Monday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

RIP Jimmy Carter, one of America's productive ex-Presidents.

I appreciate him getting another job after the Presidency, instead of just collecting his pension, taking hefty speaking fees, and amusing himself with painting.

He deserves to be ranked alongside other successful ex-Presidents.

There was William Howard Taft, who after being President, ended up as Chief Justice. He prodded Congress to reform the judiciary, he lobbied for good judges, and he gave some good decisions (along with some bad ones). He'd always wanted to be on the Supreme Court instead of the White House, anyway.

Probably the *most* successful ex-President was John Quincy Adams, who went into the House of Representatives where he fought against the proslavery interests. He also defended the Amistad captives and campaigned against Freemasonry at a time when Masons were implicated in murder. They made a movie about the former but so far not about the latter.

Thomas Jefferson took a hand in founding and running the University of Virginia.

Herbert Hoover was on a Truman-created commission to make recommendations for reorganizing the executive branch.

I presume that many of the post-Presidents had cases in their legal practices, simply because - and I bet you're as surprised as I am at this - at lot of Presidents were lawyers.

(Andrew Johnson went back to the Senate for a few months in 1875, just before his death, which is more of an historical curiosity than an achievement.)

[hobie]

Yes, RIP President Carter. You were our best president as a person. I doubt we'll see your like again

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He was among the best ex-presidents, not among the best Presidents, and it was a great thing the public did to elect him to the position of ex-President in 1980.

[Mr. Bumble]

I think Churchill's comment on Russia (a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma) could be equally applied to Jimmy Carter.
See this from Steven Hayward at Powerline:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/the-under-and-over-estimated-jimmy-carter-rip.php

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not personally impressed with his post presidential career certifying the rigged elections of despots. He should have stuck with Habitat for Humanity.

But I will say that I did not appreciate at the time that there are worse things a President can be than ineffectual. I don't think he was a great President, but he certainly was not among the worst.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...but he certainly was not among the worst."
Yes, Biden (or the puppet masters) seems to have a lock on worst.

[Brett Bellmore]

FDR put the Great in Great depression, his policies kept it going long after we would have normally recovered. Killed off effective constitutional limits on federal power. Got the ball rolling on transforming us from a free market to a command economy. And he made himself President for life, scared everybody so much that they amended the Constitution to term limit the office... as soon as he was safely dead.

Biden's a piker next to him.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and of course Woodrow and Edith Wilson, so maybe Biden is in the top three.

[DixieTune]

At least FDR was from a wealthy, aristocratic family. Better than the trailer trash Catholic family from coal country that spawned Biden.

[Mr. Bumble]

That makes FDR better?

[DixieTune]

Yes. Most nations send their upper class to represent themselves in the international stage. Only America has this bizarre idea that commoners should be propelled to the stage.

[David Nieporent]

And since America is better than most nations, that's an argument against your position.

[DixieTune]

No, it's really not.

[Frank Drackman]

Even the other POTUS's couldn't stand him, when Ronaldus Maximus flew Jimmuh, Ford, and Nixon to Sadat's funeral in 1981 everyone hung out with Milhouse at the bar on Air Force 1, that's right, Richard Nixon had more Social skills than Jimmuh, Bill Clinton had Nixon over to get some foreign policy advice before he entered Orifice in 93' (and arguably, the 3 best Foreign Policy POTUS's in the last 50 years were Milhouse, Clinton, and 45/47)

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton blamed Jimmy Carter's Mariel boatlift for his losing re-election after his first term as governor of Arkansas.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

But not our best President as President. Nice try.

[Joe_dallas]

https://archive.is/0ZEt9#selection-643.0-643.74

Jimmy Carter Was a Terrible President — and an Even Worse Former President

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

...says the guy who defends Pinochet. Maybe Carter should've jailed and murdered his political rivals.

[Bwaaah]

My biggest takeaway from the Carter Presidency is that being moral, and making the world a better place, are two very different enterprises with varying levels of overlap.

I've come to realize that I want a President who focuses on making things better for people. I don't need another role model; I already have Frank Drackman for that.

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Jimmy Carter -- the most decent human being to serve as President since World War II.

Some interesting historical trivia: Carter is the only person to serve a full four year term as President without nominating a justice to the Supreme Court. The last previous holder of the office not to make a nomination was Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln six weeks into the latter's term. The prior presidents who made no nominations were Zachary Taylor and William Henry Harrison, each of whom died in their first term of office.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — I propose to revise and extend your characterization of Carter. I think that as an exemplar of commonly-endorsed virtues, Carter tops the list all time.

An interesting question is who can anyone propose to rival Carter. My choices would be John Quincy Adams, and Lincoln, with an honorable mention for Grant, despite the corruption during his terms in office. I am curious to hear others' suggestions.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, Jimmuh attended Whites only churches just like JQA and Abe(did he have a middle name?)

[RedheadedPharoh]

They are going to ignore that while reimaging their histories.

They like to do this to their political elites. They are their gods, after all.

[hobie]

Frankie 'Wounded Warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran. I've read a couple of Carter's biographies. As a child his best friends and playmates were two colored boys. But when Carter hit puberty, his friends self-distanced themselves and started calling him 'sir'. It was no longer proper - and maybe dangerous - to treat Carter as an equal. As a child in the South he had no other choice but to attend white only schools and churches. But once he became an adult he started attending black congregations

[Frank Drackman]

OK, so "Once he became an adult" means "After he got his ass kicked by Reagan" So what revelation made him start sucking Arafat's Cock?

[Bwaaah]

He, Yassir and Barack Obama are all Nobel Peace prize winners, which is great if you're looking for prizes, but not so much if you're looking for peace.

[Stella Link the dog]

And Gorbachev got the prize for not invading the Baltic nations.
Perhaps that's a bit too cynical. "Reality is bad enough."

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 5 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
R.I.P. Jimmy Carter -- the most decent human being to serve as President since World War II.

Stephen Lathrop 3 hours ago

not guilty — I propose to revise and extend your characterization of Carter. I think that as an exemplar of commonly-endorsed virtues, Carter tops the list all time.

Really ?
Both of you praise his character, yet you forget he was a hater of Israel, promoter of Arafat, certifing the authenticity of Chavez elections. Those errors of judgement dont come from high virtues.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — I will take it a step further. Nobody here has yet recalled how Carter visited Israel, saw what it had become, and came back to say, "It's apartheid."

Of course Israel's more-heedless supporters vilified Carter for uttering that simple truth. Do you deny that he was right? Or do you perhaps insist, "In this case, apartheid is justified"?

[David Nieporent]

I deny that he was right, and think it was his rather overt antisemitism that led him to say it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — To avoid circularity you need examples other than the statement in question to prove, "overt anti-semitism." Do you count the Camp David Accords as antisemitic? What are your proofs?

[Brett Bellmore]

His support for Arafat alone was enough to establish it. But, if you want more:

As Carter controversy grows, 14 Jews quit center's board

Jimmy Carter’s Animus for Israel

The claim he was an antisemite hardly comes out of the blue, people have been calling him one for decades, and for good reason.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, are you able to understand that to prove, "overt antisemitism," from Carter requires quotes of overtly antisemitic advocacy from Carter?

Your links failed you. The second even concluded thus:

As I have long said—and actually believe—Jimmy Carter is not anti-Israel and he is certainly not an anti-Semite.

Rather, he is simply a man with a price.

[Kazinski]

Jimmy Carter "The Great Deregulator" who was underrated as a president, mainly because the massive benefits of deregulation were undervalued by his own party and also because benefits didn't really start to accrue until a few years later when stagflation was vanquished, died Sunday at 100.

I actually voted for Jimmy Carter twice, in both 76 and 80, and his deregulatory legacy stands in contrast to Nixon who embraced regulation, as shown both by introducing wage and price controls and creating the Environmental Protection Agency.

https://www.theregreview.org/2023/03/06/dudley-jimmy-carter-the-great-deregulator

"In 1980, President Carter signed the Motor Carrier Act, which deregulated the trucking industry, the Staggers Rail Act, which introduced competition in rail rates, and the Telecommunications Act, which removed restrictions on long-distance phone service. These actions allowed new entrants into the markets, increased efficiency, lowered prices, offered consumers more choices, and likely contributed to declining inflation."

Here is Phil Gramms, who was a.Democrat during Carter's term, tribute to Carter:
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/jimmy-carter-champion-of-deregulation/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Truck drivers today are paid, in real dollars, only what they were paid in 1980, even though the 1980 dollar is now worth 26 cents.

Trucks are routinely overloaded which is why our roads are in worse shape than then.

[Frank Drackman]

And most other professions are paid less, trucks are overloaded?, maybe there should be a Federal Department that regulates Trucking!

[Brett Bellmore]

Tire damage to pavement is a fourth power of tire patch PSI, so one overloaded truck can do more damage than a thousand cars. Really, they ought to build strain gauges into the pavement to flag vehicles that are over-weight. It would easily pay for itself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do weigh stations still exist?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, they do. But as a result, you probably see most overloaded trucks on short runs where they won't be encountered.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes weigh stations still exist, but I havent seen one open and operating in the last 15-20 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Most weigh stations are kept closed most of the time, they randomly activate them to minimize operating expense and traffic disruption while maintaining an effective deterrent, since the drivers can't really be sure they won't hit a live one.

But it really would be more efficient to just integrate them into the road bed and run them 24/7.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I believe Oregon tried that in the '80s. Problem is road sensors are not accurate on moving vehicles.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not accurate for getting total weights. What they ARE accurate for, though, is what weigh stations are lousy at: Measuring actual road bed flex.

And it's the road bed flex, not the weight, that drives pavement damage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They don't weigh trucks at night.

[bernard11]

JFTR, I agree 100%, and would extend it all trucks. Even those that are not overloaded do a lot more damage than a car.

[DixieTune]

Or ideally, America would use trains for most of what trucks are used for today. They're much cheaper, more efficient, and safer to operate.

[Brett Bellmore]

But they suffer from inflexibility and the "last mile" problem; Even if you ship something across the width of the country by train, it's still probably going to be riding a truck at both ends, and if you just use the truck for the whole trip, you spare a lot of complications.

Trains are useful for bulk payloads that regularly go from point A to point B, like coal or grain, but they really are a poor fit for retail shipping.

[DixieTune]

Agree on the last mile problem, but there's a huge advantage to being able to use box trucks for the last and first miles, and not huge tractor trailers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't discount flexibility as a driver of this, though. Trains are great for bulk commodities that move regularly between two known and unchanging points, they don't handle dynamic conditions well.

Things are changing too fast in America for trains to be more than a niche solution for most products.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tell that to UPS and Amazon-- the latest is double-stack boxes -- up to four 40-foot trailers on each railcar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q79BHfxfaSI

In Boston, the boxes come off in Ayer and Worcester and go the remaining 50 miles by truck.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Nothing says all that ongoing change could not include long-term reorganization of distribution, to make renewed use of railroad efficiency.

There are former industrial neighborhoods in Boston where you cannot go three blocks without crossing a disused railroad right of way, some still with tracks, most not. Those were in use not that long ago by, for instance, a leather industry, which served the nation's principal shoe makers (and every other kind of leather manufacture), the big New England cotton textile industry, the big wool textile industry, plus a host of other kinds of medium-sized manufactories.

From that central rail-fed entrepôt near Boston harbor, distributary rail lines branched out to serve other manufacturers scattered at advantageous sites throughout both small-city New England, and in the region's rural areas—with each such destination served from its own railroad siding.

As an engineer you probably benefit from using products from a still-thriving commercial heir to that industrial tradition, the L S Starrett Company. Its headquarters, and a chunk of its manufacturing capacity, are still located in rural Athol, MA, 70 miles west of Boston, where the company was founded in 1880. If you do not own Starrett tools, buy them. They tend to be high-priced, and bargains for the accuracy and durability they continue to deliver.

For now, rural rail rights of way are mostly nothing but great opportunities to build really long bike paths. None of that closed down because it did not work, or because it was physically inefficient. It closed down because unwise international trade policy cut the ground out from under American manufacturing, turning a vast hinterland into an industrial disaster scene, and embittering the nation's politics in the process.

Also, your characterization of rail transportation as niche activity looks odd if you measure carriage by weight instead of per-piece. And you give rail too little credit with regard to the variety of cargoes it carries efficiently. Bulky or weighty cargoes of all kinds get served by rail.

The last active rail line on Cape Cod—known to tourists for thinly-scheduled scenic trains—remains open because it provides by far the most efficient way to haul ordinary household trash off the Cape. Domestic waste there cannot be safely disposed of without threat to a limited aquifer capacity.

All around the nation, giant car parks covered in new vehicles get served by rail lines from the nation's harbors. Then the cars get shipped by trucks to neighborhood car dealers, instead of bringing the dealers and the customers more efficiently to the cars. You want to maximize long term efficiency in the car industry? Take a city like Philadelphia, move all the car dealers to some airport-sized car park served by rail, and build a light-rail connection from the city's transportation hub out to the car park. Then every car sales task, and every car maintenance task done by dealers, could be served by rail in at least one direction—with car hauling trucks out of the picture.

Central location of all the car dealers would convenience and delight the car shoppers. Judging by the national prevalence of auto-mile-style dealer concentrations, dealers would probably agree.

Paper and cardboard are a huge industry, which could better be served by hub-and-spoke rail distribution centers. In previous times, practically every ink-on-paper printing activity was located on its own rail spur, as the newspaper survivors still tend to be, even the smaller ones. Newsprint bought by the carload is still notably less expensive than if delivered by trucks. It was not for nothing that the U.S. Department of Commerce classed the newspaper industry among heavy manufacturers.

Thirty years ago, I was startled to discover what was the most valuable single export commodity passing through Boston Harbor. It turned out to be container loads of used cardboard, headed back to Asia for recycling. All those cardboard boxed retail items added up to bulk cargo going back the other way. Containers shipped to multi-modal terminals by rail beat containers delivered by tractors over the highways. For all I know, used cardboard may still be Boston's principal maritime export. Maybe other urban areas too.

Compared to highways, railroads are less expensive to build, less expensive per-ton of capacity to maintain and operate, and far more environmentally friendly. When an early rail line got extended to Concord, MA, Thoreau complained about its disruptive industrial character. That rail line is still in service, to bring commuters to Boston. Compared to the highway grid around it, the railway remains a peaceful oasis. Compared to the commute by car, the commute by rail is mental health therapy.

The nation's roadway transportation system is swamped, crumbling, and apparently politically impossible to maintain and repair. Planning to switch as much of the transportation burden as possible from the highways to the rails is long overdue. What motivates you to advocate against it?

[Stella Link the dog]

"If you do not own Starrett tools, buy them. "

I have some Starrett tools including a micrometer caliper which, as best I can tell, gets me real close to .0001" to .0002" if I'm real careful. A dial caliper as well which is ok close to .001" but truth be known, I have a cheap digital "vernier"- like caliper that is quicker/easier to use than either and, best I can tell, gets me real close to .001 (as compared to the Starrett tools). For what I do, the Starrett tools are really not justified anymore -- like the last 30 years.

One thing that truly amazes me is a little digital scale that costs about $20 and, best I can tell, is easily reliable down to better than .3 grains (about 22 mg). It will repeat measurements down to .1 grain if used very carefully but I wouldn't rely on that if .1 grain accuracy/precision is absolutely necessary.

[David Nieporent]

Central location of all the car dealers would convenience and delight the car shoppers.

It would not, in fact, do either of those things. Do you actually know any Americans?

closed down because unwise international trade policy cut the ground out from under American manufacturing,

American manufacturing output continues to hum along nicely. (American manufacturing employment, less so, but that's because of automation.)

[Joe_dallas]

I will credit Carter/Carter administration with deregulation, appointing Volker and getting the social security retirement age raised, though that had a 40 year delay in the effective date. The Social security retirement age does need to be raised again, in order to make the social security program actuarial sound (or less unsound).

[Kazinski]

Even I didn't realize how much Joe Biden's mental acuity had declined until I saw this:

"Joe Biden regrets having pulled out of this year’s presidential race and believes he would have defeated Donald Trump in last month’s election – despite negative poll indications, White House sources have said."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/28/joe-biden-regrets-dropping-out-re-election

[Commenter_XY]

Sadly for Joe Biden, he became the worst living president with Pres Carter's death.

