committed the act in question, one way or another.

[Drewski]

It's something of an urban legend. Pardons can take a lot of forms. Some of them say, "Z Crazy is guilty as hell but is pardoned because he's been cool since then." If you accept that sort of pardon, you are admitting guilt for certain purposes. Accepting a pardon in the form of, "Z Crazy is totes innocent and is therefore pardoned," is not an admission of guilt.

This can come up in a few contexts, such as Heck analysis (you can't admit guilt then sue for false arrest) and collateral consequences of conviction (an admission of guilt can make you deportable or be an obstacle professional licensing).

I recall some years back - I think the Obama administration - there was some noise because the Immigration Court was taking a highly skeptical approach to the scope of pardons (especially gubernatorial) but I'm not sure if or how that panned out. IC decisions are notoriously hard to bring into real court. Probably the least of immigration activists' concerns at the moment.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Biden commutes the sentence of woman who killed three of her lovers for life insurance.

Yup, he's trying to be a dick.

[Commenter_XY]

The sad part is that POTUS Biden is making a run for the history books to be the Pardoner-in-Chief. Mass pardons aren't what POTUS Biden will be remembered for, that dog doesn't quite Hunt(er).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Was this one of the Covid pardons?

(And I see this was an Al Capone situation where she was convicted in federal court of insurance fraud, not in state court of murder).

[Commenter_XY]

Right on cue...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/23/biden-commutes-dozens-of-death-row-sentences-to-life-without-parole.html

[Frank Drackman]

The up side is that 9 of the formerly condemned got the Death Penalty for murdering other Prisoners, surprised Parkinsonian Joe didn't pardon the murdered ones also, you know how a record follows you even in the afterlife.

[Lennyk78]

What a despicable piece of shit. We're clearly outside of the system at this point. Trump, as soon as he takes office, should commandeer the military and use force against all of America's enemies, which includes domestic enemies like Biden, Pelosi, Harris, and the 75 million people that voted for them.

It's long time for America that we get our own Pinochet who takes out the trash.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Take your best shot. I suggest you make it count.

[not guilty]

What a despicable piece of shit. We're clearly outside of the system at this point. Trump, as soon as he takes office, should commandeer the military and use force against all of America's enemies, which includes domestic enemies like Biden, Pelosi, Harris, and the 75 million people that voted for them.

It's long time for America that we get our own Pinochet who takes out the trash.

If that kind of nonsense came from a different commenter, I would suspect Poe's Law. I am hardly surprised to learn that Lennyk78 is a fan of Augusto Pinochet. I do wonder though about the wisdom of anyone admitting that in public.

[Lennyk78]

Augusto Pinochet is a hero who purged commies from Chile, and it was a better place for it.

[tylertusta]

Absolutely repugnant. Unfortunately this kind of behavior isn't unexpected from an administration that cares more about perpetrators of crimes than the victims.

[Lennyk78]

I hope Hunter gets a tumor as well and joins his brother Beau in the afterlife. Except that afterlife will be in the bowels of hell, where all Democrats end up.

[tylertusta]

You're an awful human being for saying that.

Go outside and touch grass. If the grass is buried under snow like it is for me, bring a shovel and dig until you find it.

[David Nieporent]

He is an awful human being, but he's a troll. (I guess "but" isn't quite the right conjunction there.) You're just taking his bait, which is what he wants.

[Z Crazy]

The pardon won't stop his victims from winning any lawsuits for damages against him.

[Drewski]

Still not as bad as Trump's pardon of Kwame Kilpatrick. who you'll recall killed 12 kids and poisoned 100,000 others for money, and served 6 years of 30. If you were fine with that, I don't see how you can be upset that the Black Widow only served 20.

[bernard11]

Or his pardons of war criminals.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — Perhaps Biden could announce magnanimously that he extends, "a pardon, or amnesty from prosecution," to whomever needs protection. Then anyone targeted by MAGA revenge could invoke whichever strength of protection served best. Maybe start by turning aside subpoenas on the basis of amnesty, and if that failed, just say, "Oh, by the way, I also got a full pardon."

[Mr. Bumble]

"Get Out Of Jail Free" is a part of a board game, not the Constitution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't have 5th Amd protection if pardoned.

[tylertusta]

You don't have a 5th amendment privilege against federal prosecutions, but you still do for state prosecutions.

[Krayt]

Thank god federal testimony cannot be used at the state level for the same crime because of double jeopardy!

Ooih, I said a stupid. N/M

[Kazinski]

a granting "amnesty" is not a president power:

"he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States".

I guess you kind of have to concede you are guilty of an offense if you accept it, probably best not to say anything at all, if you don't want to concede it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Again, in order to be constitutional, amnesties would have to be subsets of pardons.

It's a tad late in the day to say amnesties aren't pardons. We've had them since the beginning of the Republic.

And given the season, I should mention Andrew Johnson's Christmas pardon of all ex-Confederates (all those he hadn't pardoned already, that is).

[Drewski]

"a granting "amnesty" is not a president power"

I mean, it's a power that's been used by the President, upheld by the courts, recognized by Congress, and accepted by the American people, but sure, it doesn't really exist because some extremely online troll using a terrorist's name says so.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

This brings me to another question.

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

So, is a commutation a pardon or a reprieve? Because it has to be one or the other, to be constitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reprieve, obviously. Consult a dictionary.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'd thought that a reprieve *postponed* a criminal punishment. A commutation *reduces* it.

To use an example I've given before, Lincoln *reprieved* Nathaniel Gordon, who was scheduled to be hanged for slave trading.

The hanging was put off for two weeks to give time for Gordon to spiritually prepare himself. No substitute for Lincoln's words: "it has seemed to me probable that the unsuccessful application made for the *commutation* [emphasis added] of his sentence may have prevented the said Nathaniel Gordon from making the necessary preparation for the awful change which awaits him"

So the sentence was postponed from February 7, 1862, to February 21, 1862.

Lincoln added some advice: "In granting this respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish the prisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by Human Authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the Common God and Father of all men."

"At noon on February 21, 1862, Nathaniel Gordon was brought to the gallows in New York City. Both the death warrant and Lincoln’s refusal to *commute* [emphasis added] the sentence were read aloud, and then he was hanged."

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/lincoln-execution-slave-trader-1862

[Frank Drackman]

That fucking guy....

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on the dictionary, I guess. Oxford says to cancel or postpone.

[jb]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reprieve

"an official order that stops or delays the punishment, especially by death, of a prisoner"

Pretty much on the nose, no?

[Mr. Bumble]

for those of you who might be curious:
This year will be the fifth time Christmas and Hanukkah have coincided since 1900.

[Commenter_XY]

Latkes and standing rib roast. 🙂

[The Margrave of Azilia]

They can't coincide since Hanukkah has just 8 days, while Christmas has 12.

They *overlap* this year in the sense of both starting on Dec. 25.

[Mr. Bumble]

Picky, picky picky.
If we count the Twelve Days of Christmas there is a somewhat complete overlap.

[David Welker]

Is there an originalist case for the Senate filibuster?

By originalist case, I mean a case that isn't based on the feeling that it is a good idea.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Do you mean an originalist case that it's constitutional if the Senate includes it in the rules? Or an originalist case that there's a right to a filibuster which supersedes any rules trying to limit or stop the practice?

[David Welker]

I mean the former.

And to be clear, just because the Senate is authorized to make rules, that doesn't mean that any rule that the Senate makes is constitutional.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible for Congress to pass an unconstitutional law, because the Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws.

So, what I am interested in is an originalist case that is a little more deep than the bare observation that the Senate is allowed to make rules. Because that isn't really a case for the filibuster in particular at all.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'm not an originalist, but I presume the argument for the unconstitutionality of the filibuster would be that it would interfere with the Senate majority's control of that legislative body?

[David Welker]

I think the argument would be that when the Constitution intends to require a supermajority (e.g. to adopt a treaty) it is quite clear.

One might argue that something as major as whether a supermajority is (effectively) required to pass legislation is structural, changes the balance of power, and even whether the organization is functional or dysfunctional and not just something that is meant to be left to mere chance or whim. The Constitution implicitly allows Congress to pass laws by a simple majority. (Note: it does not explicitly say that; but majorities are the assumed practice in the absence of explicit guidance.)

The Supreme Court proceeds by majority vote in the absence of explicit guidance. And before the Civil War, the admission of new states had to be balanced because of the understanding a mere majority of free states could change the delicate balance of power in the Senate.

I am curious though, is there any deep originalist case in favor of the filibuster?

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing deeper than "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ..."

The original Senate rules provided for no cloture mechanism, and a filibuster was just a Senator insisting on talking so that nothing could be accomplished, so you got a filibuster in the very first session of the Senate in 1789.

The originalist case for the non-talking filibuster is much weaker.

But, you realize, it's not a supermajority to pass, it's just a supermajority to hold the vote.

[Josh R]

Congress can pass any law that doesn't violate an explicit provision in the Consitution (The Tenth Amendment in cases of federalism). Is there an explciit provision that prohibits the filibuster?

On the other hand, the Constitution specifies when the Congress must use a super majority: amendments, overriding vetos, expulsion, conviction after impeachment and treaty ratification. Does the principle of "the exception that proves the rule" imply the rule is therefore super majorities are not permitted otherwise.

[David Welker]

Josh,

Why do you believe that all constitutional provisions must be explicit? Do you believe there is a constitutional right to travel? To raise your own children?

And isn't the 9th Amendment, which seems to contradict what you just said, an explicit provision of the Constitution that deserves respect?

And yes, I think the Constitution is to be treated as requiring a majority whenever a supermajority isn't explicitly specified. That is how Congress, including the Senate, originally behaved in the absence of such a provision. Also, a body as important as the Constitutional Convention, which drafted the Constitution itself, proceeded by majority vote. The state ratifying conventions were based on majority vote as well. (While 9 out of 13 states were required to ratify, each state ratifying convention proceeded based on majority vote.)

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case the relevant explicit provision is Article 1, Section 5, clause 1: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ..."

[David Welker]

Brett,

I already addressed that superficial argument above.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws. That doesn’t imply that all laws are constitutional.

Finish the sentence.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to make rules. That doesn’t imply that all rules are ______.

Right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, if the Senate decided to make a rule allowing for passing a law without a quorum present, that would be unconstitutional. And the Court would refuse to take notice of it, under the enrolled bill doctrine.

But in this case, they have adopted a rule for their proceedings, and it does not violate any clause of the Constitution.

Again, the filibuster does not require laws to get a supermajority vote to pass. It requires a supermajority vote to end debate and proceed to the vote, at which point an ordinary majority suffices for passage.

As such it's just a procedural rule, clearly authorized by the clause I cited.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore‚ Not, "clearly." Arguably, anything which affects how many votes are required to pass a bill on any subject, or to exercise the power of advice and consent, is constitutionally substantive, and not a mere rule of procedure. Seems like if something is procedural, it ought to affect how you do things, but leave untouched the question what you have power to do, or not do, on any particular question, let alone on all questions. The filibuster effects the latter.

Welker has made a good point.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Arguably, anything which affects how many votes are required to pass a bill on any subject,"

But it doesn't; Once you achieve cloture, a simple majority passes the bill.

Look, you're arguing that consistent practice since the first Senate is unconstitutional, without a clear textual hook. That's a really tough argument to make.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — A fair historical record of the filibuster does not begin until the first vote for cloture requiring a supermajority took place, in 1919.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lathrop, prior to that you had no cloture vote mechanism to END filibusters. Even 99 votes wouldn't get you to cloture.

So you're trying to pretend that a measure that limited filibusters was the origin of filibusters!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Even 99 votes wouldn't get you to cloture.

Bellmore — Nor would a vote of cloture be needed. A simple majority on a motion to adjourn would probably have done the trick, during the entire interval between 1789 and 1919. I say, "probably," because I do not know the history of Congressional procedure during its entire span. I am pretty sure you do not know that either.

I do know for certain that there was not a requirement for a supermajority prior to 1919. The supermajority requirement, of course, is the entire point of this discussion. Has there ever been any controversy over a question whether a congressional majority can debate as long as it likes?

[David Nieporent]

Seems like if something is procedural, it ought to affect how you do things,

Which is all the filibuster rule does. It affects only when/whether to hold a vote on a bill.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — In the case of the filibuster, "when/whether," cannot legitimately suggest, "never." The latter is different than the formers.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent — In the case of the filibuster, "when/whether," cannot legitimately suggest, "never." The latter is different than the formers.

That is entirely wrong. Never is entirely legitimate. Absolutely nothing in the constitution requires the senate (or house, for that matter) to schedule a vote on a bill. (The vast majority of bills never make it out of committee! And "Well, a majority of the senate would have voted for this bill if it had made it out of committee" of course does not create some sort of obligation for the senate to vote on it.

[Commenter_XY]

DW, it really IS that simple = the relevant explicit provision is Article 1, Section 5, clause 1: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ..."

Congress makes the rules for themselves. Not the Executive, not the Judicial.

[Stephen Lathrop]

XY — No, Congress does nothing for itself. Congress does everything in fealty to its members' oaths of service and support for the Constitution.

As a practical matter, the Constitution sets forth explicitly the occasions where super-majority votes are required. If you check those out, one by one, you discover they track closely the instances where Congress comes closest to exercising sovereign power on its own: to override a veto; to remove an office holder by impeachment; to ratify a treaty; to amend the Constitution itself; to pass on questions of Presidential disability to perform the office.

So supermajority action in Constitutional context is a big deal, associated with actions most closely implicating the interests of the jointly sovereign People as a whole—except in the case of the filibuster, where some from both major parties argue opportunistically that a different Constitutional provision makes it work the opposite way—to thwart the People's will. Does that make sense to you? There is no Constitutional text on point to settle the question either way.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And the constitution says that they can pass rules to govern their proceedings. So we’re kind of right back to where we started.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur, I'll bet you know a Latin term to summarize a situation in legal text when an explicit list omits another term not explicitly named.

[Bob from Ohio]

"superficial argument"

Its decisive, not "superficial". The text permits rules, it does not limit in the way you think it should.

[ducksalad]

David

Keep in mind two things: Lots of stuff is neither required nor prohibited by the Constitution, and the filibuster itself was passed by a majority and apparently continues to have majority support in the Senate.

You seem to be claiming that the Constitution prohibits the filibuster. Let's suppose you're right. Then it's reasonable to ask you: how long does the Constitution permit the Senate to allow a member of the minority to keep talking?

You say letting them talk indefinitely violates the constitution. OK. How about 24 months? 24 milliseconds? Something in between? And per your request, the numerical answer should be grounded in originalism, not policy preference pulled out of a hat,

It seems to me once you concede that the Senate can vote to allow people to speak for 24 milliseconds, they can allow longer limits, up to the full 24 months until a new Congress is elected.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I already addressed that superficial argument above.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws. That doesn’t imply that all laws are constitutional."

Yes, but you didn't adequately address it. Congresses and the States' power to make laws implies that its laws are presumptively constitutional, and you haven't overcome the presumption that the filibuster rule is Constitutional.

"Arguably, anything which affects how many votes are required..."

"Arguably" is doing an awful lot of work here.

[David Nieporent]

No, not right. Whether a law is constitutional is about whether it can be enforced by the executive/courts. Whether a rule is constitutional is… what?

What could the remedy possibly be if the filibuster rule were unconstitutional? A court can't order that the law be deemed to have been enacted. It can't order the senate to vote on the bill.

[Josh R]

The freedom of interstate travel and to raise your children (up to a point) have been held protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Are you arguing the Ninth Amendment invalidates the filibuster?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Seems like if the Supreme Court had not repeatedly invoked balance of powers in support of other decisions, you would be on stronger ground.

[John F. Carr]

Legislatures often have rules that say "we won't do this even though 50%+1 of the members would vote for it." For example, in some states bills must be prefiled and a bill that fails can have only one motion for reconsideration. In the House the Speaker and the Rules Committee often block measures that would pass a vote of all members.

If I were writing a new constitution I would consider being more specific about when a majority less than all members can push a measure through.

[David Welker]

Excellent observation.

Although, not an originalist argument for the filibuster.

[SRG2]

In the House the Speaker and the Rules Committee often block measures that would pass a vote of all members.

Recall the Hastert Rule, that you don't bring a bill to the House if the majority of the House GOP wouldn't vote for it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yup, a classic abuse of Constitutional power.

[David Nieporent]

Worth noting that Hastert denied that he ever had such a rule.

[tylertusta]

Congress gets to make and enforce its own rules for how it conducts its business. This includes things like allowing motions and bills to pass via acclamation/unanimous consent or to allow bills to discharge to the floor.

If Congress can make rules that allows to make it easier to pass things, then it follows that Congress can makes byzantine rules that makes passing things more difficult.

That doesn't mean that Congress can write rules that violate the Constitution. Even with that constraint, the Constitution gives Congress wide latitude in how it organizes itself (committees, working groups, political parties) and what procedures it follows (blue slips, discharge petitions, and the filibuster).

[Brett Bellmore]

"This includes things like allowing motions and bills to pass via acclamation/unanimous consent"

That's actually a LOT more constitutionally suspect than the filibuster, since in cases of 'unanimous consent' there is frequently not an actual vote, and the procedure is routinely used to conceal from the record that they're violating the quorum clause.

[Bob from Ohio]

"violating the quorum clause"

They do so every session day. Only 3 senators at the morning session are majority leader, minority leaser and the presiding senator.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"procedure is routinely used to conceal from the record that they're violating the quorum clause."

Which if it were true, you wouldn't know about, because it would've been concealed, you dumb fuck.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I am unsure what an "originalist" case is since the term is so flexible. I also am not an originalist.

There does not seem to be a clear original understanding against the ability of the Senate to filibuster. The Constitution gives each house the ability to formulate rules of proceedings.

Traditional rules did not simply make everything go by majority vote. Sometimes, legislators blocked actions from coming to a vote via procedural devices. There was some discretion on how to process votes including how many times a bill would have to be read before final passage. There was no clear requirement that everything had to come to an up-and-down vote.

The Constitution was written to provide legislative flexibility with specific limits. Some limits are not expressly written in so many words ("necessary and proper" included certain things that were "improper" such as violating certain rights).

Nonetheless, it is difficult to clearly show that filibusters are one of the things not allowed. An interference of legislative discretion, including limiting debate, should be clearly stated.

The Senate also was established as a smaller body that allowed for full debate. There were originally only 22 senators [North Carolina and Rhode Island not immediately ratifying the Constitution]. It would be more workable to allow filibustering with a smaller body.

I think the best originalist argument was that filibuster was an option, left up to legislative discretion.

[Kazinski]

You could ask the same question about committees killing bills, or the speaker or majority leader refusing to schedule a vote on a bill that would get majority support.

Needing 60 votes to cut off debate and allow a bill to come to the floor hardly seems worse than those other examples.

Especially since the majority can change the rule whenever they want to.

[gVOR08]

Is there an originalist case for the Senate filibuster?

I got your originalist case. Democrats want an activist government. GOPs only want high end tax cuts and no regulation. Therefore the filibuster favors Republicans, therefore it must be required by the Constitution. If the Federalist Supremos can decide on purely consequentialist, partisan reasoning and still claim to be "originalist", so can I.

[Commenter_XY]

VC Conspirators...late last week, there was a post on selective prosecution. I am curious, how do you actually go about 'proving' selective prosecution, from the plaintiff's standpoint?

What evidence does a plaintiff actually need to collect to clearly demonstrate discrimination, and therefore selective prosecution?

The decision told us what was not sufficient evidence. What would be sufficient evidence?

[not guilty]

A selective prosecution claim is ordinarily asserted by a criminal defendant, not by a civil plaintiff. Where a criminal prosecution results in conviction, a civil suit for damages is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In a criminal prosecution a selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463 (1996). In particular, the decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985). Defendants bear a "demanding" burden when seeking to establish that they are being selectively prosecuted in an unconstitutional manner. Armstrong, at 463.

The claimant must demonstrate that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. For example, to establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. Armstrong, at 465. It is necessary to show that prosecutorial authorities were aware of the comparators who were not prosecuted. See, Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962) (no equal protection violation where the allegations set out no more than a failure to prosecute others because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses).

Offering evidence that the comparators are "similarly situated" may be insurmountable. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a "similarly situated" person for selective prosecution purposes as one who engaged in the same type of conduct, which means that the comparator committed the same basic crime in substantially the same manner as the defendant — so that any prosecution of that individual would have the same deterrence value and would be related in the same way to the Government's enforcement priorities and enforcement plan — and against whom the evidence was as strong or stronger than that against the defendant. United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 810 (11th Cir. 2000).

The only ultimately successful assertion of a selective prosecution claim that I am aware of occurred in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

[Commenter_XY]

So you need something like a perfect comparator to your situation, and more than one actually, to show discriminatory effect arising from a discriminatory policy based on discriminatory intent. That sounds like Mission Impossible, to build that chain.

One success in 138 years. Ok, I can see why defense attys would not bother.

[Commenter_XY]

Is this an example of the application of 'soft power' by Pres Trump? Why or why not?

Iranian-backed militias in Iraq halt attacks on Israel...and want to understand what Pres Trump is thinking vis a vis ME region.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/401159

"The militia leader told al-Akhbar that the militias decided not to interfere in Syrian affairs and "to follow the situation from a distance, in addition to waiting to know the orientations of the US President-elect, Donald Trump, and his policy towards the Middle East, specifically Iran."

Is the application of 'soft power' ever illegal?
'Soft Power' is political speech, correct?

[tylertusta]

I don't agree that this is soft power. The threat, even implied, of military action is a "Hard Power."

Soft Power refers to economic and cultural influence, like using an offer of Most Favored trading status to secure policy changes in a foreign country.

[Commenter_XY]

Sort of like, 'I'll tariff your ass until I get what I want'?

I had never thought before about the definition of soft power, what it is, and is not. It seems very amorphous. I don't 'disagree' with your definition, tyler, but I wonder how different people define it.

[tylertusta]

Tariffs are actually disputed in which category they fall. When I learned this in school, tariffs were considered a soft power, but today some consider them punitive enough to be categorized as a hard power.

In regards to the middle east, Trump is threatening military action, which is a quintessential hard power.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree, I think when he says 'there will be hell to pay' he does mean some very bad people are going to die violently until our people (Americans) are returned to us, dead or alive.

Is there a potential Logan Act violation by Pres-Elect Trump?

[tylertusta]

No potential Logan Act violation because such an application of the Logan Act would be unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Basically ALL applications of the Logan act are unconstitutional, which is why literally no prosecution of it has EVER been completed in the entire history of the country. The very few cases that were brought were dropped before trial to avoid a very fast trip the the Supreme court to officially declare that it's unconstitutional.

Anybody who suggests prosecuting under it indicts themselves, really.

[tylertusta]

In my opinion, the law is unconstitutionally overbroad. However, there are applications in which the Logan Act (if the law isn't struck down) may pass muster.

For example, impersonating a US government official under false pretenses for the purposes of negotiating and influencing a foreign country is something that I think can be criminalized.

[Frank Drackman]

Ricky Henderson probably died of a broken heart (a natural Lefty, was forced to bat right handed (did they not have any left handed bats?) imagine if he'd been a Switch Hitter, might have had a better career OPS. Any tribute the A's do next year will be in a minor league stadium (OK, Sacramento is marginally nicer than Oakland)

Frank

[Ridgeway]

This is Rickey. Calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to play baseball!

[Frank Drackman]

So Parkinsonian Joe just commuted the Death Sentences of every condemned Prisoner on the Federal Death Row except for 3 White Dudes,
so why does Joe Biden hate White People!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Just look at the white people he left on death row. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013; Dylann Roof, who massacred nine people at a historically Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015; and Robert Bowers who killed 11 people at a synagogue in 2018. Make the case for them to be pardoned?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not, but the other ones killed peoples also, isn't every murder a "Hate Crime"?? What if Luigi Mangione had murdered the guy who killed Ashli Babbit?