[Frank Drackman]

Define “living”

[Bwaaah]

Define "president"

[David Nieporent]

He's not even the worst living president of this decade.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Joe disses Garland but kissed the ring of that despicable demon Eric Holder -- the first thing I think of was my time living near Ferguson MO during the riots. It would have been okay except Holder came to town and infuriated every single living person with has hate-filled inflammatory rhetoric. A disgusting man

[DixieTune]

Eric Holder is a racist, angry black man who hates whites, including the whites that gave him all of his undeserved credentials.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, you'd be race-ist and angry too if you had to have sex with (the) Oprah

[David Nieporent]

Which of the Nazi trolls is DixieTune a sock for?

[santamonica811]

Did any of you have the same reaction to Trump's response to Carter's death? To wit: (1) Making very appropriate kind statements about Carter, *and* (2) managing to insert himself into the narrative, and talking about himself.**

It wasn't the worst thing he's ever posted. It's far from the worst thing he's said or written. It wasn't terrible. But do you think there was nobody looking over his shoulder, saying, "Um, Don; why not--just this once--say a few nice things about this other person, and not say a single word about yourself?" Or (what I think is more likely), is what we read the second or third or sixteenth draft, and what we ended up with is the most mild of the self-congratulatory statements?

** Pro tip: The two times it's fine to lie are regarding weddings and deaths. You just bite your tongue, smile, and say nice things. Even if you don't mean them. Especially if you don't mean them.

[Riva]

No but I noticed another a-hole troll here going out of his way to insult President Trump.

Pro tip: don’t be an a-hole.

[santamonica811]

I take it that you feel that Trump's response was entirely appropriate for the situation. Your opinion is noted. (Also; assholes in glass houses shouldn't throw, um, . . . mixed metaphors, or something???)

[Riva]

It’s your prerogative if you want to ignore my pro tip.

[Vryedni]

The self-awareness fail for you to call anyone an a-hole is breathtaking.

[Stella Link the dog]

Or to refer to anyone else as a troll.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says the A hole who can lick his own.

[Stella Link the dog]

Bumbleberry, still a fool.

So, care to address Brettmore's claim that if you're not a racist asshole your pretending to be in order to make racist assholes look bad?

[Mr. Bumble]

No.

[Stella Link the dog]

Of course not.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought you thought Brett was an autistic troll.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I thought you thought Brett was an autistic troll."

I do although I have no actual reason to believe that he's autistic -- that's just a claim he makes. It's you who seems to hold him in high regard.

[Mr. Bumble]

You assume an awful lot.

[Stella Link the dog]

"You assume an awful lot."

In inference from what you have written. If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

[David Nieporent]

President Trump

There is, of course, thankfully no such person.

[Kazinski]

I think its natural when you are commenting on someone who died to bring up something about yourself in your comments, otherwise why are you being asked, if you have nothing personal in your perspective to add?

I remember Jimmy for two reasons, his was the first presidential vote I cast, and also because he legalized home brewing, and I've been a home brewer for more than 30 years.

I'm not sure why anyone would care about those two.unremarkable facts, but if asked to comment about Jimmy Carter I would probably bring them up.

[not guilty]

In 2004 when Ronald Reagan died, I was co-host of a radio talk show where attorneys discussed legal issues and answered callers' questions. I knew that I needed to say something complimentary about Reagan before the show's sign off.

When it came my turn to comment, I mentioned only that Reagan while governor had pardoned Merle Haggard.

[Mr. Bumble]

So big of you and in character.

[Riva]

He’s delusional.

[not guilty]

What? Do you disagree that the pardon of Merle Haggard was a good thing?

[Stella Link the dog]

Thinking of Merle. I was never a great fan but do appreciate his talent and influence and some of the observations one can glean from his writing. And he sure could deliver. Probably the pardon was a good thing as he was, for the most part, a reformed criminal.

Couple of interesting things on youtube related to Merle:
A very nice tribute by Ray Benson and others called "Feeling Haggard." Don't listen to it if pedal steel offends you.

Parody of Okie from Muskogee by Kinky Friedman (apparently with help from Billy Joe Shaver) called "Asshole from El Paso."

Parody by Patrick Sky included on his record "Songs That Made America Famous" titled "Okie." Looking back on Sky's record, I'm not really sure how I feel about it. Saw him play several times in NYC back in the 70s and found him enjoyable but he sometimes seemed to delight in pissing people off and that record, which I found hilarious satire at the time, now seems more like a self indulgent exercise in insult.

[not guilty]

Merle Haggard later joked that Muskogee was about the only place his band didn't smoke marijuana.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there a place in the US today where no one smokes marijuana?
Hard to believe that someone was denied a seat on the SC for having smoked weed in college and Bill Clinton had to claim he "didn't inhale".

[Stella Link the dog]

Like a municipality or something? Maybe someplace like Dixville Notch with a population of about four and a median age of about 67. But who knows? There are a lot of superannuated potheads around these days. Perhaps nobody on my street here in Conroe, TX smokes. Though home ownership here is open to everyone, I know of nobody who couldn't get into a Del Webb camp. About half the residents have had one form of cancer or another, so maybe there are some spiked brownie munchers around. If so, they're discreet.

[David Nieporent]

I assume this is a reference to Doug Ginsburg. If it is, that's not what he was denied the seat for. Even our puritanical culture probably wouldn't have held smoking weed in college against him. Ginsburg's problem was that he continued to do it as a law school professor.

[Riva]

Your obnoxious and childishly sarcastic comment regarding a great president who ended the Cold War and saved the economy is bad enough. But my response was directed to your delusional career bragging. When was your moon walk? And based on some of your comments related to various Trump cases, I frankly wonder if you were ever an attorney.

[Frank Drackman]

And Jimmuh pardoned the Vietnam draft dodgers(and Patty Hurst,hey, he knew a piece of Ass) sent the military into Iran(like most of his acts, ended disastrously) and killed his neighbors Cat (for killing Birds, typical Jimmuh, he only meant to scare the poor creature), and went to a Church that banned Afro-Amuricans the entire time he was POTUS

[Mr. Bumble]

Also, the only president attacked by a swimming rabbit.

[Frank Drackman]

It was a Swamp Rabbit, so of course they swim.
The swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), also called the cane-cutter, is a large cottontail rabbit found in the swamps and wetlands of the southern United States. The species has a strong preference for wet areas, and it will take to the water and swim
and since the "Woke" crowd doesn't know any history before "Yo! MTV Raps!" I'll enlighten the rubes.
The Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, sensationalized as the "killer rabbit attack" by the press, involved a swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus) that aggressively swam toward U.S. president Jimmy Carter's fishing boat on April 20, 1979. The incident caught the imagination of the media after Associated Press White House correspondent Brooks Jackson learned of the story months later.
On April 20, 1979, during a few days of vacation in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, Carter was fishing in a johnboat (sometimes erroneously described as a canoe) in a pond on his farm, when he saw a swamp rabbit, which Carter later speculated was fleeing from a predator, swimming in the water and making its way towards him, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared", so he reacted by either hitting or splashing water at it with his paddle to scare it away, and it subsequently swam away from him and climbed out of the pond. A White House photographer captured the subsequent scene. Carter was uninjured; the fate of the rabbit is unknown.

On August 30, Carter told reporters that it "was just a nice, quiet, typical Georgia rabbit." University of Maryland zoologist Vagn Flyger rejected the idea of the rabbit attacking Carter, saying that, "If anything, he was probably scared and trying to find a dry place to get to

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Which proves you never actually saw Patty

[Mr. Bumble]

If a man can love a dog he can love an ugly woman with money.

[Frank Drackman]

Well a guy who knew a hot piece of Ass when he saw one, Larry "What's the Question!?" King saw Patty and thought she was hot

[Stella Link the dog]

" Patty Hurst"

Who is/was Patty Hurst?

What did you write not too long ago about people who fuck up names like that?

[Mr. Bumble]

He got confused with his shifter.

[Mr. Bumble]

By the way, you are in rare form today. Started early and haven't quit.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I looked this up, and I found that CBS attributed the following to Trump. Did CBS miss anything? If not, then what's the problem with the quoted remarks?

"I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter. Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as President understand this is a very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest Nation in History.

"The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

"Melania and I are thinking warmly of the Carter Family and their loved ones during this difficult time. We urge everyone to keep them in their hearts and prayers."

and

"President Jimmy Carter is dead at 100 years of age. While I strongly disagreed with him philosophically and politically, I also realized that he truly loved and respected our Country, and all it stands for. He worked hard to make America a better place, and for that I give him my highest respect. He was a truly good man and, of course, will be greatly missed. He was also very consequential, far more than most Presidents, after he left the Oval Office. Warmest condolences from Melania and I to his wonderful family!"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carter-death-donald-trump-statement/

[Mr. Bumble]

I fail to see how this statement from Trump is anything but honest and respectful.

[Martinned2]

Well, that "Greatest Nation in History" bit is of course complete nonsense, but I very much doubt that Trump realises that, so you can hardly describe that as a knowing falsehood. Beyond that, I'm not sure what the objection is either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is, or was there any "Greatest Nation in History"?

I don't think Trump is alone in describing the USA as such.

[Frank Drackman]

You're free to leave, although I don't think you'd find the Second Greatest Nation, Israel, much better, and you have to be chosen to get to stay there.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Greatest Nation in History" bit is of course complete nonsense"

Jealousy, jealousy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not so much nonsense as largely subjective.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems the same thing to me.

I'm absolutely down to talk about in what ways America is exceptional.

But 'greatest nation ever' is like 'worst genocide' and 'evilist dictator' and 'who would win in a fight.'

If taken at all seriously, it becomes a dumb game that ends up being useful only as angry oppositional self-validation.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are too many different metrics for 'greatness' with no objective ranking of their relative importance, hence subjective. But the US clearly excels on enough of them that it's not nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

Clearly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, clearly. Until somebody else, for instance, lands somebody on the Moon. Or saves Western civilization from Hitler.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, so it's vibes via anecdote.

Though here I am amused by how you stepped in it, since Nazi science was a big part of our space program.

[not guilty]

The Soviet Union can claim the greater share of credit for the defeat of Hitler.

[Mr. Bumble]

Replying to not guilty:
That's probably true especially in regard to casualties (Stalin,much like Putin, had no compunction about feeding men into the meat grinder). Also, in spite of later impressive arms production, early on they were dependent on US materials.
Finally, unlike the UK and USA they were only fighting a one front war and only declared war on Japan when the Japanese were already defeated.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Soviet Union can claim the greater share of credit for the defeat of Hitler."

If you ignore their complicity in starting the war in the first place.

[Sarcastr0]

One must be careful with counterfactuals, but Hitler sure seemed like he was gonna do a war in Europe no matter what.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We don't have a royal family and hence the President is also the national cheerleader -- and all cheerleaders are saying their team is the best.

[Sarcastr0]

Except for when he says we have dark hellscape of a country and only he can fix it.

[David Nieporent]

'who would win in a fight.'

The answer is Superman. Always Superman.

[Frank Drackman]

The US is #1 on my list, Israel #2, then a 4-way-tie between Italy (Food, Women), Germany (Beer), Austria (Beer), Slovenia (all of the above) didn't go to Switzerland because you had to pay a cover charge, slightly behind, Holland (this was before you could get legal grass everywhere), Belgium (Bruges, everyone slams Bruges, I liked Bruges, I even like just saying "Bruges") Czech repubic wasn't in the EU yet so had to walk across the border, slip the border guards a few D-marks to give you a temporary Visa, same with Croatia and Poland. Can't really rate Spain as it was a whole 20 minutes in the Air Terminal at Rota ditto with the UK, Egypt smells like feet, Saudi Arabia like dirty feet, and Kuwait was a mixture of both with dead bodies and diesel fuel thrown in,
Canada doesn't really count, as it was a mile over the line from North Dakota, back in 1973 when you could just walk across the unmarked border without showing anyone anything.

[SimonP]

I agree. I also don't believe for a second that Trump actually wrote it.

We see this from Trump, from time to time. His advisors prevail upon him to "act presidential," and he sticks to the script. The media spins a cycle about how he seems normal, for once. Days later (or perhaps just later in the same day) he's back to his usual vituperation.

None of it is that noteworthy. Just Trump noise. Will have to get used to it again.

[Mr. Bumble]

You need to chill out or you'll stroke out over the next four years.

[SimonP]

What helps me, Bumbler, is that my politics don't follow the whims of an idiot, so I'm not constantly trying to justify to myself or others that I now accept (or reject) what I once rejected (or accepted), for the reasons laid out for me in the Holy Scripture of Truth Social.

I would worry a bit more, if I were you, about your fixed-income future, after Trump is done with the economy. I will at least have a couple of decades to recover.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I suspect that he subsequently becomes so irate that he had allowed said aides to prevail upon him to "seem rational", that he soon lashes out in his more usual fashion to compensate.

If those were the Tweets, I don't really see what could be considered offensive about them; it's also obvious that he didn't write them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Margrave — This part rubs me the wrong way:

. . . very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest Nation in History.

To gain entry into an exclusive club is either a privilege, or an expensive purchase. The American presidency is neither of those. It is properly an honor, bestowed at the gift of the American People.

Also, "only we," is an attempt by Trump to associate himself—and various other presidential scoundrels—with Carter's virtues. Had Trump said he hoped someday to aspire to Carter-like virtue, he would have made himself ridiculous, but better honored Carter.

Note too the stinginess to suggest Carter's presidency was somehow deficient, with the post-Presidency the real basis of Carter's virtue. Trump will have to undergo miraculous personal transformation now, and maintain it for 4 years, to achieve a record of presidential virtue in office even half so good as that of Carter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you're really reaching in order to hate on what he said.

[Vryedni]

The context is what we know about Trump's extraordinary narcissism. On the other hand, if a normal person said it, I doubt anyone would find fault with it. It would be ungenerous not to give Trump a pass on it as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you wouldn't find fault with it if a 'normal' person said it, your context is really just your dislike of Trump. It was, in fact, a perfectly anodyne statement,

Referring to the Presidency as an exclusive club is an old, old trope.

[Vryedni]

No, it's my recognition that Trump makes everything about himself, so an anodyne statement by somebody who doesn't do that might be a vehicle for Trump to shoehorn his fabulous self into the conversation. But as I said, I give him a pass on this, not because he deserves it, but because it's ungenerous. not to mention speculative, to read a mind when there's a plausible alternative.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Minor compared to actual OBAMA overweening egotism
As for Trump, he knows that those statements you read so uncharitably give people hope
What you refer to , he does not do though KAMALA does all the time

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

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Whatabout...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Vryedni, name one ELECTED President who wasn't a narcissist.

Coolidge and Ford were accidental Presidents, but to run for it and to think that YOU are THE ONE who should be President takes narcissism and no small measure of it.

[Sarcastr0]

Truman.

He ran for his second term.

[David Nieporent]

A perfectly reasonable statement, though once again the weird locution "warmest condolences," which nobody except Donald Trump says.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're saying he's like Obama?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think it was a decent thing to say about the President who single-handedly created all the problems we have in the world today,

It was Carter whose response to OPEC economic terrorism was to wear a sweater, it was Carter who let the IslamNazis take over Iran, it was Carter who gave away the Panama Canal, etc.

A decent man and probably very smart, but not a good President.

[DixieTune]

He was a typical pie-eyed liberal who didn't realize that all of humanity doesn't share his ideals.

[Joe_dallas]

Dr Ed -
You omitted his hatred of Israel, his support for Arafat, his support for chavez.

Though in his defense as the worst president in modern history, we have two recent presidents actively supporting the Iranian mullahs and assisting in the funding of their terrorist assets.

[not guilty]

Are you talking about the president who traded arms to Iran for hostages and the president who pardoned criminals to hide his actions while vice-president?

[Joe_dallas]

No
I am not talking about Biden nor am I talking about Obama who shipped pallets of money in exchange for hostages and other funding of terrorism

[Joe_dallas]

Thanks for cherrypicking your example while ignoring vastly more egregous fact patterns.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, these 'vastly more egregious fact patterns' are YOU cherry picking.

Most folks think pretty well of Carter as a person, if as a somewhat ineffectual President.

You're the one pushing a narrative.

[Joe_dallas]

As usual - an inane response - you dont even attempt to follow the thread. You interject with something totally unrelated to the topic.

I was responding to NG who was definitely not addressing Carter.

[Sarcastr0]

Whose got the egregious fact patterns ng is ignoring, Joe?

Seems like you meant Carter!

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 12 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Whose got the egregious fact patterns ng is ignoring, Joe?

You would know the answer if you didnt have such a piss poor knowledge of history

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 18 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Seems like you meant Carter!