[Moderation4ever]

Well, I myself would have commuted them all, but I oppose the death penalty. Murder is wrong and it should cost you your freedom for many years if not your entire life. Years to think about how stupid your act was and the pain it caused.

[Commenter_XY]

Why do you insist taxpayers foot the bill to support these assholes for decades, in prison?

You see 'years for the prisoner to think about it'
I see 'wasting upwards of 40K annually for 20-30 years to keep them alive'.

For the death penalty to be effective, it has to be certain, and swift.

[Brett Bellmore]

Prison labor is unambiguously constitutional, (The 13th amendment actually has a clause permitting involuntary servitude or slavery as a penalty for a crime.) so there's no good reason why prisoners have to be a total loss.

[bernard11]

Why do you insist taxpayers foot the bill to support these assholes for decades, in prison?

Hardly the issue. By that logic you could execute anyone who faced a long sentence.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I'm all for promptly giving them the needle, as determined by a jury of their peers. They got the death sentence. Get it over with.

[Moderation4ever]

And if evidence later shows a wrongful conviction would you then charge the prosecutor with manslaughter?

[Commenter_XY]

No

(if it was shown that the prosecutor did not withhold evidence from defense, acted ethically, had no exculpatory evidence)

[bernard11]

You don't seem to have responded to my point.

Say someone is convicted and gets a ten-year sentence. Why should the taxpayers have to support the guy for ten years rather than just executing him immediately?

Besides, are juries ever misled? Do prosecutors lie? Do police? Is there ever new evidence?

Remember that a Sanhedrin that ordered one excution in seven years was considered a "bloody Sanhedrin." Don't be so quick to kill.

[Commenter_XY]

The sentence was a 10-year sentence, not death.

bernard11, the trial is held, the jury decides. The jurors deliberate, and then deliberate again (with a separate jury) on the penalty phase.

Remember too, that the blood of the victim cries out from the ground.

[bernard11]

You miss my point.

You argue that we shouldn't provide room and board for death penalty recipients, because it would cheaper just to kill them ASAP.

But that's true of a ten year sentence as well. Still much cheaper just to execute them right away than to pay ten years' upkeep.

So the whole argument that it's silly not to just execute everyone to save a few bucks doesn't seem sound.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's the case for the rest of them, that wouldn't be applicable to those three? He just commuted the sentences of some seriously hard core bad dudes.

[Moderation4ever]

None of the bad dudes are getting out. They will spend their lives in prison.

[Lennyk78]

Unless they escape or until another Democrat Party president decides to release them on "compassionate" grounds, like the UK released the Pan Am Flight 103 terrorist.

[Z Crazy]

Or free them in exchange for hostages.

[Frank Drackman]

Some of the "Bad Dudes" (so who was Ted Bundy, a "Cut Up Card"?) are there for killing peoples after they escaped from prison. Never been a prison peoples can't escape from, especially with the numb-skulls running the Federal ones.

[Brett Bellmore]

I know. Commuted death sentences to life in prison. It was mentioned above, I didn't think I needed to clarify it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

None of the bad dudes are getting out. They will spend their lives in prison.

Why do you say that? Life without parole is already under attack—who’s to say President Occasio-Cortez won’t issue another round of commutations a few Christmases down the lane?

Indeed, under Trump’s First Step Act, these inmates can already apply for judicial commutation of their sentences as often as they like. If they have a serious medical condition, say, and seem sufficiently contrite, why shouldn’t a judge grant it?

[Sarcastr0]

That’s a pretty big set of ifs you are leaning on.

[Don Nico]

That is a pretty weak response just to contradict Brett.

[Sarcastr0]

That was Noscitur, not Brett.

[Lennyk78]

I'm sure the stated reason will be those are "hate crimes."

[Dr. Ed 2]

And that is the worst person to execute because you risks creating a martyr to the cause.

[hobie]

Kushner has already been pardoned

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tsarnaev is a Chechen Muslim, i.e. not White.

[Mr. Bumble]

Since when is Chechen or Muslim a race?

[Kazinski]

He is literally Caucasian, from Wikipedia:

"The Chechens, historically also known as Kisti and Durdzuks, are a Northeast Caucasian ethnic group of the Nakh peoples native to the North Caucasus.".

[Bob from Ohio]

"except for 3 White Dudes"

Joe Biden is very morally opposed to the death penalty except if the political heat would be too great when it involves terrorists or hate crimes.

His term cannot end fast enough.

[Moderation4ever]

So, I heard this on Fox News yesterday that 31% of people are tired of Christmas Traditions. Fox a stationed that has over the years bravely fought back on the war against Christmas may have found that it not a war but rather boredom. I for one have no problem with Christmas and enjoy it every year. That said if there is a tradition I don't like I just ignore it anyway. I love decoration, especially other's decorations, love Christmas books and shows, never waste much time worrying about gifts, giving or receiving, and I like Christmas cookies and sweets. I take what Christmas gives and never ask for more. What say you, tired or happy?

https://throwback991.iheart.com/content/2024-12-18-americans-are-bored-of-christmas-traditions/#:~:text=A%20lot%20of%20us%20stick,holiday%20with%20festive%20new%20alternatives.

[Brett Bellmore]

This year we were so busy repairing our house after the hurricane, (Water came in under the wall and ruined the carpeting in the library. Ended up replacing it with hardwood.) that we had no time to put up our usual light display. Normally icicle lights across the front, and the (dry this time of year) fountain draped in lights to look like a Christmas tree. Settled for a lighted wreath hung on the front door.

I feel kind of bad about it, we'll probably double down on the lights next year.

[Moderation4ever]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. You did what you could, and we should all respect that. Have a Merry Christmas this year and good luck on next year's decorating.

[Brett Bellmore]

A lot of our neighbors were much worse off; It's an old neighborhood with huge trees all over the place. More than one house got chopped in half by a huge falling tree.

We'd already paid to have the trees that could potentially hit the house taken down, after a near miss years ago. But our slab house is built on a sloped lot, and the ground level is above the floor for part of the house. The rain was just coming down too fast for the drainage system to keep up with it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Yes, you mentioned before the storm your unwise choice of location to buy a house. I asked at the time why you did that, and whether that meant the rest of us would be subsidizing your choice, either as a matter of government policy, or higher insurance rates. Presumably in this case you will pay the bill out of pocket, and not look to get on the public dole, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll humor you by explaining this.

First, I did not buy a house in a flood zone. That's my neighbor, on the other side of the creek between our homes, and 10 feet lower. THEIR yard floods several times a year. Ours took a 500 year storm to have trouble, if you couldn't build on a property THAT safe, where could you build?

Second, the damage was less than the deductible on our home insurance, so we did indeed pay the cost of repairs out of pocket. And did the work ourselves, too.

Maybe be a bit less desperate to imagine hypocrisy on my part?

[Absaroka]

"a 500 year storm"

With enough rain, any place can flood. We lived on the top of a ridge a mile plus from the nearest creek, in WY. A thunderstorm dumped 7 plus inches of rain in 2.5 hours or something like that. With that rate, your house would have to be on stilts to not flood.

Like you, we were in an apartment in what you'd call a daylight basement - front above ground, but the rear was recessed into the slope. Nice and energy efficient in WY winters. But the window wells filled up and pushed the windows in. We saw it happening and I went out with a bucket to bail, but the rain was coming in faster than I could bail.

[Brett Bellmore]

Slab floor, but the water was coming down fast enough to overload the drainage tiles, despite being a slope. Not so much standing as running water. The water seeped in between the brick wall and the slab.

We've improved the drainage system since, but I doubt the house will still be standing for the next 500 year storm...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you described your situation. Based on that, I predicted what would happen. It happened promptly.

Instead of conceding the point, you mumble and dissemble. On the basis of that, I hazard another prediction: You will not have to wait 20 years for your next, "500 year storm."

I could be wrong, of course. We are talking about the future. It might be 50 years. Or next autumn. It will not be 500 years.

By the way, take a look upstream. Any benches carved out of the flood plain at an elevation higher than yours, maybe covered in brush and hard to see? Or are you above the highest bench in the entire drainage?

[Lennyk78]

What percentage of those 31% are non-Christians?

America was and was supposed to remain a Christian country. It stands to reason that as more and more third world filth are imported, it strays farther from its ideals.

[Frank Drackman]

Not kind or gentle. What would your imaginary Jewish Carpenter Saviour say?

[Lennyk78]

I'm not a Christian, so I wouldn't know.

[Frank Drackman]

so 78's your IQ? and before you prove that's a charitable estimate, make whatever your lame comeback is a good one so I don't have to waste one of mine.

[Lennyk78]

What does not being a Christian have to do with IQ?

[Frank Drackman]

It's the living in Amurica and not having an idea of what Hey-Zeus's philosophy was/is, that brands you as a Poltroon.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"America was and was supposed to remain a Christian country."

"I'm not a Christian, so I wouldn't know."

Seems to me that your presence here isn't welcome then, and perhaps you should GTFO.

[Lennyk78]

Being a Christian country doesn't mean every person has to be Christian. It means that the culture, legal system, and moral fiber should be based on Christian Protestant principles.

[Moderation4ever]

I would remind you that non-Christians are under no obligations to follow traditions. I suspect that 31% is more likely Christians, then nones. Heel, I am an atheist, and I love Christmas.

[Lennyk78]

Christians aren't under any obligations either. What's your point?

[Nelson]

“ America was and was supposed to remain a Christian country”

Absolute nonsense. America was designed to be a secular country that allowed religious expressions by everyone, regardless of faith. Christian Nationalism is just the latest version of Christian supremacy to be foisted off on Americans. After 250 years, Christians still can’t accept religious pluralism.

[Commenter_XY]

After 10/7 last year, and watching subsequent events here in America triggered by the antisemitism virus, I have not felt a 'holiday spirit' since. Not Pesach. Not Shavuot. Not Rosh Hashana. Not Sukkot. Not Thanksgiving. Not Xmas. Not Hanukah. I am going through the motions.

Some of my shul 'sisters' say it this way: Just fake it until you make it.

[Lennyk78]

I can understand feeling a "holiday spirit" with respect to Pesach, which is a family event, but what part of Shavuot did you find got you into the holiday spirit?

[SimonP]

I live in Manhattan and work in midtown. So the Thanksgiving-Christmas season is bonkers, everything dressed up for the holidays.

I'll confess that - while I am a Scrooge in my personal life - I appreciate the seasonal decorations and general spirit the city takes on. Tourists everywhere, toting shopping bags, pedicab drivers dressed as foul-mouthed Santas, etc. It's a nice change of pace, for a bit.

The only bit I dislike is managing the crowds outside Rockefeller Center. There's the tree, and then the Rockette show around the corner. Also far more small children than you ever see during "normal" times of year.

[Commenter_XY]

When I go into the city, the indoor decorations in lower Manhattan are quite nice, coming out of the Oculus.

[Nelson]

I’m indifferent to most Christmas stuff. It isn’t religion, it’s commerce. Jesus wasn’t even born in the winter, let alone December. Christians just placed it there to compete with popular pagan holidays.

The only part of Christmas that I loathe are Christmas songs. There are about 20 of them that everyone regurgitates over and over, everywhere. It’s like the latest pop hit, but instead of being bashed over the head with it for a month or two, it’s an entire month every year of the same tired auditory assault.

As an enthusiastic capitalist, I love the commercial aspects. Small businesses all over the country make their bones in the last two months of the year, which is about as awesome a thing as exists in the world.

[Mr. Bumble]

Merry Christmas.
Expect a visit from some ghosts tonight.

[Nelson]

I’m fine with that. I’m a great guy who doesn’t treat people like shit, so I’m not worried what they will show me. We’d probably just go out for a beer, preferably in a bar that didn’t play Christmas music.

[John F. Carr]

The Massachusetts Civil Service Commission un-fired a Boston police officer who attended the January 6 "Stop the Steal" rally and tweeted about it. He did not enter the Capitol or otherwise commit any crimes. An Internal Affairs report recommended no action. The department sat on the report until a change in administration. Two years later he was fired despite the report.

The Civil Service Commission ruled that the officer, who had tenure under the civil service law, could not be fired for using the word "patriots" to describe Trump supporters. His tweets were "private political speech on matters of public concern."

https://www.mass.gov/doc/abasciano-joseph-v-boston-police-department-121924/download

There was some jurisdictional quarreling over whether his disability retirement mooted the discipline. He ended up with the discipline stricken from his record but otherwise unchanged. The department does not have to hire him back. A disability pension is as good as a police officer's salary.

[Frank Drackman]

76th Anniversary of the hanging of Hideki Tojo, maybe Parkinsonian Joe can commute his sentence too.

[Moderation4ever]

Did Tojo every really fight the sentence? I think in the Japanese culture death was expected for the losing leader. The Japanese got what was important to them and that was the life of their Emperor was spared.

[Frank Drackman]

He didn't, in fact he was arrested in 1945 after he tried to shoot himself (hit his stomach instead of his heart, I blame his Coke-Bottle glasses) Took 3 years for the wheels of Justice to grind, time enough for a Navy Dentist to pull his rotten teeth and make him a set of Dentures (supposedly with "Remember Pearl Harbor" engraved in them in Morse Code) Ever the polite Asian, Tojo gave the Dentist the Dentures to keep as a Souvenir. (Navy Dentistry could be considered a "War Crime" in itself. It certainly qualifies as "Torture")

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Tojo's captors did not allow him the honor of Seppuku.

[John F. Carr]

As far as I know nobody has seen Assad since the collapse of his regime. I don't even know if he is alive. A statement was put out in his name on a Telegram channel for the Syrian President. The Kremlin denies reports in Turkish media that he is confined to Moscow, his assets are frozen, and his wife is divorcing him.

[Frank Drackman]

High in Moscow today is 31, so is the Low (those Roosh-uns can't even afford separate High/Low Temperatures!) so his Ass is certainly freezing if he goes outside, not sure if I'd consider being in Moscow "confined" (heard he's in Zelonograd), Asma's on the market? that's going in my Spank-Bank

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's 8 degrees in Boston right now -- 31 ain't that cold.
And definitely not for Moscow in December.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably feels cold compared to Damascus

[Lennyk78]

Biden's blanket commutations of death sentences will embolden Democrat Party governors to do so too, meaning that the death penalty in America is effectively gone outside of the reddest states that will never elect a Democrat.

Even if there is a conviction and death sentence, all a death row convict needs to do is wait until a Democrat gets into office, either the White House or Governor's Mansion, and his sentence will be commuted.

[tylertusta]

Bingo. With Biden's commutation, the federal death penalty is now effectively gone except for crimes that Democrats think warrants the death penalty- e.g.: against 'white supremacists' and people who challenge their political power through acts of terrorism.

[Lennyk78]

Yes. Why would any U.S. Attorneys bother spending millions of dollars and time to bring capital cases if the sentence is guaranteed to be commuted in 4-8 years? Executions don't happen quickly enough to avoid that scenario in any single case.

[tylertusta]

US Attorneys will do or not do what the President directs them to do. Trump is likely to nominate USAs that will pursue the death penalty where its appropriate.

The ultimate effect is that any death penalty sentences delivered by Trump-nominated USA will be wiped away as soon as a Democratic President takes office.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, unless they manage to expedite them somehow; There's no fundamental reason that a death sentence has to take decades to carry out.

[apedad]

Dontcha just hate it when democracy gets in the way of your ideals.

[Lennyk78]

What exactly is democratic about what happened?

Are you a troll, or just that stupid?

[apedad]

You're complaing about an elected president or governor making a decision and I'm saying they were elected - in part - because of the probability they would make that decision aka, democracy.

[Lennyk78]

Cool, then you will also apply that logic to anything Trump does?

I support blanket pardons of anyone who didn't do anything violent on 1/6, but let's not pretend that he was elected to do that.

[Frank Drackman]

No, I rather enjoyed November 5, didn't you?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and will enjoy January 20, 2025 even more. Gives real meaning to Happy New Year.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm okay with this.

We saw how corrupt DA's are in the Rittenhouse trial. Especially Democrat ones.

Democrats, especially Democrat lawyers, shouldn't hold the keys to anyone's life. In fact, if you're in government, empirically, you shouldn't be trusted to wipe someone else's ass.

Govies are shitty, often evil people. Govies at all levels.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Hey-Zeus, we get it, you literally got crucified after your encounter with "The Man"

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

In your book, the Talmud, where is Jesus and how long has he been/will be there?

[tylertusta]

Ah, but you misunderstand Biden's actions this morning.

He's still in favor of using the state against the perceived ideological enemies of the Democratic Party. Three individuals still have a federal death penalty sentence.

One of them was a terrorist who struck in a politically inconvenient way during a Democratic President's tenure, and the other two were branded "white supremacists."

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Oh of course.

By the way, you can drop the word "perceived". People who like God, Family, Country, and Freedom aren't just "perceived" as enemies of the Democrat Party, we are. They hate us and want us exterminated.

[tylertusta]

I say perceived because their perception changes as the fickle winds of politics directs them.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Good point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"perceived ideological enemies"

Its not that, its because of the political blowback helping such high profile killers escape justice. Nobody can name the other 37, the dust-up will be limited.

[tylertusta]

I'm sure Democrats are banking on this to blow over when Trump issues pardons and commutations for the Jan 6th protestors.

"perceived ideological enemies"

Yep. The death penalty is effectively reserved for white supremacists and terrorists who embarrass a Democratic President. Mass murderers who don't fall under those categories can be fairly confident that they will only get a life sentence.

[Lennyk78]

Biden is a terrorist. I'm just really glad the stupid biped mutt wasn't elected.

[David Nieporent]

He's still in favor of using the state against the perceived ideological enemies of the Democratic Party. Three individuals still have a federal death penalty sentence.

That you think that Roof and Bowers aren't ideological enemies of the Republican Party kind of says a lot about the Republican Party. (And I don't even know how you shoehorn Tsarnaev into your dumb comment.)

[tylertusta]

I see that David is finally here to defend all things Democrat. True to form, he pretends I said things that I did not say.

And I don't even know how you shoehorn Tsarnaev into your dumb comment

It helps if you had bothered to read my full comment.

"One of them was a terrorist who struck in a politically inconvenient way during a Democratic President's tenure..."

That you think that Roof and Bowers aren't ideological enemies of the Republican Party kind of says a lot about the Republican Party

And just where exactly did I say this?

[Nelson]

“ Biden's blanket commutations of death sentences will embolden Democrat Party governors to do so too, meaning that the death penalty in America is effectively gone outside of the reddest states that will never elect a Democrat.”

Given the incredibly high false conviction rate, that’s a great thing. Never mind the inherent immorality of murder.

[SRG2]

Odd story - a GOP congresswoman, Kay Granger, turns out to have been living in a senior living facility for the last few months suffering from dementia, having been absent from the House but not having told anyone about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/22/kay-granger-republican-congresswoman-memory-care

[Brett Bellmore]

How many votes did she cast during that time?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

At least she has the decency to get checked into a home. Unlike about 300 other Senators, Congressmen and Presidents.

[ThePublius]

Didn't her staff have a responsibility, even obligation, to report this? Or where they on a paid vacation, too?

[Commenter_XY]

That is where I am, too. There was a duty and obligation here that clearly was not met.

Did the Congresswoman need to complete her term for a congressional pension? If so, that might explain motivation.

There is no way that Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries did not know about this.

[tylertusta]

She already had her pension.

[Commenter_XY]

Then that motivation can be ruled out.

Is it fraud by the staff, by intentionally not reporting her condition so they could continue to be paid through the end of the year, etc?

If we are going to come down hard on the people who hid POTUS Biden's cognitive issues, the same standard should be applied here as well, it seems to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm fine with that. Yes, it should have been reported. Apparently this has been going on long enough that it serves to demonstrate just how secure incumbents are; She wasn't even bothering to campaign for releection, either.

[Bored Lawyer]

"If we are going to come down hard on the people who hid POTUS Biden's cognitive issues"

What is being done to "come down hard on" such people? As far as I can see, nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should we start with the media?

[Commenter_XY]

So far, you are right BL = nothing being done to hold liars to account that lied to the American people about POTUS Biden's cognitive issues, and risked the safety and security of the country.

[ducksalad]

Nah.

Suppose someone had made an issue out of it. The only remedy would've been to expel her from the House, which requires someone to make a motion. Why would any of them want to do that?

A Republican making such a motion would be accused of disloyalty to the party. A Democrat would be accused of treasonously overturning democracy. In either case there would be a rash of retaliatory motions to expel against lots of other members, all justified using the "they did it first" rule.

All for no purpose. Given the timing, a special election would've been in November and the person elected would only get to serve for a few weeks.

[Bob from Ohio]

"suffering from dementia, having been absent from the House but not having told anyone about it"

Those allegations are disputed.

[Michael P]

By whom? Where?

[Bob from Ohio]

Her son for one: "Granger says his mother is staying in the independent living facility to be around other seniors." Not the dementia unit.

She was in the Capitol in November for a portrait unveiling in November. There is a picture.

There is an article in the Austin paper.

[Kazinski]

She put out a statement that she is physically infirm, but mentally capable:

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) says she’s had “unforeseen health challenges,” with her office denying that she’s in memory care.

“I am deeply grateful for the outpouring of care and concern over the past several days,” Granger said in an emailed statement to The Hill on Sunday.

“As many of my family, friends, and colleagues have known, I have been navigating some unforeseen health challenges over the past year,” she added. “However, since early September, my health challenges have progressed, making frequent travel to Washington both difficult and unpredictable.”

In November, I was able to return to DC to hold meetings on behalf of my constituents, express my gratitude to my staff, and oversee the closure of my Washington office. It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve the city of Fort Worth — as a city council member, as mayor, and as a Member of Congress,” Granger said in the statement sent to The Hill on Sunday.

Shes about the same age as Nancy Pelosi who also missed the continuing resolution vote recovering from hip surgery at her home in California.

[John F. Carr]

CBS claims to have a leak of a final draft of the Gaetz report. A fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with that man. Even if you legalized drugs and 17 year old prostitutes so he didn't commit so many crimes, I don't think he has the character to be Attorney General. I now feel he was meant to be a sacrificial candidate.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matt-gaetz-ethics-report-released/

[Commenter_XY]

An interesting question is what/who is next, John F Carr?

There are going to be more reports 'leaked', and we may finally get some insight into how many settlements there have been over the years, and for whom.

Let the sun shine in.

[Z Crazy]

Isnt there a slush fund or something to pay out sexual harassment lawsuits?

[Commenter_XY]

There is, and it is high time to let the sun shine in.

[Moderation4ever]

This probably depends on how many friends the subjects of the reports have in Congress. Gaetz's circle of friends seem pretty thin.

[jb]

Not really a precedent for leaking anything when the committee goes ahead and publishes it.

[Commenter_XY]

Except that Congresswoman Susan Wild did leak the report. The precedent was set.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I mentioned last night to someone who was pleased with the Democrats' temporary, "victory," over Trump and Musk, that as long as the news focus stays on Gaetz, it hampers efforts to stop other unqualified nominees.

More generally, in politics the party which acts to determine the agenda is usually the party which is winning. It has been many years since Democratic Party leadership enjoyed initiative sufficient to control the Congressional agenda. It annoys me to see Democratic Party leaders celebrate in news interviews supposed victories which are in all likelihood only steps toward further losses.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

The state of the citizens, families, society, and the world should tell you the Democrats have been winning for a generation .

[Kazinski]

Its looking pretty good for Hegseth, Gabbard could still be in a little jeopardy, but still has a decent chance.

[Don Nico]

"which are in all likelihood only steps toward further losse"
Amen Stephen. Merry Christmas.

[SRG2]

The BBC is reporting that Gaetz is suing to stop the release.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj49ynwen8nt

[John F. Carr]

This morning Gaetz sued to block release of the report. The case is currently suspended because his attorney failed to follow proper procedure for requesting a TRO against the government.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69491209/gaetz-v-house-of-representatives-committee-on-ethics/

If I chaired the committee I would hold a public hearing immediately and start reading the report while cameras roll. Speech and debate clause says there's nothing the courts can do about it.