Gas0 - you need to improve your reading comprehension - that or seek mental health treatment

Read and try to comprehend NG's comment and my response- you are confirming your idiocy

[Frank Drackman]

He did Bee-otch slap Ted Kennedy so bad he never ran for POTUS again.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it was a decent thing to say about the President who single-handedly created all the problems we have in the world today,

Remember folks: he doesn’t make things up!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Can you say "Iran"?

[Joe_dallas]

Did I have the same reaction as santamonica?
No
I am not consumed with the irrational hatred exhibited by most leftists

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I am not consumed with the irrational hatred exhibited by most leftists"

Oh you most certainly are! You're just too fucking stupid to realize it. Maybe you should've paid more attention in high school, where you got all of your 'education.'

[Sarcastr0]

I am not consumed with the irrational hatred exhibited by most leftists

You called Carter 'the worst president in modern history.' You posted about that twice, and then also spent some time taking shots at Biden and Obama.

Yep, no irrational hatred there. Just common sense, I'm sure.

[BrotherMovesOn]

It's a little late but I'd like to second not guilty's cigar for commenter tkemenick's post on December 21 regarding the 3rd Circuit's injunction decision. The best two sentence post, and maybe the best post of any length of the Year of Our Lord 2024. Bravo.

I remember the first time I saw a thread hit 500 comments. Probably at least a dozen or more years ago. The facts were horrific. A San Francisco bar brawl spilled out into the street and a man was fatally stabbed. The murderer fled the scene and immediately went to a downtown law office where he spilled the beans to the attorneys there who met him.
A man was subsequently arrested and charged with the murder. The attorneys regularly practiced in the court where his case was prosecuted. The issue was what were these attorneys to do now,? Would you give up your law license to give full candor to the court?
Would you give up your license for the opportunity to save an INARGUABLY innocent father of two young girls from the gas chamber, or whatever?
The comments were heated, and epic. The distinction to me was that they were 80-90 percent by lawyers. People with actual skin in the game, civil or criminal side; it didn't matter.
This was a profound puzzle of ethics, duty, obligations and God knows what else.
Still my favorite thread of the VC's history.

Fast forward to today, and we have some recently retired racist blue collar creature called Mr. Bumble, who crashes in here to call attorneys who comment here "douchebags" 10 times a day, with the gleeful idiiiocity of a fifth grader whio just learned a new swear word.
And Commenter who apparently thinks we are all waiting with baited breath to hear his arms-folded pronouncements about everything from domestic politics to his global hot spot solutions, in between spamming a legal blog with recipes.
And Dr. Ed. Can you imagine attending a holiday party with this thing?
"These mushroom puff pastries are great! Tell me more about your mass murder fantasies."
But like the Nazarene said, the stupid will always be with us.

Not to dismiss the role long time attorney commenters (you know who you are) have made here but it's good to see that long dormant commenters like Purple Martin, Voize of Reason, CJ Colluci and others have recently resurfaced. Welcome back.

Happy New Year to the VC. Excelsior

[santamonica811]

I'll agree with most of your thoughts, but will disagree with you re recipes. I haven't noticed people adding recipe-comments in threads other than the "Open" ones. (If that is happening, then I agree it's unwelcome spam.) But when they are in the Open threads, I find them occasionally helpful [as a vegetarian, most are not relevant to me, as they tend to be meat-based for the most part], but also humanizing. Just like Eugene's occasional calls for movie or book recommendations in various genres. I often stop and say to myself, "Man, that guy/girl is such a jerk in political threads. But this person has really good taste in books I should read/have read, or show to watch. There's more to [fill in the name of your favorite troll[s]] than meets the eye."

Given how angry a lot of us seem to be, based on VC comments, it's probably not a terrible idea to see the different facets in people, and to find common ground with them when possible.

Thus endeth my last sermon of 2024. 🙂

[Commenter_XY]

Wait...you're vegetarian sm811? For you, I will dig into Commenter_XY's kitchen files and find a nice vegetarian recipe for you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Check with BrotherMovesOn to see if that's allowed.

[Commenter_XY]

He is just jealous he cannot cook worth a shit...

[Mr. Bumble]

Any New Years recipes to share?

[Brett Bellmore]

We're having friends over, and serving ham, and turkey confit.

The ham is nothing special, the ordinary brown sugar, mustard, and nutmeg glaze. Years ago at a friend's party in California I had ham roasted inside rock candy. Must have taken something to pull THAT off.

But the turkey confit is the star of the show, as far as I'm concerned. I use this recipe:

Duck Confit (French slow-cooked duck)

on the leg quarters and wings, and just scale up the ingredients, and increase the time marinating in the rub to give it time to penetrate the larger turkey legs. And lay a bed of rosemary and garlic cloves under the meat, which I cook in my slow cooker rather than the oven.

Don't skip the juniper berries and star anise, they're key to the flavor.

Oh, almost any old fat will actually work for making confit, Crisco shortening is my go-to. Save the fat and recycle it, it picks up an enormous amount of flavor. But I always have to add more, because my wife raids it for stir fries due to the flavor.

[Commenter_XY]

It is tradition in my household to make paella valenciana for New Years. I also make cerviche', from a old recipe handed down through my wife's family. I know, I know...you don't have to remind me (it isn't kosher, but OTOH, it is quite good).

Not posting those today.

[santamonica811]

In food we find kindness. Interesting recipes are always appreciated. (I'm allergic to mushrooms, if that helps narrow down the list of recipes you're considering posting here.)

[Commenter_XY]

sm811, I have enjoyed many, many of your comments. No joke, I will think on this and post a special recipe for you. You are right, to share a meal is to share chesed.

There is vegetarian (but eats fish) and then Vegematic (hard core). Where are you on that continuum?

Middle Eastern? Indian? Asian? French? - any natural preference for you?

[Nelson]

I am a pescatarian (eat fish), but my partner is an ovo-lacto vegetarian so we are straight vegetarian at home.

I love Middle Eastern (pretty much all Mediterranean, actually) and Asian.

[santamonica811]

Me: No fish, nothing with fish sauce (ie, alas, never authentic Thai food [sob]), no eggs. Dairy is just fine. When I cook, I tend to make Italian when I'm feeling "safe," and Indian or Sri Lanka or Vietnamese or Greek when I'm feeling adventurous.

For everyone: Have a safe and fun New Years Eve tomorrow!!!

[not guilty]

I ordinarily make baked ziti with meat sauce, but here is a vegetarian version of the recipe for santamonica811.

1 16 oz. package ziti noodles
1 1/2 cup ricotta cheese
1 1/2 cups shredded mozzarella cheese
1 cup shredded parmesan cheese
2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, diced
3 ribs of celery, diced
1 bell pepper, diced
1/2 cup fennel
1 15 oz. can diced tomatoes in juice
1 14 oz. can vegetable broth
2 bay leaves
generous portions of Tony Cachere's creole seasoning, garlic powder, dried basil, oregano leaves, thyme leaves, fennel seed

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.

Prepare the ziti al dente according to package directions. Rinse, drain and set aside.

Blend the three cheeses together until the texture is uniform. Set aside.

Heat the olive oil to medium low in a stock pot or Dutch oven. Saute the garlic, onion, celery, bell pepper and fennel for about 5 to 7 minutes.

Combine the pasta sauce, vegetable broth and bay leaves. Simmer for 15 minutes. Add the canned tomatoes and simmer for 5 minutes.

Add the herbs and spices to taste and simmer for 10 minutes.

Spray a 3 quart baking dish with canola oil. Place the ziti, cheese blend and vegetable sauce in alternating layers.

Bake for 40 minutes.

When I was on a low carb diet I substituted fresh, uncooked zucchini slices for the pasta. That was good, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

All good but really what is extra virgin anything?

[Brett Bellmore]

Apparently with olive oil, "virgin" means mechanically pressed without solvents or heat, and the "extra" is means it's better quality, not that it's more virgin.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
Italy has very strict criteria for the term "extra virgin," which it does mean that the olives have been cold pressed without chemical additives to extract the oil, that the oil is 100 % olive oil from that presssing, AND the term specifically requires that the acidity in the pressing be less than 0.8%, the lower the better.
The acidity is strongly dependent on the ripeness of the olives when pressed and also relates to the yield which may be as low at 1 kg oil per 10 kg of olives.
It may be filtered or unfiltered.
After 9 years, my brother finally got his oil to pass the extra virgin standard this year. It is amazing.

One should realize that much that is labelled "extra virgin" is actually not the real deal. Real EVOO is expensive.

[bernard11]

And if you go to Italy and try some olive oil you will appreciate the difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're actually discussing maybe going to Italy in a couple years.

I absolutely do realize that quality counts when it comes to olive oil, and a lot of other food ingredients. So does price, regrettably; I usually go with Bertolli.

[Mr. Bumble]

Even olive oils with Italian sounding names may be from else
where and most are noted somewhere on the label or tin.
Spain is the largest producer with over twice as much produced as Italy (which is number two) .
Country Production
(tonnes)
Spain 766,400
Italy 288,900
Turkey 210,000
Tunisia 200,000
Greece 195,000
Portugal 150,000
Morocco 106,000
Syria 95,000
Algeria 93,000
World
2,407,000

[Don Nico]

Indeed Bernard. Much of even the premium oil that we see in the stores, is more than 1 year old.
Olive oil is best when it is less than 1 year. One should check the harvest date on the bottle. Fortunately, my brother sent me his oil only a few weeks after pressing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't that just a different way of saying what I said?

[Don Nico]

No Brett. You said NOTHING about acidity. That is the determining quantity measured according to Italian law.

My brother has always used artisanal cold pressing without added chemicals. But only this year was the acidity <0.6% — hence extra virgin.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I just said "quality". Since, you know, I didn't want to post a long winded cut and paste from this site.

[Jmaie]

I’ve heard it said that the amount of olive oil sold is more than could be produced by pressing the entire world‘s Olive crop…

[Brett Bellmore]

I mean, I've heard that said, too. But I notice that a lot of the bottles on the shelf at my local grocery actually disclose that they're mixed with other oils; I wonder if they're being counted against that total?

[bernard11]

I think it also means first pressing.

Later pressing of the remaining olive-stuff is called "pure" or something.

But it's a touch of a scam in many cases. If the oil sits for a long time before being used it loses some of its virtue.

[Nelson]

Yeah, it’s like “Kona blend” coffee. It isn’t worth it to get the seconds, castoffs, and blends. Save up for the real thing and treat it like the special experience it is.

Oil, coffee, wine, beer, hard cider, aged balsamic, sourdough, and ice cream are just a few of the things that a high-quality product will wreck your opinion of what “acceptable” is. Even in college I couldn't drink the beer-flavored water most people loved.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Santamonica811,
I ungrudgingly concede your point re: recipes.
Happy new year.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Fast forward to today, and we have some recently retired racist blue collar creature called Mr. Bumble, who crashes in here to call attorneys who comment here "douchebags" 10 times a day, with the gleeful idiiiocity of a fifth grader whio just learned a new swear word."
Funny that you feel free to make untrue claims with such certainty.

I don't understand the significance of my employment status or the color of my collar have to do with anything. If you think I'm a "racist" that's on you. Finally the only person I refer as a douche (not douchebag) is SarcastrO, who I've named Il Douche; which I think is well earned (is he really a lawyer? or just a blabbermouth kid who thinks he knows everything as he trolls Brett).

[Stella Link the dog]

"If you think I'm a "racist" that's on you. "
Once again, in forums such as this one, it is difficult to tell the dfference between a racist asshole and someone who just pretends to be a racist asshole. Indeed, it's not unreasonable to ask why a person who is not, in fact, a racist asshole would pretends to be one. As this is not the first time that you you have used the particular slur which has gotten some people excercised, the truth is that it is not "on" Mr Brother, it is on you.

As for your use of the insult "douche," there are some who have been familiar with that one for about 60 years or more and who have rarely heard it without the "bag." It's not unreasonable to infer that it's implied.

As for Brett, that's the guy who likes to regale us with his tales of great intellectual prowess and then makes the most stupid, ill-considered declarations seemingly possible. If there is a troll in those exchanges, it is certaily not Sarcastro.

[Mr. Bumble]

You and BMO are free to mute me as Capt Dan has done.
As the saying goes:
Opinions are like ass holes; everyone has one and it probably stinks.
Yours is noted and ignored.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Indeed, it's not unreasonable to ask why a person who is not, in fact, a racist asshole would pretends to be one."

I suspect the usual reason would be that they are, at the same time, pretending to hold the opposite political views; If you pretend to be on the other side and act badly, which side gets the blame?

"and then makes the most stupid, ill-considered declarations seemingly possible."

In the opinion of a dog, anyway...

[Stella Link the dog]

"and then makes the most stupid, ill-considered declarations seemingly possible."

For example:
"I suspect the usual reason would be that they are, at the same time, pretending to hold the opposite political views; If you pretend to be on the other side and act badly, which side gets the blame?"

"In the opinion of a dog, anyway..."
No need to get all emotional on us there, baby boy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, you doubt that a lot of trolls are flying false flags?

Anyway, sure, I'm a bright guy. But I'm a bright guy who's 65, and my dad was senile by 70, so you better expect me to get stupider as time passes. I do.

God, I hope I got my mom's genes in that regard.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Seriously, you doubt that a lot of trolls are flying false flags?"

Seriously, you think that someone like our resident REMF who calls himself a doctor is posting the shit he posts just to make bigoted liars look bad?

You think that Bumbleberry posts what he posts just to make no-nothing nitwits look bad?

Dr Ed2, the talking horse's ass, just to make self proclaimed academics look bad?

You just to make mentally defective autistic right-wing crackpot conspiracy theorists look bad?

[Frank Drackman]

REMF? 2d Marine Division was first into Kuwait, where were you? (And don’t give me the “I’m a Dog”! Excuse, the Marine MPs had dogs, and if you call them REMFs better hope you have a good Dental plan

[Stella Link the dog]

Prove it.

[Frank Drackman]

Like I’m gonna post my DD214? Or my Iraqi gas mask with dried blood on it? When you prove your a dog(your bitch moms papers will suffice)

[Stella Link the dog]

know-nothing. ouch.

[David Nieporent]

Seriously, you doubt that a lot of trolls are flying false flags?

Yes.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey! I’m the Race-ist A-hole on this blog!

[Stella Link the dog]

Not according to Brettmore. Actually, you're not a lying deluded racist fantasist. You're just pretending to be one in order to make worthless scum look bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, I think Frank is just overly fond of one of Rush Limbaugh's old shticks.

[Stella Link the dog]

Was Limbaugh just pretending to be a racist asshole too?

If Limbaugh was not, in fact, a racist asshole, he wasn't pretending in order to make racist assholes look bad. He was doing it because he found it to be very, very lucrative.

[Brett Bellmore]

Generally leftists calling somebody "racist" is just noise, you do it so reflexively all it means is that you don't like somebody.

[Stella Link the dog]

"you do it so reflexively all it means is that you don't like somebody."

Whom have I called a racist without good reason? Bumbleberry for throwing around n-word slurs on more than one occasion? The fool who claims to be a war hero, a firearms expert, a world ranked chess player, and great servant to humanity? Rush Limbaugh who had black associates and didn't hate them all but sure did behave as if he were a racist and a drug addled one to boot?

Actually, I'm not even sure I called any of them racist, just pointed out that they sure do behave like it (except the Big Fat Liar in the past tense).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Rush Limbaugh who had black associates and didn't hate them all but sure did behave as if he were a racist and a drug addled one to boot?"

Well, not going to argue the "drug addled" part, he was addicted at one point, but what exactly do you think qualified on his part as "behaving as though he were a racist"?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, and it is almost as annoying as rightists calling everybody who disagrees with them "Marxist". (But with less factual basis and more ignorance.)

I tend to differentiate between people who truly believe in the inferiority of different races and those who are simply reaching for a lazy insult. The least "racist" person in the world does not magically become a racist simply by employing a racist insult. By conflating the two, leftists inadvertently devalue and normalize the more evil one of the two.

[David Nieporent]

That's because you're probably tacitly using a definition of "racism" that's got nothing to do with actual racism.

Actually, that sounds like what you're doing. There are fortunately few racists of the let's-kill-all-the-[insert epithet here] sort, the true essentially religious fanatics. There are many more casual racists, who don't have an entire ideology built up around their racial views, but who generally hold negative stereotyped views of racial minorities, think that they're generally inferior in terms of character and/or intelligence. People in the latter group can have black friends because they accept that there are some exceptions. ("He's one of the good ones.")

[Frank Drackman]

Rush Limbo was such a race-ist he had Judge Clarence Thomas officiate at one of his Weddings (Well it was held at the Judges home, Oh I forgot!, Judge Thomas is a race-ist too!) Limbo's chief of staff Bo Snerdly (AKA James Golden) was Afro-Amurican as well (still is probably)

Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

How could he have been a racist when he had so many black friends? As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, fuckin' idiot.