[David Nieporent]

It's an utterly frivolous lawsuit, and is also now moot because the report was formally released.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Speech and debate clause says there's nothing the courts can do about it."

Is there anything different, speech or debate clause wise, from reading it to the cameras and just releasing it? IIUC the clause had been interpreted to cover more than just reading stuff on the floor.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link. The filing of the complaint in this case appears to be sanctionable in light of the Speech or Debate clause.

Gaetz has now conceded that the action is moot in light of the House Ethics Committee's public disclosure of the report whose release Plaintiff seeks to enjoin. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.275994/gov.uscourts.dcd.275994.9.0_2.pdf

[Moderation4ever]

I saw the summary on CNN. I am not really surprised, and you cannot really hide a report like this. Just too big. Question, the Feds declined to prosecute on child sex slavery, but will Florida prosecute on statuary rape?

[ducksalad]

Statutory.

Statuary rape isn't among the accusations, and it's not even a crime unless done in public.

[Bored Lawyer]

"and it's not even a crime unless done in public"

What? Source?

[ducksalad]

Read carefully: "Statuary".

[ducksalad]

On second thought, maybe you have a point.

I was thinking the statue was the victim, but maybe you were thinking the other way around.

[Bored Lawyer]

OK. ISWYDT.

But statues can be located in private, no?

[Michael P]

I don't think any state has criminalized rubbing one off against a statue. Some states have laws that might ban statues that are designed for that purpose, but after Bowers v. Hardwick, private use (as such) of such a statue could probably not be punished.

(All assuming the statue did not consent.)

[John F. Carr]

This subthread reminds me of the guy humping the "Fearless Girl" statue on Wall Street in 2017.

[bernard11]

Does it require penetration? Could take some work.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Speak for yourself.

[Frank Drackman]

Might not be a crime, but you can certainly get the "Death Penalty" for doing it.

[Kazinski]

The feds declined to prosecute because of severe credibility problems with Gaetz's two main accusers.

Its also worth noting sex with a 17 year old is legal in 40 US states, so its hardly a federal crime.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Its also worth noting sex with a 17 year old is legal in 40 US states, so its hardly a federal crime."

Your understanding of the law, as usual, is just as flawed as everything else you pontificate about.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't need to defend this, Kaz.

Is it just a reflex with you now?

[Kazinski]

Defend 17 year olds having sex? Or it not being a federal crime?

I don't think 17 year olds having sex should be criminalized in any state, because they are going to have sex whether the law says they can or not.

And I don't think the federal government should criminalize something legal in 40 states.

Or defending the DOJ not thinking the accusers were credible enough to get a conviction for whatever crime they might be able to charge? That was their call, but I don't think you should make a federal case out of a 17 year old having sex.

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty disingenuous way to frame that. It ignores the prostitution and trafficking bits.

Bottom line, your quibbling with this law and that's wisdom makes it look like you are arguing Gaetz was acting within ethical bounds.

[Kazinski]

I said nothing about the ethics, I was talking about the DOJ decision to close their investigation without prosecuting.

I think that was the correct decision, it hardly seems to amount to a federal case.

[not guilty]

"I think that was the correct decision, it hardly seems to amount to a federal case."

Whether Matthew Gaetz is a slimy, self-serving scoundrel and whether he is deserving of federal prosecution are distinct inquiries. Thank heaven he withdrew from consideration to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

[Kazinski]

I did oppose his nomination from the outset, mainly because I haven't seen any evidence he has any competence to run the DOJ.

Its one thing to go in and fire people and pis people off, which I don't mind.

But the DOJ is going to have its hands full defending Trump's policies in court. I think Bondi will be much more competent in running the core functions of the department.

I'm glad he's out of the House too.

[Sarcastr0]

So you don’t like Gaetz purely for functional reasons..

His reported actions are immaterial to you as long as he stays out of jail.

Weird take!

[Sarcastr0]

Why bother to split hairs?

He sucks.

Lets hope we never need to think of him again.

[Nelson]

“ I don't think 17 year olds having sex should be criminalized in any state”

How do you feel about 30-somethings that sleep with high school juniors?

[Life of Brian]

The feds declined to prosecute because of severe credibility problems with Gaetz's two main accusers

Yeah, after skimming it my high-level takeaway was that if a cross-party DOJ couldn't even scrape together enough to move forward on this sort of juicy target, the odds of there being any real "there" there are approaching zero.

The only way I see that the committee really was able to put a story together was by just taking the word of one of the witnesses at 100% face value anyway, and acknowledging through gritted teeth that the other probably wasn't credible but extensively quoting juicy bits from him nonetheless.

[not guilty]

"The only way I see that the committee really was able to put a story together was by just taking the word of one of the witnesses at 100% face value anyway, and acknowledging through gritted teeth that the other probably wasn't credible but extensively quoting juicy bits from him nonetheless."

It wasn't just the word of one of the witnesses. Rep. Gaetz's refusal to appear before the Committee (to the point of ignoring a subpoena) gives rise to an inference of untoward conduct on his part.

[Life of Brian]

Rep. Gaetz's refusal to appear before the Committee (to the point of ignoring a subpoena) gives rise to an inference of untoward conduct on his part.

That's quite an... interesting perspective from a former criminal attorney.

The scorned committee members can of course mumble about things like "giving rise to an inference" all they want, but of course the question is not whether they got their fee-fees hurt and need to throw their weight around in response, but whether there's any credible evidence that the rather grossly cariacatured allegations actually happened.

[not guilty]

Unclear on the difference between criminal proceedings and other official proceedings, LifeofBrian? A criminal defendant's silence is inadmissible and cannot be held against him. That is manifestly untrue of other legal proceedings. See, Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316-319 (1976).

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, apparently you're still fixated on the mechanics of your Very Clever technical point, and missing mine.

First off, the opinion says nothing at all about drawing adverse inferences -- it bases its conclusions on the credibility of the witnesses.

Second, even if this (apparently largely impotent and fairly bitter about that) committee had relied on your too-cute theory to declare him guilty, that has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood that any of Joel Greenberg's tall tales actually happened, as I said.

Lastly, had you actually advised one of your clients to go testify freely before a committee that itself was generally toothless but clearly had a hard-on to try to show you had violated criminal laws, I can't help but think that could have led to yet another disciplinary complaint.

Merry Christmas!

[not guilty]

Au contraire. The Committee report includes considerable discussion of Rep. Gaetz's refusal to appear and testify. He would of course have had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but that would need to have been asserted on a question by question basis. It was not a privilege to disregard a subpoena entirely.

[Josh R]

A fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas

You may have won over Frank Drackman with that one.

[SRG2]

Trivia: it was originally "Dallas" but after the JFK assassination, they dubbed Slim Pickens' line and changed it to "Vegas".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with that man."

Is the $100 in gold at 1964 prices?

[not guilty]

The House Ethics Committee report has now been released: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/6d4191b479034e4e/3c9f42ed-full.pdf

Interesting information about the man that Donald Trump wanted to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

[tkamenick]

Merry Christmas everyone. Hug the ones you love.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and love the one your with?

[Bored Lawyer]

The scandal of the century is the coverup (if you can call it that) of the fact that the president of the US has been mentally incapacitated for some time, perhaps from early in his term. This is exactly the situation the 25th Amendment was meant to deal with, and it is clear that it does not work.

I noticed a provision there:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

To my knowledge, Congress has never passed a law creating such "other body." Looks like it's time to do that. Who that should be, I don't know. A provision like this is ripe for partisan abuse in both directions, so one must be careful.

[Moderation4ever]

Perhaps the mechanism would be to add it to the impeachment clause. Say high crimes, misdemeanors, or other impediments to serving.

[Kazinski]

Congress can impeach for any reason the like, its one of those things the courts see as political questions.

Not too long ago a jusge challenged the Senates practice of delegating trials for lessor officials to a committee (although the Senate as a whole votes to confirm or reject the committees verdict) even though the text arguably requires the Senate as a whole to try the impeachment:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

[David Nieporent]

Not too long ago

It was over 30 years!

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure the Dems would love that now that DJT is President.

[Longtobefree]

Fun fact. They could designate the Republican caucus as that other body.
How much will Ticketmaster charge to watch the heads explode?

[DaveM]

No, the scandal of the century is that Democrats tried to sell us a candidate they knew was mentally incapacitated and would be unable to serve.

Sure, there was a "cover up", but it was a cover up of a LIE. That LIE is the scandal.

Let's wait and see just how many political consultants lose their jobs because they participated in the lie. How many staffers will be demoted or even reprimanded? How many candidates will be primaried? How many office holders of the DNC will face anything?

My prediction: zero.

[Roger S]

Are you referring to Biden or Harris? Biden was better at explaining himself than Harris was.

[Commenter_XY]

Is there any historical analogue to follow, for 'the other body'?

[Life of Brian]

This is exactly the situation the 25th Amendment was meant to deal with, and it is clear that it does not work.

Or, perhaps, it's clear that Biden's "25th Amendment insurance" veep pick worked just swimmingly.

[Bob from Ohio]

Here are the highlights of the bio of Jorge Avila-Torrez, who Joe Biden doesn't think deserves to die.

"Eight-year-old Laura Hobbs and nine-year-old Krystal Tobias went out to play on their bicycles but failed to return by nightfall on Mother's Day in 8 May 2005. Their families, police, and volunteers searched for the girls all night, but to no avail.[2] The girls bodies were found the following day by Hobbs's father, Jerry.[3] Both girls had suffered fatal stab wounds to their necks and faces.[4][5] In addition, they were sexually assaulted.[2]"

"In 2009, he attacked 20-year-old Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Amanda Jean Snell, a Naval Military Intelligence specialist, strangling her to death in the barracks area." [note the federal crime he is in prison for]

"n February 2010, Avila-Torrez stalked and abducted two women in Northern Virginia, binding them with electrical cords in their Ballston apartment. He kidnapped one of the women, [6] driving to a secluded area where he raped and strangled her before leaving her for dead at the side of the road. The woman survived and reported the crime, leading to the arrest of Avila-Torrez.[6] DNA collected and run from this case was linked to the previous murders."

[Bored Lawyer]

"who Joe Biden doesn't think "

who Joe Biden's handlers don't think . . .

FIFY.

[Michael P]

Technically, someone who doesn't think at all doesn't think that particular thing either.

[John F. Carr]

I hope we get a list of names of the people pulling Biden's strings. There is no need to do anything about Biden, who will decay in peace. The real presidents should be kept out of power in the future.

In this case, who told the tough on crime Senator to commute sentences as President?

[Moderation4ever]

Bad dude but he not going anywhere. He in prison for life.

[Mr. Bumble]

...until he isn't.

[Michael Ejercito]

Israel traded prisoners for hostages.

Who is to say someone after Trump will trade these people for hostages taken by terrorists?

[Bob from Ohio]

"He in prison for life."

9 of the 37 were convicted of killing fellow prisoners.

[SimonP]

Wow, the MAGA crowd is really frothed up over not killing some prisoners, huh? What do you think explains this need for blood, Bobby?

[Bob from Ohio]

I respect his victims. I want his blood and his soul.

He gets to live because he didn't kill enough.

[Mr. Bumble]

The answer to this is to construct a new general population prison for the Biden 37 and let them have at each other.

[John F. Carr]

If you want them dead anyway just have Trump put out the word. He can ensure that nobody faces any consequences for a prison murder. Except possibly the taxpayers. The President is absolutely immune from suit for giving orders. The rest of the executive branch is only mostly immune from suit.

[Mr. Bumble]

No need for that. Several of the 37 have killed other prisoners.

[SimonP]

Ha ha - okay, but seriously, what explains this bloodthirst? Are you a vampire, or a Neanderthal?

[Mr. Bumble]

See some of the victims in the linked story then ask again.
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/us-news/biden-commutes-death-sentences-of-child-killers-and-mass-murderers-2-days-before-christmas/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=referral
But of course children annoy you so there is that.