[Brett Bellmore]

See, that's what's called "making your accusation unfalsifiable"; Any rational person would view having black friends as counter-evidence against an accusation of racism, but left-wingers treat it as confirming the accusation.

Once you level the accusation, any defense is treated instead as proof.

[Stella Link the dog]

'See, that's what's called "making your accusation unfalsifiable" . . . '

You think that racists are not allowed to have black friends, or black associates with whom they are friendly or black wives and husbands, even? In my experience, there are plenty of truly racist people, mostly men, in my experience, who are friendly with some minority people, the good ones, of course. In my estimation, being friendly with some minority people is orthogonal to racism.

Claiming that associating with minorities, even very, very closely, makes someone immune to charges of racism is an unfalsifiable claim. Once again, you reinforce my opinion of your rationality.

[bernard11]

Any rational person would view having black friends as counter-evidence against an accusation of racism, but left-wingers treat it as confirming the accusation.

That's a gross misdescription of Stella's comment. What she said was that having Black friends or associates doesn't mean you are not a racist.

There is a quote from Karl Lueger, a famously antisemitic mayor of Vienna around the turn of the 20th Century.

"Wer ein Jude ist, das bestimm ich." "I decide who is a Jew."

IOW, bigots make exceptions.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You think that racists are not allowed to have black friends, or black associates with whom they are friendly or black wives and husbands, even? In my experience, there are plenty of truly racist people, mostly men, in my experience, who are friendly with some minority people, the good ones, of course. In my estimation, being friendly with some minority people is orthogonal to racism."

That's because you're probably tacitly using a definition of "racism" that's got nothing to do with actual racism.

[Stella Link the dog]

'That's because you're probably tacitly using a definition of "racism" that's got nothing to do with actual racism.'

And I suggest that you are using a definition which is so narrow as to be useless in practice.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Indeed, it's not unreasonable to ask why a person who is not, in fact, a racist asshole would pretends to be one."

Why do people pull false fire alarms?

[not guilty]

I don't recall the comment thread on the San Francisco stabbing, but from BrotherMovesOn's description the ethics issues, while profound, are not difficult.

If the assailant was seeking legal representation when he made his disclosures to the attorneys, then privilege attached and the attorneys were bound to keep his confidences.

In that hypothetical situation and in the event of imposition of a sentence of death upon the innocent defendant, I think I would communicate discreetly to the governor, without identifying my client, that I had received privileged and confidential information which I am prohibited from disclosing, but which is highly probative of the innocence of the condemned man, such that a pardon or commutation may be appropriate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would the attorneys even be permitted to testify to what they knew?

[not guilty]

I don't know about California, in which the hypothetical was set. In my state, the testimony would be rejected and a criminal penalty could be imposed (in a subsequent proceeding):

Any attorney offering to give testimony in any of the cases provided for in §§ 23-3-105 and 23-3-106 shall be rejected by the court, and the attorney commits a Class C misdemeanor, for which, on conviction, the attorney shall also be stricken from the rolls, if a practicing attorney.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-107.

[Vryedni]

If it's permissible to communicate that to the governor, why not to the DA right away to spare the innocent defendant the ordeal of trial?

[Brett Bellmore]

"I can't tell you which of my clients on this list confessed to the murder, obviously. Figure it out yourself."

[not guilty]

"If it's permissible to communicate that to the governor, why not to the DA right away to spare the innocent defendant the ordeal of trial?"

I am not sure it would matter to many DAs, and if the jury acquits or rejects the death penalty, that would resolve the dilemma (at least in part). Going to the DA could cast a pall of suspicion on the attorney's other clients, as well.

[Vryedni]

Why would going to the DA cast a pall of suspicion which going to the governor wouldn't? I assume you're assuming the governor would keep the lawyer's identity confidential, but what if he doesn't? I'd think, to be safe, the attorney should hire his own attorney to approach the governor/DA, so the (actually guilty) clients' identities will be shielded by an additional layer of anonymity. But what if, in the end, the governor or DA, as applicable, refuses to commit to whatever anonymity is required to shield the lawyers' clients? Does the lawyer let the innocent defendant go to trial? To prison? To the lethal injection gurney?

Obviously the attorney can't disclose anything that would put his clients at risk. I'd think the only recourse would be for the lawyer's lawyer to make a public stink about having a client with exculpatory information who the DA and/or governor is refusing to keep anonymous to protect privileged information.

In the end, it's all very recursive and nine-dimensional chessy. If one layer of anonymity can be pierced, then can't the next one too? In short, I don't see a safely ethical path for disclosing, and I can't imagine allowing an innocent man to be tried and punished, maybe executed. But then, I'm just a transactional lawyer, so I've never had to confront these issues. Maybe criminal lawyers have a solution, or know there simply isn't one.

[not guilty]

The governor is not in the day to day business of investigating and prosecuting a particular criminal defense lawyer's clients.

[Dr. Ed 2]

IT REALLY HAPPENED -- sort of, back in the 1970s.

Knowing that I would once again be falsely accused of making something up, I found a citation first, so you can read it all there:
https://www.lawtimesnews.com/archive/lake-pleasant-bodies-case/260148

But the thing here is that the lawyer did go to the DA and didn't get anywhere.

[bernard11]

Why do you distinguish between the death penalty and a prison sentence here?

Seem as if the lawyer should want to spare the innocent defendant either one.

And what if the defendant hires the lawyer who knows he's innocent, possibly after a nudge? Does that change the game?

[not guilty]

"And what if the defendant hires the lawyer who knows he's innocent, possibly after a nudge? Does that change the game?"

Actually the lawyer would have a significant conflict in representing the innocent defendant. He would not be able to zealously represent the accused without betraying the one who confessed while seeking legal representation.

(If the latter were not seeking legal services when he made his admissions, then the communication is not privileged at all, and there is no dilemma.)

[Brett Bellmore]

But it's OK if the innocent guy instead gets a life sentence?

[not guilty]

That is much less of a dilemma.

[Brett Bellmore]

Less of a dilemma, sure, but given that the mean time between sentencing and execution is about 20 years at this point, not THAT much less of a dilemma.

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't take that long for Dahmer's "Execution" or Epstein's "Suicide"

[not guilty]

Jeffrey Dahmer committed all but one of his murders in Milwaukee. Wisconsin in a non-death-penalty state.

The first of the killings, however, took place in Ohio. It appears that authorities there did not institute capital proceedings because of the tradition of the condemned prisoner being served whatever he requests for his last meal.

One of my favorite Asleep at the Wheel songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzuRCeq8uBk

[Frank Drackman]

Dahmer ended up pretty dead, he was just executed by one of the other prisoners instead of the State. Same with Epstein.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This law review article notes that (as of 2018) Alaska and Massachusetts have enacted specific authorization into their versions of Rule 1.6 to allow attorneys to disclose confidential information to prevent wrongful execution or incarceration.

https://www.cornelllawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/The-Attorney-Client-Privilege-Client-Professions-and-Wrongful-Co.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

So they grant immunity to the actual perp, and provide that evidence to the imprisoned so they can sue for release.

Why isn't that more prevalent (only two states)?

[Noscitur a sociis]

In that hypothetical situation and in the event of imposition of a sentence of death upon the innocent defendant, I think I would communicate discreetly to the governor, without identifying my client, that I had received privileged and confidential information which I am prohibited from disclosing, but which is highly probative of the innocence of the condemned man, such that a pardon or commutation may be appropriate.

I find it a little difficult to imagine many governors granting clemency based on something that nebulous (nor should they—I certainly wouldn’t).

[BrotherMovesOn]

not guilty, I respect your commentaries and you are more experienced than I, but the fact that you frame the ethical issues with respect to the MRPCs kind of misses the point. I am also an attorney bound by the rules. The crux is, was, how do you live with yourself, knowing you could have prevented a horrific injustice but didn't, based upon man-made rules.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Aye, Excelsior!

A banner with a strange device.

See James Thurber's illustrations of various poems, including Longfellow.

[Riva]

I frankly don’t know how many of those claiming legal knowledge here are actually attorneys. Who knows what Sarcastr0 is but he probably works in public education given his general ignorance and Marxist views. Or he could just work at a Starbucks?

But I can verify that many of those same commenters are douchebags. They are in fact exceptional examples of TDS deranged douchebags.

[not guilty]

"I frankly don’t know how many of those claiming legal knowledge here are actually attorneys."

Is this moment of candor a blind hog finding an acorn? Is anyone surprised that Riva does not know how to distinguish legitimate legal authorities and reasoning from the bloviation of poseurs?

For those of us with actual legal training and litigation experience, that difference becomes apparent in short order -- with due allowance made for Poe's Law.

[Riva]

You’re top on the list by the way.

[Sarcastr0]

Putting aside Riva's amusing ignorance about what Marxist means, and weaving a whole different career path for me, lets pivot to something more interesting.

I do hold those who claim to have gone to law school to a higher standard. There are things that a layperson might think is true that someone with any kind of legal education should know better. So when they post that nonsense it looks more like lying, perhaps to themselves as well.

This seems a problem - any education, including 1L, if it acts like some entrance into some mysteries that give a perspective no one else understands seems a failure of communication.

So then what are some common misunderstandings law school grads see in interested laypeople? And then what about what one learns as a practitioner that non-barred folks might miss?

A recent one I've seen is when a party settles. I did a brief stint in corporate law, and litigation was discussed as a communication exercise. Both sides put their resources and level of commitment on the table, and one side decided to fold. Thus, the 2% of lawsuits* that go to trial are a failure in communication.

*that's a made up number by the partner

[not guilty]

Some random observations here.

A big part of the first year of law school is learning how to verbalize what one knows intuitively.

Litigation teaches a practitioner to marshal facts and legal argument in support of a narrative which supports the result that best serves the client. Much of my practice was appellate advocacy on behalf of convicted defendants. I often asked myself, if I were a judge deciding this case, what should I want to know?

Professor Volokh has often said that a lawyer's superpower is being able to turn any matter into a question about procedure. There is something to that. Litigation of constitutional questions is different for different stages of the lawsuit. Are we at the pleading stage? Supporting or opposing summary judgment? Preparing for trial? Appealing from a final judgment? Each stage has a different set of potholes to navigate around.

[Riva]

How much more can one person bloviate? There seems to be no end.

[not guilty]

Riva, when and where did you get your legal training, if any? I have asked you that before, and you ran away like Usain Bolt.

[Riva]

Another decidedly childish response that you repeat ad infinitum. And markedly not professional.

[not guilty]

Is your vehicle also a dodge, Riva?

[Riva]

Is your double, tripling (actually keep going) down on stupid a confession that you’re a delusional idiot?

[Sarcastr0]

One could absolutely see the practice of law as one of communication (with persuasion as a secondary)

Drafting contracts and statutes are also communication exercises. They're so stilted and hard to understand because clarity is not what English is good at.

The procedures are in service of keeping the flow of information appropriately cabined so as to be manageable while still allowing all matters in the controversy to be brought up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Spoken like a litigator... Chances are, the "stilted and hard to understand" language has a well understood meaning among practitioners in a particular jurisdiction/industry.

Contracts can of course be drafted to be unambiguously clear; they can also be drafted to be impenetrably ambiguous. The choice depends on which best serves the client's interests at the time.

[David Nieporent]

Contracts can of course be drafted to be unambiguously clear

Spoken like a non-litigator.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Correct. I did not say they are always drafted that way. Details matter...

[Riva]

You probably watched a Law and Order episode, maybe Matlock, but a real professional would never express themselves as childishly as you. And other comments display such complete ignorance, that public education system seemed a good bet.

[Sarcastr0]

And I think working in public education is pretty damn noble, actually. I'd have done it, but I have this weird irrational ambition problem.
I know rationally that it's a pretty huge impact to teach and possibly inspire as many children as a teacher or professor does. But some dumb part of me doesn't feel it.

[Riva]

Not really convincing me you’re a learned professional with that response. But I believe the public education thing. You reek of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"And Dr. Ed. Can you imagine attending a holiday party with this thing?
"These mushroom puff pastries are great! Tell me more about your mass murder fantasies."

You clearly don't know many trial lawyers, do you?

[Kazinski]

There is nothing that leaves such a bitter taste in your mouth, and gives ruins the flavour of everything as much as losing an election you care deeply about.

One day you'll be interested in recipes again, be able.to.read.something you disagree with, and hear children play outside without clinching your teeth and tasting that bitterness.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fortunately, spending the first 20 years of my political life in a third party made me numb to the pain of losing elections...

[Nelson]

"And Commenter who apparently thinks we are all waiting with baited breath to hear his arms-folded pronouncements about everything from domestic politics to his global hot spot solutions, in between spamming a legal blog with recipes.”

With the caveat that XY and I pretty much disagree on every cultural issue, I want to defend him. Of all the deeply conservative commenters here, he is probably the only one who, when given information that nullifies one of his posts, acknowledges it. He asks questions honestly, looking for information, and when he gets a response he frequently thanks the person. He’s basically Bizarro Brett Bellmore.

He isn’t a lawyer, but he seeks opinions from those who are. There are plenty of paleocon extremists here, but Commenter XY isn’t one of them.

Regarding the recipes, I am firmly in the “it’s a good thing” camp. I am a passionate cook and I agree with sm811 that it is an amazing way to connect with people. Food connects us all and, much like the also-referenced literature and movie suggestions, exposes the connections between us that our differeing politics might otherwise hide.

XY, as another vegetarian I would love a recipe from the XY cookbook, if you have one. It may be as divisive as politics to say this, but I love eggplant and am always looking for a good dish.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Upon reflection I extend apologies to _XY for my recipe snark.
Happy new year. Bon appetit.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nelson, slice 'em, salt purge 'em, dress lightly with EVOO, kosher salt, your favorite pepper corn variety, add some shaved parmigiano reggiano and bake 'em. The technology has existed for millenia and has never really been improved upon. Happy new year.

[Commenter_XY]

All is forgiven, BMO.

Happy New Year! Make 2025 a great year!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I noticed that as well, about XY. Decent bloke, really screwed up politics (with almost perfect pro-Israel blindness).

But what's with all these vegetarian epicures flinging recipes? FFS, if you really want your food to taste good, just add some meat!

[Commenter_XY]

Nelson, for you, I will search my files for something PA and eggplant. I recall you reside in Bucks County, or your work brings you to that area frequently.

Eggplant....hmmmm....thinking Italian or Moroccan or PA Dutch.

Thx for the kind words. I might need to change my user name, lol.

Lawyers work hard. They should nourish themselves and eat well. And I also believe the experience of 'breaking bread' together is an act of holiness, and chesed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee, you get to sit at the cool kids table.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy New Year, Mr. Bumble.

You want to get on the 'recipe' list? 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy New Year to you too.
Not much for recipes but enjoy you posts. Limits of my cooking are simple meat and potatoes type meals.

[Nelson]

I live in Delaware, but have family in Bucks. My three-year-old niece lives there and her mother has gotten more family-gathering oriented since she was born, so we’re up there a lot.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A good moment for the Ds in Congress to introduce two bills:

1. A Fast Food Fairness law. It rolls back nationwide the price of fast food by half the amount of local fast food inflation between 1/1/20 and 12/31/2024.

2. An H-1B Visa Reform law. That one cuts the annual number of H-1B visas by 80%, on the theory most of the present economic benefit to the nation comes from the most talented 20% of H-1B recipients, and the others are being used mostly to hold down STEM wages.

Two good chances for Ds to do something for ordinary Americans, and likely get some crossover support.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I'll let the price control remark slide, since this is a legal blog, not an economics blog or a Law and Economics blog.

Cutting the H-1B visas to protect Americans seems like a great idea. In your view, is there any particular politician associated with such ideas?

[Stephen Lathrop]

This seems also to be a politics blog. Don't you understand why price controls on fast food might recruit broad and bi-partisan political support to pass it? Or deliver a useful wedge issue to the Ds if it did not pass because of R resistance?

[Stella Link the dog]

" Don't you understand . .."
No. Seems like a really dim idea unlikely to get support from any Republican and but a few members of the foolish wing of the Democratic Party. Typically, the only thing that such price controls do is screw things up worse than they already are. It's not as if price controls have not been implemented before and that the resulting unintended consequences have never been observed.

[Armchair]

" Don't you understand why price controls on fast food might recruit broad and bi-partisan political support to pass it?"