[SimonP]

I'm not interested in emotional appeals.

[Michael P]

That's exactly what saying "bloodthirst" was, you hypocrite.

[SimonP]

Bob literally said that he wants criminals' "blood" and "soul." I think I was only being descriptive.

[hobie]

Hiding behind the victims doesn't answer the question. You and the other hillbillies here have cheered human suffering for years. Human suffering you approve of. Your sympathy for these particular victims smacks of politics. And you haven't answered the question

[Michael P]

Asking people to remember the crimes a convict committed is not "hiding behind the victims". And part of executing an offender is closing the book on their crimes, so that their victims (or the surviving family members and friends of their victims) can move on with their lives. You apparently want to prolong the suffering of those victims, and risk the creation of new victims, so that you can pretend nobody is responsible.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I suppose not a good vampire like the one played by Alicia Silverstone in Vamps.

[Michael Ejercito]

What explains your simping for murderers?

[SimonP]

I'm not "simping" for anyone. I just want our penal system to be scientifically designed and justly administered. Our focus should be on reducing crime through effective deterrence and addressing the structural factors that increase crime. All this caterwauling over killing child murderers is distasteful and beside the point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"structural factors"

You think Avila-Torrez raped and murdered two little girls because of "structural factors"? You will justify any depravity.

"beside the point"

Its exactly the point. He lives and they are dead, nothing "just" about it.

[SimonP]

You think Avila-Torrez raped and murdered two little girls because of "structural factors"? You will justify any depravity.

Are you actually this stupid?

[Michael Ejercito]

You claimed that structural factors caused Avila-Torrez to rape and murder little girls.

[SimonP]

Nope! Thanks for playing, dumbshit.

[Michael P]

You'e simping. A scientifically designed penal system would work to ensure extremely high rates of punishment for crime, which is exactly opposite to what most Democrats want.

[Sarcastr0]

Policy is science plus values.

I’m not for a scientifically designed system because that implies a purity of design that humans will never accomplish.

It says a lot about your worldview that you think science demands a harsh penalty system.

[Don Nico]

I'll give in to your troll.
"Policy is science plus values."
Where is the science?

[Sarcastr0]

What the about that statement sounds like a troll? You do realize I was disagreeing with SimonP there (albeit a side statement he made, not his general disgust at the performative bloody-mindedness of the wankers on here)

No, you don't. Because you're back to badly skimming and posting hot takes.

The science in a 'scientifically designed penal system' would be the psychology of punishing and rehabilitating criminals to meet the goals set out by the policymakers, who stand in for the values of the society that elected them.

[Don Nico]

It doesn't matter who you were replying to. I was questioning the content.
As for troll, most of your andodyne comments to me are trolls to see my reply. You are so bad a mind-reading.

[Sarcastr0]

most of your andodyne comments to me are trolls to see my reply

Anodyne but also troll....this comment eats itself.

You asked a question. I answered it. I guess you're done with that part. Just wake up grumpy?

You also didn't push back where I noted that you yet again misread the comment thread and had no idea what I was actually saying or replying to.

As you do like 80% of the time.

Some of the people in my office read to fast as well. It's a common and hard to shake habit.

[SimonP]

Why would it do that?

[Kazinski]

There is nothing to indicate that common garden variety humans are as bloodthirsty as Neanderthals , and who can blame a vampire for merely obtaining the sustenance they need to live.

The Roman Coliseum stands, the crowds atrending the guillotine, or public hanging were neither vampires or Neanderthals.

[SimonP]

The historical parallels you've drawn do not exactly cast modern-day bloodthirsters in a positive light.

[Michael Ejercito]

How so?

[SimonP]

"Bread and circuses" and the "Reign of Terror" ring a bell, or do I need to read some history to you?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — But today, the crowds clamoring for blood include members of the jury pool. I count that a good reason to end the executions.

[Michael Ejercito]

They were sentenced to death until FJB commuted their sentences.

[Frank Drackman]

not quite as much as your side was over letting states decide to kill unborn babies or not, what do you think explains your need for innocent blood, Simon?

[SimonP]

Frank, I am happy to explain my position on the morality of abortion, but only after you've properly accounted for the existence of women and their role in gestating fetuses in your own comments.

[Frank Drackman]

only after you've properly accounted for the existence of men and their role in creating fetuses in your own comments.

[SimonP]

I see that I'm dealing with some galaxy-level intelligence here.

[SRG2]

I will stipulate that most if not all the people on Federal DR deserve to be executed. But that is a separate issue from whether there should be a death penalty.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But Biden believes that there should be a death penalty. He just doesn't believe that this individual deserves it.

[SRG2]

Alternatively, Biden* thought that three of the criminals' crimes were so heinous that he would not extend his general principle to them.

* As used in this comments section, "Biden" and any associated pronoun refers to one or more of president Joe Biden, his wife, his advisors and any other counsellors, officials or other persons with more than de minimis input into Executive decisions

[Bob from Ohio]

How were they more "heinous" than Avila-Torrez's crimes, for instance?

3 murders including 2 children, 2 horrible beatings, 5 rapes, let an innocent man go to prison for 5 years.

[Frank Drackman]

They were white guys with non-hyphenated names

[SRG2]

Because in addition to the murders they threatened society itself. Do you think that an illegal act with a terrorist motive should be treated the same as the same act with no such motive? Of course you don't.

[Bob from Ohio]

"illegal act with a terrorist motive"

I bet those two little girls felt plenty of terror.

Biden didn't commute those 3 sentences because they were infamous and he didn't want the heat.

[Sarcastr0]

Biden didn't commute those 3 sentences because they were infamous and he didn't want the heat.

I doubt he cares about the heat.

But I agree with the first half. Do you think that is bad? Seems to me it's just bowing to the inevitable.

[SRG2]

Sometimes you're a bigger idiot than other times. An act causing terror to the victim is not per se terrorism.

[tylertusta]

Biden commuted the sentences of two other serial killers.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One classic holiday film aired last night.

Remember the Night stars Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray. Stanwyck was arrested for theft. MacMurray was the prosecutor and found a way to postpone the trial to avoid having the jury sympathetically get her off out of holiday spirit.

She would have to spend the holiday in prison so he decides to post bail. However, she still has no place to stay, and it winds up her mother doesn't want her either. So, he has her spend with his family. And, this being Hollywood, they fall in love.

He tries to throw the case but she stops him by admitting guilt. He wants to marry her right away but she tells him to wait until she gets out of prison. He agrees to be at her side during sentencing.

The film is labeled a comedy-romance but has some serious overtones, of course, given the subject matter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Breaking: Trump accuses someone of being Constitutionally ineligible for president who actually is.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This guy might not have been the best option for Attorney General.

https://ethics.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Committee-Report.pdf

[Roger S]

It only shows that he has enemies who leak allegations in order to destroy him.

[David Nieporent]

An investigational body publishing a report of its findings is not "leaking" anything; it is releasing them.

[Frank Drackman]

Better option than Eric Texas Hold'em, Loretta Lynch Mob, and Merrick the Elephant Man Garfield, hope Matthew follows through and leaks the reports on all the other Representatives, and Bondi's a better choice anyway, so go fuck yourself.

[SRG2]

Trump going after Greenland again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-23/trump-revives-interest-in-greenland-as-key-to-national-security

“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World,” Trump said on Truth Social Sunday, “the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

I recall the last time he expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, he was widely mocked but his supporters insisted he was joking and trolling and the mockers had been trolled, and then he clarified that he was being serious, whereupon his supporters were telling us that it was a great idea.

I don't know what right Trump thinks the US - or he himself - has to Greenland but fuck off, basically.

(I did read a comment suggesting that Trump has been fooled by the Mercator Projection into thinking that Greenland is much larger than it is. It wouldn't be surprising, nor would any of his lackeys correct his error.)

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought he was joking, but it wasn't a stupid suggestion. That's how we got Alaska, after all.

I doubt they'd be interested in selling, though.

[SRG2]

I thought he was joking, but it wasn't a stupid suggestion. That's how we got Alaska, after all.

Under very different times and circumstances.

[Mr. Bumble]

You do realize that the Truman administration offered Denmark $100 million in 1946?

[SRG2]

The response of a man desperate to defend the latest Trump idiocy.

[Mr. Bumble]

So Truman was an idiot?
How about Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase or Seward for purchasing Alaska?
I only stated a fact. If a deal could be worked out (I doubt it) it would be a great addition to the US for many reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Truman is one of my favorite Presidents, though that's despite his shambolic foreign policy.

Our understanding of the price of imperialism was pretty different in 1946. Hauling that back out has no relevance other than the cosmetic.

And of course 1946 dollars are not the same as 2024 dollars.

Finally, might you explicate these 'many reasons?' Trump didn't really go into detail beyond namechecking national security and freedom.

[Mr. Bumble]

Was Truman an idiot?
I know you are. Always finding new ways to say nothing.
Merry Christmas Il Douche. May you never change.

[Sarcastr0]

Great jerb, Bumble.

Nothing but the laziest anti-cheerleading from you.

[SRG2]

Different times and circumstances, duh. The only idiot here is you.

[Michael P]

It might be most advisable for Canada to become the 53rd state, after Greenland and the Panama Canal Zone.

[ducksalad]

The idea of selling sovereignty over an inhabited region with no regard to the wishes of the inhabitants is less accepted that it was in the 1860s.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, majority rules, right? If a majority of the total population of the US, Greenland, and Denmark want it, they should get it.

[ducksalad]

I was going to respond with what if China and the US were voting on the sale of California.

Then I thought about it some more. Even if it was Nauru and the US voting on the sale of California, it would pass, even with Nauruans unanimously against.

[Kazinski]

Why should a settler-colonialist power like Denmark get a say in disposing of the fruits of crimes against humanity?

Sweden, Norway, the UK, Normandy, Ireland have all cast off the Danish yoke, why not the Greenlanders too?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Samir, this is America.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who ever said "with no regard to the wishes of the inhabitants"?

[ducksalad]

I didn't hear Trump say "with regard" either.

“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

[Roger S]

Greenland does not have inhabitants who are capable of running it as a nation.

[ducksalad]

And you're claiming that Denmark or the US do?

[jb]

We're hopefully also at the point in the way we think about these things that the people who live in Greenland might get some say in the matter as well.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sue, all 45,000.

[Bob from Ohio]

My bad, 56,000 residents.

[Sarcastr0]

‘I thought he was joking but also I support the joke.’

Get used to this dignityless two step folks.

[hobie]

Like with Panama, I presume part of the impetus is to blunt Chinese expansion. But, like Panama, China's approach is to charm and bribe and cajole. Trump's approach appears to be threats and confiscation. Which of the two do you think these two nations are more likely to respond to?

[DaveM]

As satellite photography has recently shown, the US has had significant a cold war military presence in Greenland. I just assume that presence has grown in the many decades since. From a logistics perspective, Greenland is a lot like Hawaii: a strategic outpost thousands of miles closer to any potential adversary.

[apedad]

Actually Sondrestrom Air Base (just north of the Arctic Circle), closed in 1992 and now Pituffik Space Base (formally Thule Air Base) is the only major US military facility. (see wiki for a bunch of details)

Not sure if there are still Distant Early Warning (DEW) sites now, but there were during the Cold War.

I was in Sondy in '82/'83, and had a blast.

[Commenter_XY]

What made it fun? It was cold AF.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Just to keep posted, you might want to double-check the geographic geometry of the U.S., Greenland, and Panama.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Feel free to dunk away, but… assuming the consent of the Danish and Greenlandic governments (presumably obtained for valuable consideration from the U.S.), why would this be a bad thing?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems a lot of trouble when the status quo seems fine.

[ducksalad]

Some reasons:

1, Not much to gain since they already let us put bases there.

2. If it was case of government officials selling out without the consent of the population, we'd probably have put down a rebellion, and would look pretty foolish doing so. And given recent performance it's not even 100% sure we'd win.

3. (For the MAGAs) If you wouldn't enthusiastically give admission to immigrants from there, with no legality requirements or picking and choosing, why would you want to do exactly the same thing by annexing it?

[Noscitur a sociis]

1. I think being part of the United States is an independently good thing.

2. Hence my stipulation that it should happen only with consent of the interested parties. I agree it’s not worth killing anyone for.

3. I have no reservations about any of the ~50,000 residents of Greenland moving to the U.S., regardless of annexation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeesh. Pretty soon our streets will be lined with blubber joints instead of hamburger stands and taco shops as they should be.

[Sarcastr0]

This looks like an uncabined commitment to expand being part of the US to any group that wants it.

I'm sure you have limits, even if Greenland isn't within them. What are they?

[Noscitur a sociis]

How plausible it is that they can be successfully and non-disruptively integrated into the American polity. That seems like it would be feasible for Greenland in a way it wouldn’t for, say, India or Germany or Soutb Africa.

[Stephen Lathrop]

To me, any of the latter three look easier to integrate into the American polity than Alaska or Idaho. Haven't you noticed how many folks of Indian descent are showing up as candidates for high office? South African Musk is apparently co-President already. NASA ran for years on German scientific and cultural heritage, and not the best of it, either. What comparable national polity contributions have you seen from Idaho?

[hobie]

It would be great if Greenland let us have half the profits from all their resources instead of staying independent and keeping all the profits for themselves. It's gonna be a tough call for all them brown, mexican-like eskimos to make

[Kazinski]

But they aren't independent, so its impossible for them to stay that way.

[hobie]

Well, whoever runs the show there, I can't see them giving up their fortunes just because Trump so tactfully got all up in their grille and snaps his fingers. The best course would be to start pumping Fox and Newsmax into the nation. It'll take some years, but they'll eventually become zombified and convinced polar bears (which everyone knows are the negroes of the North) are out for their jobs and women folk

[Bob from Ohio]

"However, in July 2021, Greenland banned all new oil and gas exploration in its territory, with government officials stating that the environmental "price of oil extraction is too high"." wikipedia

They don't seem interested in profits.

[Commenter_XY]

It is a voluntary transaction. What is not to like about it?

[bernard11]

Between who and who?

The voluntary transaction excuse disappears when there are third parties involved who are harmed by the deal and don't like it.

[Absaroka]

That's a fascinating question!

Consider Quebec. It is a mix of people who want to secede from Canada, and those who don't. What fraction, if any, would justify secession (assuming the rest of Canada agrees)?

My sense is that 50% isn't necessarily enough - the minority has what I think the lawyers call a reliance interest in remaining part of Canada. But what about 99%?

So what if 99% of Greenlanders want to join the US? Out of the question?

(strictly hypothetical ... don't think 99% of Greenlanders want that)

[Commenter_XY]

Denmark 'owns' Greenland; America and Denmark complete a voluntary transaction. This is not controversial.

Remember the Louisiana Purchase from school? Purchase of AK, Seward's Folly? Did we ask the Indians and Eskimos for their thoughts....?

All of this said, I don't think there is a deal to be had yet. That could change if Denmark runs into some problems that only America can resolve satisfactorily. Then maybe, one hand can wash the other.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I'm thinking of changing my username to BuddhaHadBlueEyes

Or

RedheadedPharaoh

Thoughts? I think it's important to bring these truths to the forefront.

[DaveM]

I'm thinking BuddhaWoreAChristmasTie. Gotta keep that mashup really mashed up.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I was going for things that were true. Like my current nom de plume and the two alternatives.

[Roger S]

Jesus was a Roman, and not a Jewish rabbi. The Talmud had not been written yet, and there were no Jewish rabbis.

[not guilty]

"Jesus was a Roman, and not a Jewish rabbi. The Talmud had not been written yet, and there were no Jewish rabbis."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, Roger?

[Bob from Ohio]

He was a Jew, not a Roman but Roger is correct about rabbis in the modern sense. The Temple still functioned and there were still Priests performing the religious function.

Of course "rabbi" just means "teacher" so the generic term can be applied to Jesus

[ducksalad]

The more accurate description would be "at least half Jewish" but I believe the rules were such that the mother wins, so he's in.

[Roger S]

The area was under Roman occupation. Paul is believed to have been a Roman citizen. Not that he was born in Rome, but part of the Roman empire.

[Commenter_XY]

Wow, Mary would really be surprised to hear that = Jesus was a Roman

[hobie]

Mary lied about a lot of things. The Hebrew texts from which the gospels were written clearly state she was already naturally pregnant when she got her revelations. Nothing immaculate about the Jesus bro.

[ducksalad]

You're being overly harsh about the lying. We don't know what she herself said, if anything. The Christian claim is that Joseph got the explanation through a revelation.

[not guilty]

As I understand it the Immaculate Conception was that of Mary, so that she was born without original sin.

I remember a National Lampoon cartoon from the 1970s that showed a young woman lying back in bed beneath the covers while a halo floated above her crotch. The caption was "Foreplay to the Immaculate Conception."

Imagining Mary and Joseph in couples counseling brings a chuckle when I think of it.

[Frank Drackman]

Back when National Lampoon was funny instead of a vehicle for Chevy Chase to make Shekels

[Commenter_XY]

hobie...We don't know, and may never know. We were not there. I would simply add that the theme of Virgin Birth and Son of God and Resurrection are not unique to Christianity. Those themes were well established long before Jesus (a Jew) was born, in Babylonian, Sumerian, and Assyrian literature.

As for the Gospels themselves, none are a direct eyewitness account; the earliest Gospel was written ~60AD (Mark?).

What I would say. The Jewish man known as Jesus has had a profound, overall positive influence on humanity, and was one of the most influential Jews born since Joseph, Moses, or David.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, and Martin Lucifer King was a perverted sex fiend, probably a Homo too, who made Matt Gaetz look like Pee Wee Herman, how about a pardon for James Earl Ray for getting everyone a day off in January? 2 can play at this game "Bro" (Luigi Mangione's one chance of getting off, claim he shot the CEO Suit (can't even remember the guy's name, I think that's what Luigi wanted) for calling him "Bro"

[jb]

I'd encourage you to switch since both of those other names have much better historical support for being true than your current one.

[Commenter_XY]

RedHeadedPharoah, for sure. It is not even close.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In litigation with Freeman and Moss, Giuliani had the audacity to quote from a 1998 article written by the presiding judge: “The quality of our system of justice is measured by the service it provides to the poorest and most despised members of society.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.627518/gov.uscourts.nysd.627518.145.0.pdf

Guiliani suggests that this quote applies to him, and whines about the fact that he would have had to put up $146 million to stay the judgement pending appeal whereas his net worth is in the $1 to $10 million range. But the poorest and most despised members of our society don’t have either a net worth of over a million dollars or a platform that would allow them to inflict $146 million worth of harm.

The reality is that Guiliani attacked and upended the lives of two black women of limited means, presumably because he believed they would be unable to fight back. But in this case, at least, the justice system lived up to its ideal of making everyone equal before the law.

The filing offers a clue as to why Guiliani decided to go after a couple of random poll workers in the first place: “No matter what anyone says, the truth and fact is that Plaintiffs are represented by those who believe in liberal democracy, and you have a defendant whose beliefs are the antithesis of the Plaintiffs’ counsel.”

If you want to destroy liberal democracy, there are a number of ways to achieve that. One of them is to intimidate those whose job it is to count the votes.

[Roger S]

Giuliani did not inflict $146M of harm. He merely made some observations about the public vote counting, based on a posted video. Then he got outlawyered in court.

[Lennyk78]

The two fat jiggaboos he supposedly defamed did not have real careers. How could they have suffered any amount of damages near what the corrupt judge and jury awarded?

[Frank Drackman]

"Jiggaboo"?? Racial epithets are like Carbon Dating, "Jiggaboo" being slightly before my time (1962, I think I started with "Spook") I'm guessing you're born from 1954-1958, and if I'm wrong, well fuck me in the ass and call me a bitch! (HT Terrance & Phillip)

[Bwaaah]

I don't know why anybody doesn't love you, Frank.

I knew a person who talked about the "darkies" who were working at a local buffet restaurant. Care to take a swipe at the time range for that one?

[Frank Drackman]

"Darkies" Been around at least since Stephen Fucking Foster (HT J Holiday DDS) composed "Old Folks at Home" (AKA "Swanee River") in 1851
of course his original lyrics are NSFW (Not Safe for Woosies) as they go
Way down upon de Swanee Ribber,
Far, far away,
Dere's wha my heart is turning ebber,
Dere's wha de old folks stay.
All up and down de whole creation
Sadly I roam,
Still longing for de old plantation,
And for de old folks at home.

Chorus
All de world am sad and dreary,
Eb-rywhere I roam;
Oh, darkeys, how my heart grows weary,
Far from de old folks at home!

[Bwaaah]

Good reference. A pleasant oldie. (Looks like it's been correctively distorted to suit the designs of the keepers of propriety.)

The guy I quoted was born in 1901. He was a wealthy upstate New Yorker, and a pretty average thinker by my estimate. I heard him use that expression around 1985. His usage was not unlike referring to "the help."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, Police Academy came out in 1984, where Bubba Smith famously flipped a patrol car over after an instructor called one of his peers a "dumb, fat jigaboo."

Better get that asshole lubed up, bitch.

[Michael Ejercito]

How was he outlawyered?

[hobie]

God that's embarrassing. Nothing screams novice and a dearth of arguments than when you start with Shakespearean quotes of forefathers and patriotic noblese. I would never expect such talk from an experienced prosecutor. Rudy's mind and reputation are in tatters. Too bad Trump stiffed him on the legal fees

[Kenneth Almquist]

It’s worse than that; it’s a quote from the presiding judge. The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law at Yale holds an annual colloquium, and when they published the papers from the first colloquium, they asked Arthur Liman’s son, Lewis Liman, to write the forward. Lewis Liman subsequently became a district court judge, and is the presiding judge in Freeman v. Giuliani.

The forward uses sufficiently quotable language that you might expect people to have quoted from it, but prior to the Guiliani’s filing, nobody had quoted it on a resource indexed by Google or in a court filing included in the CourtListener database. Guiliani seems to think that pandering to the judge is his best hope.

[David Nieporent]

Guiliani seems to think that pandering to the judge is his best hope.

Giuliani seems to think that lying to the judge is his best hope. His previous lawyers withdrew, and — as is typical — filed their affidavits justifying their withdrawal under seal. 99% of the time it's "the client isn't paying us." But not here. It's "the client is flaunting his defiance of the court, against our advice, and we can't be parties to that." We know that, because Rudy's substitute lawyer just tried to blame the plaintiffs, claiming that the original lawyers had to withdraw because the plaintiffs had inundated them with motions. That pissed off Liman so much that he partially unsealed the lawyers' affidavits, in which they explained that the true reason was that Rudy had told them that he would defy court orders to cooperate with discovery. (Note that the underlying judgment came about as a sanction because Rudy had refused to cooperate with discovery!)

[Bob from Ohio]

"upended the lives"

Made then rich you mean.

[Lennyk78]

I'm sure they'll use the winnings on fake nails and new sail phones.

[not guilty]

What on earth is a sail phone?

[Lennyk78]

What these fat beasts call cell phones.

[Life of Brian]

Think "say-ul phone." You might have to go a bit further south than Tennessee to hear it in all its glory.

[RedheadedPharoh]

They weren't random. What sort of nonsense is this redwashing 2020?

They were on video stealing an election.

[Nelson]

No one was on video stealing an election. That has been proved over and over.

[Brett Bellmore]

And now for something completely different.

Scientists Claim Dark Energy does not Exist, and Accelerated Expansion of Universe is an Illusion Caused by Gravity slowing down time

[tylertusta]

Interesting. That'll just make the Crisis in Cosmology even more of a crisis.

[hobie]

I'm fine with that. I've never been comfortable with us making up things like dark matter and Plank length to compensate for our inability to probe all aspects of the universe

[tylertusta]

I think that "making up things" is a helpful tool to describe the phenomenon that are discovered and to provide a mathematical framework to describe whatever it is that we see.