Price controls like this don't work. This would effectively just shut down most fast food restaurants.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair — You are saying price controls which permit price hikes in excess of inflation can't work? Why would you think that?

[Armchair]

"Why would you think that?"

Basic logic. Historical experience. Math. Those are three reasons.

Here's the deal. The average McDonald's Franchise in 2023 made about a 5.5% profit margin ($150,000 on $2.7 Million in sales) What you're proposing is a price control of at least a 10% drop ...that cuts 10% of their revenue. All the other costs remain constant. That suddenly drives the average franchise to a -4.5% profit margin. Which means...they close.

https://www.mashed.com/178309/how-much-mcdonalds-franchise-owners-really-make-per-year/

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair — Your link does not work for me. And your math does not work for the hypothetical you were challenged to rebut.

In this case, rebuttal calls for a before-and-after comparison.

First, you have to show an example franchise prior to the Covid pandemic was in fact profitable, and by how much. Not, by the way, how profitable per-sale, but how profitable as a percent of capital invested.

For a retail business the latter is the fair test, to avoid the common PR dodge to say, "Oh, look, what a tiny percent profit we make on the groceries we sell—to obscure the fact that on an annual basis that per-sale profit percent gets multiplied—multiplied as many times as the inventory fraction of the investment gets turned over.

How many times annually do you suppose the sales inventory at a successful McDonalds franchise turns over? My guess would be at least 26 times per year, and likely more.

Thus, if your hypothetical franchise really did have an annual profit margin of 5.5%—figured as net profits divided by all periodic costs, plus wages, taxes, and capital costs—as you seem to insist, the per-sale profit must have been implausibly small, certainly less than 5.5%. Of course I am not a McDonalds insider; it would be helpful if we had an insider available to correct mistaken guesses—whether my guesses or your guesses.

Second, you have to show the local cost inflation result for that example, during the pandemic. And the local price inflation result. You seem to have assumed the latter will be less than proportionate to the former. I think the opposite.

During the Covid pandemic interval, patronage of fast food franchises famously went through the roof, as diners strove to avoid sit-down dining. Your assumption also sorts poorly with heavy emphasis in news reports on skyrocketing fast food prices. It contradicts pervasive public outcry, so intense it has been credited with presidential election influence.

Third, you have to show that cutting prices now, by amounts no larger than half the prior price inflation increase, somehow made the example franchise go under. Of course that could happen, if during the pandemic the franchise in question was only marginally profitable, and had not raised prices by as much as double its actual rate of cost inflation.

But once again, that suggests a franchise operated outside the reported industry norms for the period, and probably one trying to get by on a per-sale profit margin on inventory somewhere too close to zero—likely much less than the 5.5% you posited for overall annual profitability. After all, total costs must be paid out of product sales margins, a healthy per-sale price margin needs to be notably larger than annual profitability, as I suppose you must realize. So of course a franchise crippled by a bad location, or poorly managed, might have proved vulnerable, even during the pandemic when its competitors thrived. Wise public policy cannot be limited by a requirement that it never inflict additional hardship on an already self-afflicted business.

To make that last point clearer by example, I will suppose hypothetically that the single biggest expense category for a typical fast food business is wages for hourly employees. Perhaps those amount to about half of all annual expenses.

Thus, where I live the going wage rate advertised prior to the pandemic was $12 per hour. Recruiting signs posted by drive-through windows seemed in agreement on that. It is now $18 per hour, making for a 50% increase in wages, equivalent to a 25% increase in overall costs. That leaves 50% of the cost pie to be accounted for. I do not think any other notable cost sub-category was likely to have increased as much as wages.

So I doubt Covid era cost inflation could have reached higher than 40% in the local fast food industry. It was probably less than that.

In this region, that increase, whatever it actually was, was used to justify an approximate doubling of fast food retail prices—far higher than food inflation generally. And those fast food prices continue to fluctuate around that already-elevated base. The fluctuations include a few downward retrenchments, but probably more increases.

Finally, I am willing to suppose the inventory costs of a typical fast food franchise are a relatively small percentage of all costs—which might affect the above hypotheticals—but I would like to see a reliable breakdown on that before reckoning it in. I doubt whatever difference exists would much affect the argument.

Many decades ago, I undertook an investigative reporting effort into how the grocery business was structured across the American West. I learned that industry-association reports available to the public were considered unreliable by grocery store owners and managers I knew well. Those had given me reason to trust them by disclosing surprising information which checked out, in interviews with middlemen and industry leaders.

I continue to distrust pretty much all industry association press releases intended for the public. If you receive and read those regularly, you soon come to realize that a lot of it is effort to: encourage price increases by industry members; to help them coordinate doing it together; to soften the public in advance to expect the increases; and to begin to deflect blame for the increases even before they happen.

Put that kind of activity together with industry association lobbying efforts, and you generally get a menu of issues wise public policy ought to oppose.

[Absaroka]

The link worked for me.
"Not, by the way, how profitable per-sale, but how profitable as a percent of capital invested."

1)Invest $1 in a business
2)Sell items that cost $1 for $0.95
3)????
4)Profit!!

Explain item 3 to me like I'm a Golden Retriever. The old adage about losing money on every item but making it up with volume is a joke, not a business plan.

==========

As an aside, fast food prices have substantially exceeded overall CPI over the last few years. But you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that price gouging is the only possible explanation. If you are going to persuade anyone that your preferred explanation is the only possible, or even most likely, explanation, you'll have to do more than merely asserting that.

In an example of why we can't have nice things, I went looking for evidence. You can find page after page of results documenting in great detail what the price how the price of Big Macs vs Whoppers have changed over time, but no one has taken the time to look at the books to see where the money is going. You can find hand waving about minimum wage hikes. One might assume that restaurant prices would increase as much as food in general, which has also exceeded the overall CPI. One article shows McD's quarterly revenue at about 1% of the stock price, which looks fairly lean (but what about franchisees?). And so on. There is a raging debate ... with no hard data.

Bald assertion without data isn't persuasive.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Golden retriever explanation:

1. You already enjoy a profitable business.

2. You are at liberty to do whatever you want to adjust prices, except to exceed by amount X the rate of your own inflation experience.

3. If X is larger than a trivial increment in relation to your post-inflation price, then the size of X cannot reasonably be accounted a reason why your business became unprofitable, and was forced to close.

As for, "Bald assertion without data," even bald assertion plus data risks bad policy. Experiment, followed by adjustments based on happy or unhappy experience, is a wiser method for policy making.

I have grown impatient with policy based on bald assertions plus data, after those continue to deliver unhappy experience. Seems like a lot of others join me about that.

[David Nieporent]

As for, "Bald assertion without data," even bald assertion plus data risks bad policy. Experiment, followed by adjustments based on happy or unhappy experience, is a wiser method for policy making.

1) What do you think data is?
2) Let me substitute something more fundamental: it's none of your fucking business how much a fast food restaurant charges. Don't like it, don't eat there.

[Absaroka]

"the rate of your own inflation experience"

Ah, so the notion is that a government inspector audit every fast food place annually. OK. Next question - in that audit, you find the business made nada profits but bought a new company vehicle, for example. Was that a legit expense? How many auditors are you planning to hire? Sounds like a make work program for CPAs and lawyers.

There are lots of creative ways to change profits into expenses. Competition is a pretty effective way to limit those shenanigans.

Before you hire enough auditors to be co-managers of every business, you ought to at least be able to make some kind of hand-wavy case that people are indeed colluding to price gouge. Just, you know, any kind of case that isn't pure surmise.

Let me correct that: you can conclude whatever you want. But other people don't have to find the flights of your imagination persuasive.

[David Nieporent]

For a retail business the latter is the fair test, to avoid the common PR dodge to say, "Oh, look, what a tiny percent profit we make on the groceries we sell—to obscure the fact that on an annual basis that per-sale profit percent gets multiplied—multiplied as many times as the inventory fraction of the investment gets turned over.

How many times annually do you suppose the sales inventory at a successful McDonalds franchise turns over? My guess would be at least 26 times per year, and likely more.

Lathrop, you know the classic joke about losing money on every sale, but making it up on volume? It's a joke. That's not how it works.

EDIT: I see Absaroka made the same point.

[Absaroka]

I recently read a fascinating book: 'Blockade: the Diary of an Austrian Middle-Class Woman 1914-1924' by Anna Eisenmenger. It's an account of Austria's wheelbarrows-of-money inflation episode.

They had all kinds of price controls, and discovered the solution to the problem of costs exceeding the allowed price - you just forbid people from shutting down their businesses. Problem solved!

(What happened, of course, is that commerce all moved underground. Everyone was dodging the regulators, including the regulators, because if you weren't in the black market you weren't eating. tl;dr - eventually they just flatlined the economy and started over. Really interesting book.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Now you are just fighting the hypothetical.

I was explicit that the hypothetical business began profitable. And specific that constraints on price increases not be so stringent as to prevent offsetting inflation which had already happened.

As for whether such questions are my business, or yours, what should we do if an entire industry, urged and coordinated by a trade association, all at once inflicts price increases, ostensibly to offset proactively inflation which industry leaders expect might happen?

Don't you recognize that as a familiar dynamic during inflationary times? Seems like we both have as much legitimate interest in that as we do in any other question regarding inflation.

Do you count yourself an opponent of excessive inflation? Think of what I propose as a fairer counter-inflation measure than inflicting interest rate hikes. The latter policy not only throws out of work folks who have no say whatever about price increases, it is actually intended to work that way. The people harmed suffer grievously when it happens. About that suffering, policy makers shrug, and chalk it up to necessary evil.

My proposal targets folks who not only do control price increases, but who also benefit when they can make price increases stick. As anti-inflation measures, wisely limited price controls are thus fairer, better targeted, and more likely to be effective than interest rate hikes used to increase unemployment.

But today's policy orthodoxy—the position you defend—calls that fairness an outrage. Just as a matter of morality, I urge all supporters of interest rate hikes to control inflation to rethink that advocacy.

Even if anti-inflationary price controls inflict unjust harm on some—a result far less likely than in the case of interest rate hikes—considerations of fairness demand that we not decide arbitrarily that interest-rate inflation fighting is dandy, but price-control inflation fighting is right out. Maybe begin with an experiment to use them in combination.

[Absaroka]

"...what should we do if an entire industry, urged and coordinated by a trade association, all at once inflicts price increases, ostensibly to offset proactively inflation which industry leaders expect might happen?"

Get rich by undercutting the gougers?

Additionally, if there is very much coordinating going on, then prosecute under existing law.

[David Nieporent]

As for whether such questions are my business, or yours, what should we do if an entire industry, urged and coordinated by a trade association, all at once inflicts price increases, ostensibly to offset proactively inflation which industry leaders expect might happen?

"We" shouldn't do anything in this ridiculous hypothetical in which hundreds of thousands of businesses all simultaneously decide to stop competing with each other because someone "urged" them to. You and I, individually, should decide whether the prices are too high, and if so, stop patronizing that industry.

Don't you recognize that as a familiar dynamic during inflationary times?

No.

Do you count yourself an opponent of excessive inflation?

Do I like inflation? Of course not, but inflation is a monetary phenomenon, not a case of individual businesses raising prices. And like every other person on the planet, I want the prices I pay to remain low and the prices I charge to remain high. But is not "fair" in any aspect of the word for the government to decide what those prices should be. Price controls are not an anti-inflation measure.

But today's policy orthodoxy

Every time you have a really stupid idea, whether about law, economics, or otherwise, you just handwave away your lack of knowledge by claiming those pointing it out are in the grips of "orthodoxy" or "fundamentalism" or the like.

[David Nieporent]

Or "utopianism"; you like that non-argument, too.

[Armchair]

Sigh....

1) Your proposal was to "roll(s) back nationwide the price of fast food by half the amount of local fast food inflation between 1/1/20 and 12/31/2024."

2) Common English interprets "roll back" to mean reduce

3) Inflation in the fast food industry between these dates was at least 20%.

4) Therefor, you're proposing reducing fast food prices by at least 10%.

Please correct me what I got wrong there. Then we can go further.

[David Nieporent]

This seems also to be a politics blog. Don't you understand why price controls on fast food might recruit broad and bi-partisan political support to pass it? Or deliver a useful wedge issue to the Ds if it did not pass because of R resistance?

No. You're as bad at politics as you are at economics. First, the next election isn't for two years; nobody is going to remember this then. Second, "We tried to help you and failed" is not a winning message. Third, if it passed and worked as you think, given that the GOP controls both houses of Congress and the presidency, the GOP would get the credit. Fourth, Dems have been trying for years to win with these PowerPoint presentation bullet point arguments, and it doesn't work; that's not how voters vote. They don't want a laundry list of small bore achievements.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note that I have been talking about reforming inflation fighting. To do that would not be a small bore achievement.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Cutting the H-1B visas to protect Americans seems like a great idea. In your view, is there any particular politician associated with such ideas?

There are a few, but they don’t seem to have much traction with our president-elect, who just observed:

“I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them. I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

Noscitur — I count the current president-elect more a hovercraft than a traction-driven vehicle. With him claiming H-1B visas for golf course workers, I doubt he knows what they are.

[Commenter_XY]

#1 is a non-starter, get real.
#2 is going to happen, reform, but not 80% cut.

For the next 2 years, Team D won't get anything out of committee.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fine! Excellent, even, for the Ds.

Let the Rs explain to their base, over, and over, and over, how they had a bi-partisan chance to sharply cut the price of fast food, and refused to do it.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Is this a 4-D chess move to improve people's diets by making fast food less accessible via price-controls?

[Mr. Bumble]

Are certain states doing this with $20.00 minimum wages?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, one of my NY's resolutions will be to help you not step on a proverbial rake. Your #1...is a rake. Please stop stepping on it and smacking yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm in awe of the left of economic ignorance necessary to support this sort of idea. It's the sort of thing that could get you flunked out of Econ 101.

Price controls are not cost controls; If you mandate a price for a commodity that's below the cost of production, people just stop providing it, rather than losing money on every unit sold. If you stop just short of that point? They move their money into an industry where you haven't outlawed profits yet.

So, you're just proposing to ban fast food, in the end.

[Don Nico]

Seriously Stephen, how is the price going to drop in half in CA when the minimum wage for those workers has been almost doubled in the same period?
I guess that it is a nice fantasy to end the year on.
Happy New Year

[Frank Drackman]

Oh come on, what does worker's pay have to do with prices?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, go back and read my comment carefully. If you did not misread it, then continue:

To make your comment even coherent, you have to assume that wages are the only costs involved. They are far from the only costs. In practice, if wages begin at 60% of costs, and then double, it does not take a doubling of sales prices to get back to former profit levels, because other costs did not go up that much. I think you must know that already.

If with all costs reckoned, the price of fast food in CA has actually doubled, then knocking the inflation increment down by half ought to be fine. For established franchises (almost all of them) it's unlikely the mortgage changed much at all. The wholesale price of the food did not double. The cost of labor did not double. The price of energy did not double. The price of cleaning supplies did not double. The price of paper products did not double.

Your comment, and those of other free market fundamentalists, seem predicated on a notion that price gouging never happens. It happened during the pandemic, especially at fast food stores which suddenly served a bigger demand because of reluctance to use sit-down restaurants.

But I would be fine to pass the law, see if it works, and then, if too many fast food stores go out of business, adjust the law. I don't think economic ideology can ever provide as good a basis for legislation as experience.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fine, go into the fast food business, sounds like you should be able to clean up, what with offering better meals at a fraction of the cost.

[ThePublius]

You don't know what you're talking about, and apparently don't know how the fast food franchise industry works.

For example, "The price of a Big Mac in the United States has increased by 18% since January 2020, which is similar to the 21% increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)."

Meanwhile, "Wholesale food prices have increased significantly since 2020, with the Producer Price Index for All Foods standing 35% higher in November 2024 than it was in February 2020."

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
You are overly optimistic. Rents have increased considerably in the past five years. I expect that franchise fee has also increased. The CA tax rate remains very high. The cost of materials used in food preparation (for example, oils) has increased and I expect that the cost of foods at the wholesale level has increased faster than the OMB's inflation index.
I grant that you MAY have an argument, BUT you would have to show me real data demonstrating that the profit margin has increased faster than inflation.
Passing such a law absent serious quantitative data would be grossly irresponsible.

[CountmontyC]

So deporting illegal aliens and hiring American citizens won't affect prices? Good to see you on board.

[David Nieporent]

Your comment, and those of other free market fundamentalists, seem predicated on a notion that price gouging never happens. It happened during the pandemic, especially at fast food stores which suddenly served a bigger demand because of reluctance to use sit-down restaurants.