And the planck length isn't anything special. It's just a derivation of constants into an expression of length. It's just as made up as the inch or the meter is.

[hobie]

Claiming Planck length as being the absolute smallest thing in the Universe may help square equations, but it flies in the face of the concepts of infinite smallness and bigness

[tylertusta]

The people who came up with planck length made no such claim.

You can thank pop science media for making all of the wild claims that you've seen on the planck length.

[Frank Drackman]

Mrs Hobie (what am I saying? Mr Hobie) knows all about the "Absolute Smallest Thing in the Universe"

[Bwaaah]

But that's not a constant. It grows to 1.25 x Planck length whenever you comment, Frank. That's when Mrs. Hobie refers to him as "Big Guy," as in, "I see Frank Drackman must've responded to one of your remarks, Mr. Big Guy."

[Kazinski]

Interesting, and plausible, but probably won't be settled for a few centuries.

Gravity itself is a black hole so to speak. Its the strongest force in the universe, but it only weakly interacts with matter.

If the Graviton particle exists, which it most certainly must, its too weak to be detected, it can only be inferred. And of course you can stand on 10ft thick concrete or steel and it seemingly doesn't block any of the gravity particles from affecting you too.

Even Neutrinos which pass through us by the billions without effect are more detectable than Gravitons. Photons which are much more detectable, but can either pass entirely through you if they are radio waves but fry you if they are microwave frequency.

And why isn't there a gravity mirror or faraday cage, although there are gravity lenses.

[tylertusta]

The quantum theories of gravity are a bunch of bogus bunk- graviton included!

General relativity cannot be so easily thrown aside.

[hobie]

The quantum is - to me - the only sort of proof of the devine (the fact that it repels us from knowing it). I wouldn't put nothing past the quantum...even with how attractive and dear General Relativity is to me

[Frank Drackman]

You wouldn't know General Relativity if it bent you over a bench and fucked you up to your Ileocecal Valve. You can explain Special Relativity with simple Junior High Geometry, General Relativity requires Differential Calculus, Integral calculus, Linear Algebra, Multilinear Algebra, and Differential Geometry, all a little bit more advanced than what Coach Smegma taught when he wasn't drawing up Wing-T plays. I've been trying to understand General Relativity for 50 years, it's like trying to understand a Beethoven Sonata (I like #17 myself, a Storm is threatening, baby)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yup. I literally derived special relativity from a high level description while in HS. It's remarkably easy, once you have the general idea and basic competence with geometry and algebra. (Mind, my HS math teacher was sneaking some calculus in under the name of "advanced algebra", because the principle had told him he couldn't teach a calculus class in HS.)

But general relativity? That's beyond any effort I cared to expend, even assuming I was capable of it.

[Kazinski]

Actually the Graviton is also postilized by the standard model, all subatomic forces have an associated boson like the photon, gluon, W, Z, and a yet to be detected Graviton.

[Sarcastr0]

Gravity isn't a force. However we end up dealing with it, it won't be via a force carrier like the weak strong and EM forces.

Fields are a good approximation for gravity at scales we interact with it day-to-day. Won't get us to the GUT though.

And it does make for one of my favorite nerdy parody songs.

Let me pull you down

'Cause I'm going through gravity fields
They are ideal
Continuous and additive
Gravity fields forever
------
Dark energy is the newis theory on the block, and the dark bit is just good branding. Science loves good branding.
Smart money is it's still a repulsive force just one that scales oddly somehow (I like it as a decay state of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflaton"inflaton myself). But it's always fun to see a theory fall before experimental challenges. Boffo science there - be watching this one.

Dark matter is something more concrete - we absolutely see it's effects, but it does not couple to E&M, so every single one of our usual detectors are useless. Beyond it's total mass and general distribution, as observed from it's effects on the baryons that do deal in the E&M, we are not currently equipped to experimentally figure much else about it.

[Frank Drackman]

Gravity isn't a force?
Admiral Forrestal begs to differ (did I just make an Admiral James Forrestal reference? I did, here's another
"Watch out for that first step Admiral, it's a Doooo-Zeeee!"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Inflaton

"But it's always fun to see a theory fall before experimental challenges."

That's for sure. I'm hoping dark matter turns out to be stable quark matter droplets. Not because there's any particular reason to expect (or rule out) that, just because they'd be technologically useful.

Dark matter, of course, doesn't HAVE to not interact with anything but gravity. If it's dense enough it just wouldn't have enough surface area to be observable unless you lucked into a lump of it close at hand.

[Sarcastr0]

EM interaction is why objects seem to have volume and we can touch them.

It's weird out there.

[Brett Bellmore]

EM interaction is why we can touch ordinary matter, but in theory you could touch stable quark droplets, too.

[Bob from Ohio]

For those on twitter, Daniel Friedman@DanFriedman81 has a pined tweet listing all the rest of the boy scouts our demented president thought deserved mercy.

[Lennyk78]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/23/politics/shane-lamond-convicted-lying-proud-boy-leaks/index.html

Lest we forget, Judge Jackson is a liberal Jew who let a black man penetrate her.

[bernard11]

Does anyone else have the problem of the comments occasionally jumping to the top with no warning.

This happens to me often, and it makes it hard to get back to where I was reading or writing. Very annoying.

[ducksalad]

Yes. It's the page doing a automatic refresh. Older browsers easily allowed you to "stop" the page but Edge doesn't.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it's related to the ads. Their scripts take a while to load, and the page resets when they're done.

[bernard11]

Thanks.

Does Firefox? If so, how do I do it?

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I run noScript. Not to block ads, really, but just in general to stop random people running code on my computer.

If you install it, you can allow javascript only from reason.com (which you have to do to log in and comment). You won't see ads, or have the annoying auto-refresh.

At least, that works for me.

(Nothing is free ... lots of sites won't work without running javascript. FWIW, I have a two tier approach: for sites that I visit often (reason, amazon, ...) I set up the minimum noscript permissions to get the site to work. So, for example, on reason.com, only reason.com gets to run javascript. The ad networks don't. I dunno who is doing the auto-refresh, but I don't see it when allowing only reason.com. Amazon requires several permissions, etc.

If someone here links to some random newspaper or whatever that requires javascript, I cut-n-paste the URL into Brave browser, because that allows javascript to run while otherwise doing what it can to maintain privacy)

[John F. Carr]

You can login and post a top level comment without JavaScript. Use the /login URL instead of the interactive dropdown to login. You can not reply to a comment. Sometimes posting a link fails.

[Brett Bellmore]

I run "Brave" at home, and it seems to deal with it just fine. About the only issue I actually have with this site is rare occasions when my login runs out while I'm in the middle of composing a comment, resulting in the comment being lost.

Oh, and weird stuff happens if you report AND mute a comment at the same time...

[hobie]

Its a page load problem. Reason has a horrible construction

[Commenter_XY]

Use Brave.

[Commenter_XY]

Before I forget, I want to wish the Christian VC Conspirators a Merry Christmas. Hope the holiday is a meaningful one for you.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You're only saying this to promote the agenda of the Democrat or Republican Party, whichever party you're with, I forget.

Ha, ha, just kidding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS3vpAWW2Zc

[Bwaaah]

Beautiful.

[hobie]

Merry Christmas, XY

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be Happy Hanukkah for XY.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

May December 25 be a joyful holiday.

[bernard11]

My own feeling about this issue is that there is nothing wrong with wishing Merry Christmas to non-Christians, any more than there is with wishing someone a happy birthday, which we do on their birthday, not ours.

December 25 is Christmas, after all, even if I don't care to celebrate the birth of Jesus, and if someone wants to wish me a merry day, I have no objection.

So I wish all, including even Brett, a Merry Christmas - take it how you will.

[Commenter_XY]

Exactly bernard11.

[Don Nico]

Indeed, bernard.
The Israeli TV channel that I watch has routinely wished its viewer a Happy Christmas.
All the best to you.

[David Nieporent]

My own feeling about this issue is that there is nothing wrong with wishing Merry Christmas to non-Christians,

There is also nothing wrong with wishing Happy Holidays to Christians, though.

My position as to your statement is this: there's nothing wrong with generic "Merry Christmas" to random strangers or acquaintances who may or may not be Christian. But if it's someone you know is a non-Christian, you shouldn't say Merry Christmas to them. It's not a hate crime, but it's kind of thoughtless. Literally.

[Absaroka]

I'm 100% non-Christian, and I'm fine with Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays, or Happy Hanukkah or Kwanzaa or whatever. I'm happy for all the happy I can get!

[Bwaaah]

Amen.

[Absaroka]

A very Felicitous Festivus and Delightful Diwali to you, and everyone else here!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Reason recently reminded us of another holiday we should be observing this season: the International Day To End Violence Against Sex Workers.

https://reason.com/2024/12/16/7-ways-to-mark-the-international-day-to-end-violence-against-sex-workers/

It was on December 17, but I suppose you could still do some belated holiday shopping and find some appropriate gifts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

December 17 was also National Device Appreciation Day and, in Canada, National Maple Syrup Day.

I'm not making this up; if it's made up don't blame me, blame this site:

https://nationaltoday.com/december-17-holidays/

[David Nieporent]

Reason recently reminded us of another holiday we should be observing this season: the International Day To End Violence Against Sex Workers.

Don't tell Dr. Ed about that one!

[Bwaaah]

Merry everything to everybody.

[Commenter_XY]

Chag Semeach Hanukkah, hobie. 😉

[Krayt]

Merry winter solstice! And a happy new rounding of the solstice!

[David Nieporent]

And, of course, Festivus greetings!

[Bwaaah]

Though the bulk of winter lays ahead [in the northern hemisphere], daylight now grows longer, and the sun higher and brighter. This portends the forces that end winter, and lightens my sense of the more frigid days ahead. It is a sign of a spring to come.

I am thankful for the winter solstice. I can see my way to the spring now, and with some luck, get there.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Merry Christmas peeps! I hope Santa brings you everything you deserve!

Here's a NSFW holiday video for you viewing pleasure.
https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/1871305748946223256

[Krayt]

King Charles ended warrants for Cadbury and Unilever. No, these are not arrest threats and some version of a pardon, but permission to put the royal seal on their products, as suppliers to the king.

Unilever owns Marmite and Ben & Jerry's. Cadbury is the chocolatier, most famous in the US for their Cadbury creme eggs at Easter time.

No reason was given, as is the standard, but it is thought to be the result of pressure for refusing to stop dealing with Russia in their products.

Cadbury had held its warrant since (insert picture of Jenna Coleman in a crown.) Ouch.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

So a king named Charles is messing around with royal warrants?

[Don Nico]

Can the Ayatollah regime survive a prolonged energy crisis especially if even a fraction of its petroleum infrastructure is destroyed? Meanwhile its Houthi clients are pushing for such an attack with is continually launching of Iranian ballistic missiles.

[Sarcastr0]

Another Biden masterstroke!

[Don Nico]

Another anodyne comment that demonstrates what I have said about trolling.
Get yourself informed about what is happening in Central Asia instead of shooting blanks from the hip.

[Commenter_XY]

The answer is yes, Iran can survive. Why?

One, unless the oil pipeline to CHN is somehow stopped, Iran will receive plenty of cash (in EU) from the Chinese. Two, the shadow fleet Iran uses to transport oil to sanctioned countries. That fleet must be disabled, or sanctions have limited effect.

A potential American response here could be to dramatically increase oil and gas production to lower prices to <60/bb. Iran's cost to produce oil is high. The sub-60 kills much of their profit. Pair that decline with Trumpian level sanctions and Iran is in serious trouble in <6 months. Trouble, meaning, food riots in their streets.

You're wasting your time with Sarcastr0. Maybe you'll get lucky and he will mute you.

On another note: Merry Christmas, Don Nico. Did you enjoy a Feast of Seven Fishes last evening?

[Don Nico]

Dear XY,
The Feast of the Seven FIshes is an Italian-American invention. In Italy La Vigilia is a meatless meal, but one does not try to raise the number of fish dishes to astronomical proportion.
As for us, last night we had veal Marsala.
Best wishes for Hanukah.