Price gouging never happens, because it's made up political rhetoric rather than an actual economic concept. If all you mean by it is that profit margins increase sometimes — sure, and so what? Do you think there's a specific amount of profit margin that any particular business owner is supposed to make? And that anything more than that is unjust?

[David Nieporent]

But I would be fine to pass the law, see if it works, and then, if too many fast food stores go out of business, adjust the law. I don't think economic ideology can ever provide as good a basis for legislation as experience.

That's because you have contempt for expertise. In every field except history, which of course needs far less, not far more, than economics. (Which is not "ideology.")

But even if we could just cast aside actual economic knowledge, what kind of insane idea is, "Let's do this and if it really drives lots of businesses out of business, we can always just undo it"?

[Noscitur a sociis]

#2 is going to happen, reform, but not 80% cut

What makes you think that? The only reform Trump appears interested is expansion, and there seem to be enough Republicans willing to stand up to him that he’s unlikely to get it.

[Commenter_XY]

Nas....I see H-1B reforms happening, which is not the same as an 80% cut. Expansion can be reform. So can agency interpretation of statutes and regulations. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Aren’t people fat as fuck already?

[Riva]

I think 20% is too high. The program has devolved into basically a means to recruit predominantly low-level IT and finance professionals in lieu of hiring qualified US citizens.

[Frank Drackman]

You listen to Steve Bannon too? Or more likely you’re just smart, I have one of these “talented” tech guys who works on my Vette (when did Dealers suddenly stop serving their own cars when they get too old?)

[Stella Link the dog]

" Or more likely you’re just smart"

About as smart as you though not as accomplished as a liar.

[Kazinski]

Are you going to roll back 50% fast food minimum wage hikes too? It will just drive a lot of franchises out of business.

What they should do to reform H1b visas is for the USCIS to charge 100k fee to issue the visa to the corporation, make the minimum wage 100k, and then issue the visa for 5 years, but allow the visa recipient to change employers after 1 year.

Those provisions will make sure the corporation is actually recruiting elite talent, and also make sure the recipient is not being mistreated or underpaid because they are stuck with one employer.

And with those reforms I don't think they need to cut the number of visas because there won't be any incentive to hire H1b workers over Americans.

[DixieTune]

How would this fast food fairness thing work? McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King all have $4-$6 deals which are below 2020 costs. Many items are higher, but there are reasonably priced alternatives.

So would this law require McDonald's to drop the price of the Big Mac value meal by 50%, but to keep the $5 deal the same?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I think maybe you are putting more thought into the suggestion than the suggestion merits.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Why on Earth would you want that horrible processed junk to be lower priced?

Aren't you the same people who advocate for sugar taxes on soda to discourage poor people from drinking it so they don't get fat?

[Stephen Lathrop]

No, I am not those people.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Ok, so why would you want fast food prices cut in half and not healthy stuff that doesn't kill you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Healthy stuff is already cheaper than fast food, so long as you cook it yourself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Pharoh, you did not read my comment accurately. My suggestion was to cut prices by half the amount of the Covid-era increase, not by half the total price. Because national inflation during Covid did not reach 50%, my suggestion would leave in place price increases in excess of inflation.

[David Nieporent]

Aside from everything else wrong with your idiot idea, inflation is a national measure of the entire economy, not an individualized calculation of a particular business's costs.

[ThePublius]

“Stephen Lathrop:

A good moment for the Ds in Congress to introduce two bills:

1. A Fast Food Fairness law. It rolls back nationwide the price of fast food by half the amount of local fast food inflation between 1/1/20 and 12/31/2024.

2. An H-1B Visa Reform law. That one cuts the annual number of H-1B visas by 80%, on the theory most of the present economic benefit to the nation comes from the most talented 20% of H-1B recipients, and the others are being used mostly to hold down STEM wages.

Two good chances for Ds to do something for ordinary Americans, and likely get some crossover support.”

Stephen, I am both flabbergasted and pleased that you posted these suggestions, in particular, the first one. I’m flabbergasted that you actually think this is a good idea, and pleased, as it is an excellent barometer for your thinking and political and legal philosophy.

I’ll confine my commentary to the first one.

It paints you as a genuine socialist and statist. And it is resonant with most of what comes from the left in American political discourse. Let’s start with the title: “A Fast Food Fairness law.” Fairness? Fairness to whom? Define fairness, and why that matters in this context. It is like when Dems cite “fair share” in many contexts, particularly taxes, without ever defining it quantitatively, or even defining ‘fairness,’ except that they will tell you when it's enough: probably never.

Why do you think this is right and just, or even legal? Why does the government have the right to single out a particular sector of the food supply and dictate what they may charge for their product? I say it’s a taking, similar to rent control (which I think SCOTUS erred in not granting cert for two such cases in November.) Note that most fast food outlets are franchises, and you suggest stepping in to take control of one of the primary levers of running their business, already having taken control of another primary lever in many places, wages. Why don’t you just suggest nationalizing fast food, making it a government enterprise, like liquor stores in several states?

Price controls are a hallmark of socialism, and never work in the long term.

In my view price controls are immoral and illegal, particularly under the Constitution of the United States.

Notable is that you don’t suggest price parity among the various hamburger outlets. Why do Shake Shack and Five Guys get to charge so much more for a burger than McDonalds or Burger King or Wendy’s? Why not establish government standards for burgers, and government prices for burgers? Why, indeed.

So, at least now we know very clearly where you stand, and it’s apparently socialist all the way.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I initially thought it was some kind of parody.

Still not convinced it wasn't...

[Commenter_XY]

No, sadly with lathrop, it was not parody.

[bernard11]

Bad ideas - both of them.

Fast food is a pretty competitive business. I doubt the profits are that great on a percentage basis. Besides, why should the owners bear that burden?

If an item cost $5 in 2020, and costs $6 today, due to inflation, limiting the price to $5.50 looks like a way to drive a lot of people out of business.

As for #2, you pulled that theory out of your butt. And even if not, so what?

the theory most of the present economic benefit to the nation comes from the most talented 20% of H-1B recipients, and the others are being used mostly to hold down STEM wages.

How do you propose to identify the 20%? You can't. It's impossible. And so what if the 80% contribute less to the US economy. They are still contributing.

[Kazinski]

It might have come from a story earlier this week about Wendy going with electronic menus rather than printed menus so they can dynamically adjust prices. There was a suggestion that they would use that capability for surge pricing hike having a premium for busy periods, but their explanation seemed to indicate its for deals and discounts, and perhaps because prices for hamburger, and vegetables and other inputs can be volatile (Wendy's famously doesn't freeze their hamburger, so is more vulnerable to price spikes).

Elizabeth Warren had a freakout about it, so that's probably what triggered Lathrop.

https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1762848417288475038

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard — I propose to let the employers identify among a reduced population the employees they most require to help them get past technical obstacles. Who but the employers could do it better?

[David Nieporent]

Bernard — I propose to let the employers identify among a reduced population the employees they most require to help them get past technical obstacles. Who but the employers could do it better?

Um, dumbass, employers don't decide who gets H1B visas. There are hundreds of thousand of applications for 85,000 slots. The government, not the employers, decides who gets them. Slashing the number issued would not in any way allow employers to identify anything.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, is it your contention that government decides each year to issue X number of H-1B visas, and employers have no role in choosing who applies, or gets approved? If so, you have taught me something I did not know. If not, you have taught me something you do not know.

[David Nieporent]

The government decides how many H1-Bs to issue, yes. Of course employers are the ones who decide on the applications, but no, they have no say whatsoever in who gets approved.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard11 — did you notice that my suggestion left room for price increases in excess of actual inflation?

I would appreciate assurance that I am not getting back knee-jerk defenses of free market orthodoxy, without even insight into what I proposed.

If, on reflection, you think you did read me accurately, please say more. Maybe I have something to learn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I hope it was a trial balloon, but Trump was talking about giving a green card to everyone who graduates from even a community college.

Yes....

[Brett Bellmore]

Assuming you required it to be a STEM major, that's not a very bad idea.

[Stella Link the dog]

Haven't you expressed concern about possibile red Chinese terrorists sneaking into the country? Why would they be sneaking in across the soutern border when they can more easily, and safely, enter as foreign students?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Jesus Christ, don't give the Chinese any more ideas!

This proposal would ensure that China only sends us their best and brightest terrorists...

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course your assuming they haven't already done so.

[Mr. Bumble]

"you're"

[not guilty]

"I hope it was a trial balloon, but Trump was talking about giving a green card to everyone who graduates from even a community college."

Do you have a link to what Trump said?

[Brett Bellmore]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-foreign-college-graduates-should-automatically-get-green-cards-2024-06-20/

No question at all, he actually mentioned the proposal multiple times.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Following up on something brought up in another thread.

I believe both prosecutorial discretion (refusing to prosecute provably guilty people) and jury nullification (acquitting people known to be guilty) are wrong. But the legal consensus seems to be that *only* nullification is wrong, and that prosecutorial discretion is OK.

Does anyone want to explain why the latter perspective is correct?

[Stephen Lathrop]

You might start ruminating around the notions that prosecutorial discretion is indispensable, and jury nullification is not preventable, and hence, at least, mostly deplorable.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Could you rephrase that to make it clearer?

And provide some evidence about that "indispensable" stuff.

[bernard11]

Prosecutorial discretion is needed, at a minimum because prosecutorial resources are limited, and it is necessary to prioritize. Besides, prosecutors are subject to the political process. Poor decisions have consequences.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Prosecutorial discretion has metastasized way beyond that.

Prosecutors have always been short of having all the money they need. If you doubt it, just ask them!

But prosecutors announcing in advance that certain crimes either won't be prosecuted or will be prosecuted more leniently - feel free to look up these policies and find, in you can, the proviso that "we'll enforce these laws just as soon as we get the money to do so."

Spoiler: You won't find such provisos because that's not the issue.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To the extent those prosecutors are elected, their public pronouncements can be said to have been validated on some level by the people they represent.

I don't know how they square that with the oath they also take upon being sworn into office, but as we have recently seen, in practice oaths now mean nothing.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about the opposite of jury nullification in the sense of jury certification where someone is found guilty in spite of reasonable doubt (of course depending on how you describe a reasonable person and thus doubt).

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's correct, but it's not hard to understand why lawyers would dislike genuine power and discretion exercised by the only people in the courtroom who... aren't lawyers.

Alas, the constitution pretty unambiguously mandates a jury system, so they do what they can to minimize it's role, such as lying to jurors about their right to nullify.

[not guilty]

I don't know that there is a consensus that jury nullification qua nullification is wrong. (There is a judicial consensus that informing a jury of the possibility of nullification is wrong.)

Nullification is certainly subject to abuse -- for example, acquitting white defendants who had lynched black victims, the state court acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King, and the partial acquittal of the thugs who beat Reginald Denny. OTOH, trial by jury is a check against tyranny, which can deter prosecutors from enforcing unjust criminal laws. Giving citizens on the jury the absolute power to make the final decision that an accused person should not be punished is not necessarily a bad thing.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"the state court acquittal of the cops who beat Rodney King, and the partial acquittal of the thugs who beat Reginald Denny"

How do we know those things were nullification?

[not guilty]

Because the evidence of guilt, including video recordings, was overwhelming?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I presume you carefully studied all the evidence in the record.

[Commenter_XY]

(There is a judicial consensus that informing a jury of the possibility of nullification is wrong.)

NG, what is your opinion? Is informing a jury about the possibility of nullification wrong? You had a long career in the courtroom, duking it out...what do you think?

[not guilty]

If I were writing the rules, I would permit defense counsel in a criminal case to argue for nullification. The prosecution argues last, so it can be rebutted.

As it is, defense counsel can get away with some sideways references, such as reminding the jury that they are the voice of the community, that no juror need explain a vote to acquit to anyone else, whether inside or outside the courtroom, and that a conviction based on the evidence (or absence of evidence) that the jury has before them would be just plain wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I would allow the defense counsel in a criminal case to argue literally anything they wanted. Bit dodgy that the government is not only prosecuting, but also telling the defense what arguments they aren't allowed to use...

[DixieTune]

Would that include charged comments based on race, religion, sex, or sexual preference?

[Brett Bellmore]

What part of "literally anything they wanted" was unclear?

As a matter of principle, I don't believe the government should have any say in what defenses the people it prosecutes are entitled to raise in court.

[DixieTune]

I tend to agree, but wanted to make sure you weren't carving out exceptions for "hateful" comments.

[bernard11]

So arguing that the victim was a transsexual, hence a sexual pervert, and "needed killing" should be OK?

What about lies in general?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, "literally anything they wanted" means literally anything they wanted. I do not think it's appropriate for the state that is prosecuting you to dictate to you what defenses you may raise.

"So arguing that the victim was a transsexual, hence a sexual pervert, and "needed killing" should be OK?"

Depends on what you mean by "OK". I wouldn't approve of it personally, but I don't think the defense should be barred from saying it.

"What about lies in general?"

If the defense lies, the prosecution should have no trouble proving it. If they can't prove it's a lie, how can they bar it as a lie?

[bernard11]

"So arguing that the victim was a transsexual, hence a sexual pervert, and "needed killing" should be OK?"

Depends on what you mean by "OK". I wouldn't approve of it personally, but I don't think the defense should be barred from saying it.

I do think the defense should be barred from saying it. It's only use to appeal to prejudices some jurors might have. It says nothing about the facts of case. And of course similar stuff was argued when the victim was Black, and produced acquittals.

If the defense lies, the prosecution should have no trouble proving it. If they can't prove it's a lie, how can they bar it as a lie?

That a rather broad statement, not to mention ridiculous. First, there are an infinite number of possible lies. Is the prosecution supposed to be prepared for all of them? Second, some lies can be disproven - "I was in London the day of the murder." But not all - I was sound asleep that night and heard nothing from the street."

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not principle if you abandon it when you don't like the outcome. I simply don't think the state, in prosecuting people, should be entitled to veto defense arguments.

Period. I don't care WHAT they are.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I simply don't think the state, in prosecuting people, should be entitled to veto defense arguments."

It is a good thing that you have no influence over such matters.

Just one thing: Do you think that either side should be able to claim during opening arguments that evidence establishing some fact will be presented when the truth is that no such evidence is extant?

[not guilty]

"I would allow the defense counsel in a criminal case to argue literally anything they wanted. Bit dodgy that the government is not only prosecuting, but also telling the defense what arguments they aren't allowed to use..."

Counsel for both sides in a criminal prosecution are appropriately limited to discussion of the evidence (or absence of evidence) adduced at trial, as well as what inferences can be derived therefrom, in the context of the application of facts to law under the guidance of the trial court.

Brett, however, dislikes argument being restricted to facts that have been tested under the crucible of cross-examination. Is anyone here surprised?

[Brett Bellmore]

There are lots of things besides evidence that might be the basis for an argument that a jury properly would be entitled to take into account, even if the government would rather they not.

The jury isn't there to be the state's robotic sock puppet, they're there as the conscience of the community.

[Stella Link the dog]

"There are lots of things besides evidence that might be the basis for an argument that a jury properly would be entitled to take into account, even if the government would rather they not."

Does that go for the prosecution as well?

Can you give some examples of proper non-evidence arguments, other than your suggestion that juries should be able to reach any conclusion the jury desires regardless of the facts or of the law?

[not guilty]

Brett seems to quarrel with the proposition that a criminal trial is a test of the prosecution's evidence (or the absence of evidence).

Not surprising for someone who habitually makes shit up.

[Stella Link the dog]

And what he declines to address is that if you turn juries loose unrestrained they are able to disregard the burden of proof, that is, beyond a reasonable doubt, in both directions. Not only can they find the treasonous* jerkoffs who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge as innocent,** disregarding the evidence, the jury in NYC is free to find Trump guilty regardless of the evidence or of the law. Or the Scottsboro Boys. Our "justice" system is far from perfect, but if you wanted to design a way to make it much more screwed up than it already is, Brettmore's prescription would be one way to go.

*treasonous -- not literally as in the Constitutional sense.

**It's amazing to me that the prosecution couldn't convict these people of committing obvious crimes, if nothing other than criminal trespass. Perhaps it was a matter of over-charging or something. It certainly appears at first glance to be an instance of jury nullification, but I'm not familiar enough with the case and it's conduct to be certain of that.

[Frank Drackman]

While we're making up imaginary rules, how about an immediate Execution (with Defendant as the Executioner if he/she desires) for the Prosecutor bringing a case that gets nullified? Like those fucks who prosecuted the wrong guy for killing Floyd George?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think a three strikes and you're out rule would be more reasonable.

[SRG2]

Nullification in Britain tends to occur when the government case is seen as self-interested rather than nation-interested, cf. Clive Ponting. It was accepted as far back as 1670: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case

[Brett Bellmore]

Almost all the cases advocates of the jury system point to as justifying it were, after all, cases of nullification. You literally can't make sense of why the founders thought trial by jury was important, without understanding that nullification was considered an inherent part of the jury system.

[Noscitur a sociis]

A non-lawyer legislator in my state drafted a well-meaning (as far as I could tell) bill that would have allowed defendants to argue for nullification and would have then allowed the prosecutor to argue why the prosecution was appropriate.

Needless to say, the public defender agency and private defense bar organized to kill it in about two days.

The only really interesting question, in my view, is whether the proposal would have been unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't really see how a proposal to return to jurors the status they had when the right to trial by jury was constitutionalized, could be unconstitutional. What would that argument look like?

[Noscitur a sociis]

The most obvious responses to most defendants’ arguments for nullification involve arguments that have been held to violate a defendant’s due process rights.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There is a judicial consensus that informing a jury of the possibility of nullification is wrong."

That consensus appears to be relatively recent, with the past 120 years or so. Throughout the history of the jury system, the role of the jury with respect to the law seems to be a matter of dispute.

[Armchair]

"Does anyone want to explain why the latter perspective is correct?"

If you wanted a rational reason, it would be this. Resources are limited.

Prosecutors only have so much time. They could, in theory, prosecute almost everyone. In practice, they don't have time to prosecute everyone. So...some people don't get prosecuted.

On the other hand, one the trial starts, the jury making a decision (guilty, not guilty, nullification, whatever) all requires the same time.

[DixieTune]

People find time to do what they find important. If they aren't prosecuting someone, it generally means they think the person is special and shouldn't be punished.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think a lot of the academic perspective is warped by the focus on the federal system, which presents totally different considerations. But even at the state/local level, it seems sensible enough.

There’s a general understanding that trying to apply the literal terms of the law inflexibly to every technical violation would be unjust. So that leaves the question of how to determine the exceptions.

Assigning the responsibility to public prosecutors has some distinct advantages:

-Prosecutors are professionals who generally have access to the information necessary to make an informed decision
-Prosecutors are responsible for all the cases in their jurisdiction, allowing them to apply consistency and treat like cases alike
-Prosecutors are (directly or indirectly) politically accountable if the public disagrees with their decisions; often their successors can reverse their decisions in specific cases

Jurors cannot do any of that: they do not (and should not) have much of the key information that would inform this decision; their individual service leaves their decisions likely to be arbitrary and inconsistent; and they are unaccountable for their unreviewable judgment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Likewise, in myriad jurisdictions dominated by voters deaf to the Constitutional rights of defendants, elected prosecutors are not merely unaccountable, but actually incentivized to violate defendants' rights.

I am certain I do not have to detail the sorry history which justifies that conclusion, nor to discuss the equivocal character of the one meaningful remedy for it, the federal civil rights approach to double jeopardy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"jury nullification (acquitting people known to be guilty) are wrong."

Historically, many jurisdictions had provisions saying that the jury would judge the facts and the law, and juries were so instructed.
There are even a few relatively recent cases where convictions were overturned based on the fact that jurors were told that they could be the judges of the law.

IIUC there are a couple of states that have this in their constitutions, but the provisions have been nullified by judges.

Somehow the terminology changed, so that allowing the jury to judge the law as well as the facts began to be described as jurors nullifying the law, or rendering a verdict contrary to the evidence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I found this both hilarious and reflective of values our society no longer has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGzEdHU_Nps

The best part is after 13:00, and I don't think we have judges like this anymore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back to the unconstitutional search case that some argue overruled Camera v. Municipal Court. IF they have after-search rights, what would they be and how do they exercise them when the only remedy I am aware of is the exclusionary rule? And exactly how was that case different from Camera, where Camera refused to let the inspector in and faced a criminal charge for doing so?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Back to the unconstitutional search case that some argue overruled Camera v. Municipal Court.

No one argued this.

IF they have after-search rights, what would they be and how do they exercise them when the only remedy I am aware of is the exclusionary rule?

The exclusionary rule is not the only remedy for being subjected to unconstitutional conduct: they can seek damages and an injunction against future violations.

(I try not to take (hypocritical) typo-driven cheap shots, but come on. Despite having it shoved in your face, you’ve never spelled his name correctly. You’d think you’d have gotten it right at least once by accident!)

Other than that, great comment!

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a man for all seasons, the king's advisers are telling him to get rid of his enemies while he can, and his response is that the laws of England are like trees in the forest, and if he chops down every tree in pursuit of the Devil, and then the Devil turns, what tree will be left for him to hide behind?

Is not the situation the Dems are in right now -- they chopped down every tree in pursuit of the Evil Orange Man, and now the Evil Orange Man has turned, and they now have no trees left to hide behind....

Why do I not feel sorry for them?

[Martinned2]

You're lucky no one is taking the Supreme Court seriously when it said that the President would be immune from prosecution if he had Trump shot.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean “when” he had Trump shot

[Stella Link the dog]

Anther brilliant well considered observation by our resident REMF.

[Frank Drackman]

You know you're a REMF when you don't even know what REMF stands for.
Now during the Bosnia Sitch-you-Asian, I was a REMF, enduring the deprivations of Northern Italy while still getting Flight/Hazardous Duty pay (closest I got to Bosnia was Flight Level 180)
It wasn't totally risk free, ask Scott O'Grady

[Stella Link the dog]

I know what it means, dummy.

[Frank Drackman]

So why are you calling me one for my Desert Storm Service Bee-Otch?? Go watch "Jarhead", that was my fucking experience, even down to the Gy-renes asking the Pan Am Stewardesses if they had warm nuts, and celebrating Christmas in the Desert (Movie gets the music wrong, it wasn't "O.P.P", which wasn't released until summer of 1991, it was Tone Loke's "Wild Thing")

[Stella Link the dog]

"So why are you calling me one for my Desert Storm Service "

Because I don't believe a word you're saying about your military service. You're obviously a prolific liar and there is no good reason to believe any of your braggadocious bullshit.

[Frank Drackman]

and your name's not Stella and you're not a dog, braggadocious?? (a Dog who can spell!) OK, I'm a (real) Doctor, which still gets a little respect, although it's mostly from females at the extremes of age, but grad-jew-ma-cated near the bottom of my class, and went into a specialty which was considered a Dead End in the 90's, if I was going to make something up I'd say I invented the Internets, or was the inspiration for "Love Story", or eradicated the Guinea Worm, or worked at McDonalds,
McDonalds? you had to be one of the cool kids (or a hot chick) to get the McDonalds jobs, I washed dishes at Western Sizzlin, a Southern Steakhouse chain that I like to think I had something to do with it's near failure (there are still a few struggling to stay open)
Dropped out of Florida State after 1/2 a year, worked on a Garbage Truck (back when White Guys still worked on Garbage Trucks) for 6 months and got into Auburn because it was close and they took almost everyone.
OK, maybe that is bragging

Frank

[Stella Link the dog]

No, my name is not Stella. Stella Link is the name of a street in Harris County, TX named for a short line that ran from Houston, TX to Stella, TX. Exactly what Stella was is unclear but as far as anyone is able to verify, it was just a switch. There may have been a community there, either associated with the railroad or the oil industry. Stella Link is also the name of my dog who is named for the street and used to have her own telephone line. That made interacting with cold callers amusing. When choosing a name for V.C., it did not occur to me that people would think my name to be Stella any more than someone with the online pseudonym "Dan Ryan Expressway" would likely be named Dan, or "Allen Parkway" would be Allen, "Frank Drackman" would be Frank (or Francis or Frances). When people started making assumptions based on the pseudonym, I added "the dog" so that people would realize that nothing could be derived from my choice as on the internet, we're all dogs, as famously suggested by Peter Steiner.

Where I grew up, the industrial strip along the upper Fox River in Wisconsin from Neenah to Green Bay {the Valley), all the "garbage men" were white. Not surprising as everyone was white and every man had a pretty good job, except for the total drunks and the known n'er-do-wells. The only black people within 50 miles were with the Green Bay Packers. I never worked collecting garbage, but I would have if it paid better. On my 18th birthday, I did two things -- I registered for the draft and I went down to Neenah Foundry and applied for a job as there was nowhere else in the Valley that at eighteen a kid with no experience, no training, and no skills beyond the ability to swing an eight pound hammer could earn anywhere near the money. Within a week, I was in the union* (Molders and Allied Workers) and making manhole covers (and other things), earning the same wage as men supporting families. No women and nobody who wasn't white. How did that happen? Of course, the answer given was that black men didn't want to work that hard. Within a year, I was a college dropout (not as prestigious as Florida State was the University of Wisconsin Green Bay Fox Valley Campus, known as "The Extension") and a private in the army (as were about a million others) and that's all I'll say about that.

As for spelling and the word "braggadocious," it's not, as far as I know, an uncommon word in English and with the internet, there's no reason for a reasonably careful person to use it and not spell it correctly. Of course, mistakes creep in.

As for you and your unfamiliarity with the truth, in the first post of yours that I recall reading, you were bragging about your great intelligence, stunning career as a great and universally renowned physician, and your world class ranking as a chess master. I spotted you for what you are right away and you have never disappointed me.

*Back then, I resented the union. Considering it now, I realize that the working conditions in the foundry, which were not great, would have been a lot worse without the union, We would have earned a lot less, and more men would have died in accidents and from silicosis, the air in and around the foundry being permeated with dust from the black molding sand.

[MoreCurious]

The total number of people following this blog who believe you're a veteran or a doctor is exactly zero. Your comments over the years reveal the truth: you are an uneducated, vulgar, illiterate bully who knows nothing more than what you read today on Wikipedia. But thanks for the laughs, "Dr." Frank.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nothing like work in a dangerous environment to adjust anti-union preconceptions. After that, it's a short step to wondering whether laissez faire always delivers the best results.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I've never opposed the right of people to organize in their own interests. What was immediately obvious to me when I was first denied a job in a particular, unionized industry was that such organizations were as corruptible as any other and should, therefore, not enjoy special rights to the detriment of anyone else.

Go ahead, join a club. Join a gang. Join a union. But, no special rights.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ObviouslyNotSpam — I am at a loss to imagine how anyone could think of collective bargaining as a special right, although I know that many do. After all, the negotiator representing a per-share-voting corporation is a collective bargainer. Why not negotiating parity on both sides?

More generally, union corruption is a big problem. I have been a member of 3 industrial unions, two of them corrupt, one exemplary.

All 3 of those effectively served the most pressing employment need in the workplaces they represented—to keep workers from being maimed, crippled or killed by occupational diseases, or killed outright on the job. In all those workplaces, those were not notional hazards, they were ever-present threats. Plenty of people have jobs of that sort. Too many without union protections.

I find that folks who lack that kind of work experience tend to underestimate how how much workers prize that protection, if they can get it. They do not give it up willingly. Do you want to force them to give it up?

[David Nieporent]

ObviouslyNotSpam — I am at a loss to imagine how anyone could think of collective bargaining as a special right,

Because employers are required to deal with them. If I and a hypothetical co-worker went to speak to our hypothetical boss and tell them we wanted X benefits and conditions of employment or we were going to both stop working until we got them, would we remain employed? Would a court order our employer to sit down with us and hammer out a deal?

After all, the negotiator representing a per-share-voting corporation is a collective bargainer.

He is not. A corporation is a distinct entity, not a collection of individual shareholders.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"No special rights" doesn't need any explanation.

Unions like to claim only they can protect workers. Protecting workers is more appropriately the government's job, because it inevitably requires balancing the interests of all the workers and all the employers--not just those in particular unionized industries in which unions still have power.

Obviously, something as important as keeping "workers from being maimed, crippled or killed by occupational diseases, or killed outright on the job" should never be left up to the corrupt assholes who dominate unions.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My user name is also my dog's name. I wonder how many of us there are? "Here Margrave of Azilia...good boy!"

[Noscitur a sociis]

The exchange (one of the most famous in 20th century drama) is between the eponymous man for all seasons, Sir Thomas Moore (not the king) and his son in law William Roper (not the king’s advisors) and concerns whether to give the “benefit of law” to the Devil (not the king’s enemies).

I’d also suggest that a guy salivating over the rape, murder, and genocide of everyone from social workers to unduly promiscuous women to immigrants to civilians in war zones may not have fully internalized Moore’s point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Moore’s [sic] point"

Probably Robert Bolt's point.

Stupid point, those laws didn't protect More from the Devil after all.

[bernard11]

More would have had a better chance of dodging the devil had he been somewhat less zealous about burning people at the stake for owning the wrong books.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Thomas More’s dealings with heresy and heretics have been the most bitterly contested aspects of his career. Even within his lifetime they aroused controversy, as his own Apology demonstrates. John Foxe’s famous ‘Book of Martyrs’ cast More, along with the Tudor bishops, among the deepest-dyed villains, and the stories it told, true and false alike, have been handed down and continue to be supplemented and embellished to this day. Thus Brian Moynahan has bizarrely proposed that More, from his confinement in the Tower of London, masterminded the taking of William Tyndale in Antwerp; while the numbers of heretics executed during More’s chancellorship were recently inflated from half a dozen to ‘a few hundred’ by one of England’s leading journalists; and in 2009 a novelist won the Man Booker Prize for Fiction (appropriately enough) with a story in which she has More admit in conversation the allegations of torture he denied in print."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-companion-to-thomas-more/thomas-more-and-the-heretics-statesman-or-fanatic/5AC04FAA245E38D9FAFE55D062A4AE90

The Protestant Reformation at that time was a major secessionist movement, so maybe More's actions against the movement could be evaluated like other strong anti-secessionist moves in, say, the history of the U. S. The success of the Reformation could be compared to the outcome in a historical novel where the Confederacy won the Civil War.

[David Nieporent]

In a man for all seasons, the king's advisers are telling him to get rid of his enemies while he can, and his response is that the laws of England are like trees in the forest, and if he chops down every tree in pursuit of the Devil, and then the Devil turns, what tree will be left for him to hide behind?

You got literally none of those facts right.

[Stephen Lathrop]

While I am on the topic of bi-partisan legislation, how about an onerous federal law requirement for owners of residential real estate in multiple political jurisdictions to deliver current proof of non-registration in all but one of them, as a requirement each time they vote. My guess is that the most common goad to illegal multiple voting is practical ability to claim a legal address in multiple states.

Massachusetts, for instance, is packed with folks who vote there, but legally register their vehicles at another residence they own in Florida, to save on taxes. That is legal.

It seems natural to suppose some of them take the next (illegal?) step and vote twice, to keep down property taxes in both places. There would not have to be many of those to make them the most prolific voting scoff laws around.

[Brett Bellmore]

The mechanics of this seems kind of questionable; I am aware of mechanisms for certifying you're registered in a place, but states do not maintain "not registered here" lists that you can get printouts from.

Furthermore, many states are so lax about cleaning their registration lists that you can, quite innocently, end up registered to vote in multiple states. Both my brother and sister ended up in that situation, and I suspect that, if I checked, I'd find I am, too. Our home precinct back in Michigan was VERY lazy about list maintenance.

Then there's the fact that some states are extremely stubborn about insisting that people who've ever lived their are still legally resident, even after they've moved away. (So they can continue to tax you, of course.) So, sure, you can move from California to South Carolina, and SC will gladly register you, but getting California to unregister you will be like pulling teeth.

About the only way I could see this working is if you had to maintain a current address of residence with the federal government, (As Green card holders must.) that states could consult. I don't see much federal interest in doing this.

[Mr. Bumble]

Inaccurate voter rolls; the genesis of all voter fraud.

[SRG2]

Finally Bumble understands that wrongly removing citizens from voter rolls is a grave issue, far worse than non-citizens voting.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, you fail to grasp the concept. All those tangles and snares? Features, not bugs.

Just like exposing would-be voters to tangles and snares are the intended outcomes of other voter ID schemes. But this time with the voter discouragement factor on the opposite partisan foot.

So get going. And like Florida, when incompetent record keeping exposes a would-be voter to legal hazard, prosecute!

Also, federal record keeping would be right out. Under our system, decentralized election management is a state responsibility. It has always been an indispensable bulwark to safeguard election security.

Each state must make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to keep a list of residential property owners, cross-correlated with voter registrations, and updated continuously. To insure election integrity, multi-state property owners will be under legal requirement to promptly update their records in each state where they own property, each time they make an ownership change in any state.

That way the state records will remain reliable, and useful as a basis for evidence in voter fraud cases. Failure to properly update, followed by an attempt to vote, will of course be prosecutable. But a voter who falls behind on property updates can avoid prosecution by simply not voting until the voter's records have been updated. Nothing could be simpler!

To complete the process, prior to an election anywhere in the nation, the multi-state-property-owner, would-be-voter, must then procure from the secretary of state in each jurisdiction (save one) where the voter owns residential property, an updated paper to say the voter is not registered to vote in that state where he owns property, with an embossed seal to prove the paper genuine. Then present those papers prior to a pre-election deadline in the one state where the voter intends to vote, to get a per-election registration renewal required of all multi-state property owners.

Of course, if anything about that concerns you, you remain at liberty to agitate politically for less onerous record keeping. Or to try for a constitutional amendment to solve the problem nationally. Or maybe just choose not to vote, and save the effort.

Real Americans do not cheat the election system by multi-state voter fraud. We know that multi-state voting exists, but requirements to prove how often it happens are unreasonable. They will remain unreasonable until there are enough enforcement mechanisms in place to prove when multi-state voting happens.

This mechanism will solve that problem. And because multi-state voting based on multi-state property ownership is the leading cause of voter fraud, fixing that problem ought to come ahead of all other voter ID issues.

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you under the impression that, if I own a piece of land in Montana, say, and live in South Carolina, I'm under some legal obligation to tell South Carolina about it?

[Frank Drackman]

You Vill Tell Big Brother! Vee Haff Vays!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, under the magnanimous terms of the proposed law, only if you intend to vote in South Carolina. But your obligation would then go beyond merely telling South Carolina. You would need that embossed certificate from Montana's Secretary of State to attest to South Carolina voting registrars that you were not registered to vote in Montana. Montana, if you intended to vote there, would need the same from South Carolina. If you owned more than one place of potential residence, you would of course have to keep multiple Secretaries of State current on all your property transactions anywhere, so they could all issue voting clearances each time you voted.

As I said, a bit onerous, but well worth it to assure that the scourge of multi-state voting comes to an end. Please do be careful with your paper work, and diligent to report status changes. To misrepresent your residency status would risk prosecution for voter fraud.

[Kazinski]

Lathrop's got that bitter 'lost an election' taste in his mouth, but rather than savor it, he wants the sweet taste of revenge.

So he stays up late thanking up laws he think will get him his revenge.

But don't worry Lathrop, tax season is coming, you can stay up.late imagining us doing our 1040's and cursing, if it makes you feel better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Any idea how many middle aged people put their homes into a trust?

[bernard11]

Before we do all this, could we look into whether this happens or is just another boogieman to the anti-voting crowd.

Like very many people I have made a couple of interstate moves. I never bothered to unregister or give the state I was leaving an official goodbye, so no doubt I was registered in two states for a while. Like probably 99.99+% of similarly situated people I made no attempt to vote in my former state. Is there a problem here?

Similarly, the former state made no attempt to tax me, except for property tax on property I owned there.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard — Don't worry, I do not advocate actually doing it. That was just me trying to persuade a select few commenters to consider whether voter ID requirements ought to get full attention for their practical consequences. By reflecting some of those consequences back in their direction.

[David Nieporent]

Each state must make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to keep a list of residential property owners, cross-correlated with voter registrations, and updated continuously. To insure election integrity, multi-state property owners will be under legal requirement to promptly update their records in each state where they own property, each time they make an ownership change in any state.

I wonder if Lathrop is aware that they stopped having property ownership as a qualification for voting a few years ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, the issue is that property owners are incentivized to vote in elections conducted where they own property. But the qualification controlling voting is typically registration, and is never property ownership. Because you know that, you look like you are trying to be stupid on purpose. Why do that?

[David Nieporent]

Because this is wrong. Registration is a prerequisite to voting, but not a "qualification." The qualification is residency, not property ownership. And large numbers of people reside somewhere without owning property.

[DixieTune]

Easiest way would be for the federal government to maintain a voter roll. If you register in a jurisdiction, the federal system sends a notice to the other states, and the others automatically get canceled

[David Nieporent]

I don't see much federal interest in doing this.

I don't see much public interest in having the federal government do it, either. Conspiracy theorists would go crazy.

Note that there was a non-profit organization called ERIC that was formed about a decade ago to coordinate information between states to help states deal with their voter rolls, and the GOP largely had a tantrum and decided to stop working with it, once the Trump everythingisvoterfraud era came around.

[Riva]

How about just same day, paper ballots?

[Mr. Bumble]

Doesn't help if voter rolls aren't accurate and up to date.

[Frank Drackman]

So Peoples live in Massachusetts but register their vehicles in Florida to save on the taxes?
I think there's a crime somewhere in there, I know there's exceptions, Military for one, which is why 95% of cars on Navy bases have Florida tags, and why my Dad kept South Dakota plates on our cars years after leaving there (no State Income Tax)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course there was John Fucking Kerry registering his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusett taxes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was technically legal as long as he had its primary anchorage (or boatyard storage) there.

Now as an elected Massachusetts representative, umm....

[bernard11]

Keeping out of state plates does not exempt you from state income taxes.

If he never filed I bet his employer withheld enough to cover the state tax. So he actually might have gotten some of that back had he filed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In Massachusetts, it does exempt you from local excise taxes on your automobile. There may also be state-to-state insurance differences which play into the choice.

[ThePublius]

"Massachusetts, for instance, is packed with folks who vote there, but legally register their vehicles at another residence they own in Florida, to save on taxes. That is legal."

No, it's not legal! Where did you get that idea?

"No, if you live in Massachusetts, you must register your car in Massachusetts:
- Timely registration:
You must register your car in Massachusetts as soon as you become a resident, and there is no grace period.
- Driving limit:
You can't drive a vehicle in Massachusetts for more than 30 days in a year without registering it.
- Consequences:
If you don't comply with the law, your car could be towed, you could be fined, and your right to drive in Massachusetts could be suspended. "

[John F. Carr]

If the 30 day limit is the one in General Laws chapter 90 section 3, first paragraph, it is the time when you can drive in Massachusetts without having state-compliant insurance. New Hampshire doesn't require car insurance. If you visit Massachusetts in a New Hampshire car you don't need car insurance. If you commute from New Hampshire to Massachusetts you do need car insurance. My car insurance policy will provide the mandatory minimum coverage of any state I drive in.

[Kazinski]

That's not quite true, I live in Arizona but I have a truck registered in California. But it stays at my second home, in California.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why not just encourage states to join (or re-join) ERIC?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The University of DC is a HBU and Land Grant University that was initially founded in 1851 and I'm not exactly sure how it became a Land Grant University because those didn't exist until a dozen years later and were for *STATES*, which DC very much is not and particularly was not then, but I can see a Reconstruction Congress and the Grant Admin bending rules to help a HBU for the purpose of having one. Whatever.

The six year graduation rate is used because students who haven't graduated by their 12th semester really aren't going to, and UDC's 6-year graduation rate has always been abysmal -- it's definitely no better than 20% and over the years I've seen figures quoted as below 10% and that's where you start getting variance on how you calculate it.

Most of these students are getting Federal student aid, I presume most are taking out loans --- which they will never repay because they never graduate.

If you had a house builder who sold houses (with people taking out mortgages to buy them) who had 80% of his houses never completed enough to live in, he'd be out of business and likely in jail. So too with an auto manufacturer who sold cars with 80% of them not able to be driven on the highway.

So how is this different? The Univ of DC is selling educations, and 80% of the people from whom it takes money aren't able to complete them. How is this different from Ford just selling a few fenders and a windshield to someone purchasing a car?

Conversely, if we don't maintain academic standards, degrees become worthless.

And then to go on a different tangent, how is issuing student loans for (a) degrees without the earning potential to repay them, knowing that (b) a lot of students won't even graduate anyway really that different from the sub prime mortgage mess of 2008?

What Biden has been hiding in his efforts to forgive student loans is that there are a lot of people who CAN'T pay their student loans and never will be able to.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Student loan "reform" in 2010 made the Student loan crisis demonstrably worse.

It's almost as if the Democrats and bureaucrats did it on purpose. After all, you won't be beholden to the government for relief if you're not suffering.

The people in government lose power if you're not dependent upon them. So that's what the people in government do. They make things worse on purpose so you become one of their client classes where you're reduced to begging them for relief from the problems they caused.

[David Nieporent]

The people in government do not in fact make things worse on purpose so you become one of their client classes where you're reduced to begging hem for relief from the problems they caused.

[Frank Drackman]

For all you fucks who love to bloviate about “October Surprises” Jimmuh Cartuh started it, weekend before the 1980 erection(remember when everyone voted on Erection Day?) he announced a “break through”in the hostage crisis, don’t you remember how the hostages were released the next day?

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Speaking of hostages, how many of those held by Hamas will be left alive to release?

[John F. Carr]

According to last night's news there are hopes that half of the remaining hostages may still be alive.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe barely alive?
https://pjmedia.com/sarah-anderson/2024/12/29/gruesome-details-emerge-about-the-horrific-conditions-faced-by-hostages-in-gaza-n4935506

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke Gaza -- to discourage this sort of thing...

[Brett Bellmore]

Will you cool it with the "nuke Gaza" nonsense? Think about how narrow Gaza is , if nothing else matters to you.

Israel nuking Gaza would probably be the end of them.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The true believers would still try to settle there...

[not guilty]

"For all you fucks who love to bloviate about 'October Surprises' Jimmuh Cartuh started it, weekend before the 1980 erection(remember when everyone voted on Erection Day?) he announced a 'break through' in the hostage crisis, don’t you remember how the hostages were released the next day?"

I am working from memory here, but I recall that the Iranians strung Carter along until the Sunday before the Tuesday election, (November 2, 1980,) and then pulled out of negotiations. Carter announced the failure of negotiations that Sunday evening.

I have long thought that if on Monday Carter had bombed Iran mercilessly, he would have won re-election, even though the hostages would have perished. President Carter prioritized the lives of the hostages over winning re-election.

[Mr. Bumble]

The hostages were the direct result of Carter's actions.

[Frank Drackman]

Letting that fuck the Shah into our Country for "Humanitarian" reasons (you say "Shah" and "Humanitarian" in the same breath you deserve to lose) what were the Ear-Ronians going to do? take hostages for 444 days (Love how the Ear-Ronians waited until Ronaldus Maximus had taken the oath before letting the US 707 take off) Jimmuh was supposedly such a big supporter of "Human Rights", give me a break

Frank

[MoreCurious]

Don't you ever tire of proving your stupidity with every comment you make?

[Frank Drackman]

Like Hairy Truman, I just tell the truth and peoples think it's Hell/Stupid. Funny how Jimmuh didn't do shit for the people in his shithole hometown, you'll see if you ever have the misfortune to go there.

[SRG2]

The hostages were the direct result of the US's spending decades wrongly propping up a dictator after overthrowing a democratically-elected leader.

Because Americans never got it through their thick fucking heads that the US was the bad guy in Iran, they completely fucked up foreign policy once the Shah was on his way out.

[Frank Drackman]

"they" is doing a lot of work there.
It was Saint (you know it's just a matter of time) Jimmuh who let the Shah in for "Humanitarian" reasons, by that time you had your choice between the Ayatollah or one of the "Hardliners" (hard to remember Khomeni was one of the moderates)

[Bob from Ohio]

"democratically-elected leader"

So was Hitler and Chavez, among others.

"US was the bad guy in Iran"

The Shah was 100 times better than the mullahs.

They shoot an eye out of women who don't cover their head perfectly. Nice guys you support.

[SRG2]

The Shah was not 100 times better than Mossadegh.

Seppos, innit?

And Chavez shouldn't have been deposed.

[Bob from Ohio]

20 times then, Mossadegh was a communist in fact if not in name. He was operating as a dictator under an "Enabling Act" when he was overthrown so he was no "democrat".

The Shah was pro-American and Jew friendly.

[bernard11]

Too bad he wasn't a little more Iranian-friendly.

[SRG2]

Still, under what grounds were the US and Britain entitled to overthrow him?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The same grounds common everywhere else at the time?

Those were different times.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The Shah was a criminal who murdered his own people. He was far far worse than Mossadegh, who was no saint either. Ridiculous how you shoehorn history to fit your narrow ideology.

[Mr. Bumble]

Democratically elected leader is doing a lot of work here. Remember Hitler was democratically elected also.

[SRG2]

Yes - but Hitler engaged in invading other countries as well. The case against overthrowing an elected leader is much more difficult to make when that leader's adverse actions are limited to within his own country.

On what legitimate grounds, though, were Mossadegh and Chavez deposed? "American interests" are not per se legitimate grounds.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your comments above seem to overlook the efforts of the UK in the removal of Mossadegh.

[Bob from Ohio]

They also overlook the fact that Chavez died in office and was not deposed.

[SRG2]

Yup. owing to a most peculiar mistake, I was thinking of Allende, not Chavez but wrote Chavez. (all these Latin American left-wingers look alike, or something...) The US fucked up its policy wrt Venezuela as well, of course.

[SRG2]

Oh, I am not overlooking them - after all, there was BP - but in context it was the US's actions that were relevant.

[Mr. Bumble]

What context?
I think MI-6 and the CIA were equally involved.

[SRG2]

No doubt, but we were talking about US relations with Iran, not British.

[Don Nico]

I remember the same thing, ng.
Whether bombing would have saved the election for Carter is an interesting counter-factual as he would have been mercilessly criticized for murdering the hostages.
Fortunately, Mr. Carter was too decent a human being to do such a thing

[Mr. Bumble]

Carter had over a year to get the hostage out. Doing something just before the election would just magnify his failure (as did the botched rescue attempt).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He did try to rescue them. It failed, and he was pretty much toast after that.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats why it’s called “Fake” news

[Armchair]

Malum prohibitum versus Malum in se in the context of smuggling, human smuggling & illegal entry.

So, had an interesting discussion a while ago, and the concept of Malum prohibitum versus Malum in se came up in the context of illegal entry into a country. The shorthand version of these two concepts is as follows. Criminal actions that are Malum prohibitum are crimes that are not inherently immoral. For example, public nudity. On the other hand, Malum in se laws are inherently immoral. For example, taking someone's property without their permission (i.e. robbery) or the killing of another human (i.e. murder). And the question was...is human smuggling across a border Malum in se or Malum prohibitum. I came to a few realizations.

1. Items that are Malum in se is not always immoral, wrong, or illegal. Let's use "taking someone's property without permission" as an example. The government actually does this all the time. They simply call it "taxation" or "eminent domain".

2. Rather, items that are Malum in se require laws and regulations, because if it was unrestricted, it would lead to societal collapse. Joe would steal from Rob, Rob would steal back from Joe, and no one would try to make anything because they'd be too busy stealing from one another. One needs to look at the "worst case scenario." Thus we have laws that restrict people from being able to simply rob each other.

3. By contrast, items that are Malum prohibitum, if unregulated, would not lead to societal collapse. If we had no laws against public nudity....we'd have more naked people. But society wouldn't collapse.

4. So, where does this leave us with "deliberately avoiding the border patrol of a country in order to sneak oneself (or others) in against the laws of that country." What's the worst case scenario there if there just "weren't" laws against entering a country. Well....the worse case scenario is that you would see a large number of men, potentially armed, loyal to a different country, enter the first one. Once in place, they would engage in actions detrimental to the first country. This is often called an "invasion". It ultimately leads to the collapse of the first country. It's one of the primary reasons we originally have borders and border control...to prevent this sort of thing.

5. Given this logic, it becomes apparent that Human smuggling, and "illegal entry" are indeed Malum in se crimes.

[Frank Drackman]

Your argument sounded more convincing when Gordon Liddy gave it in the original German.

[bernard11]

Given this logic, it becomes apparent that Human smuggling, and "illegal entry" are indeed Malum in se crimes.

I don't see any logic at all.

Nor is the analogy you are groping blindly for sensible.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I think it’s actually easier: the distinction, while venerable, is not an analytically useful one, because there isn’t actually a reliable way of drawing a distinction between the two except for a gut instinct, which rarely offers anything more sophisticated than whether you think the law is good or not.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Also, why focus on "smuggling", rather than simply illegal entry? As with drugs, the "smuggling" aspect is only illegal because the underlying act is illegal; otherwise it is simply consensual commercial activity.

But, thanks to Armchair for highlighting the stupidity of the old malum in se/prohibitum distinction. I agree: it was always bullshit, too.

[Armchair]

"Also, why focus on smuggling?"

Smuggling isn't just drugs. It's any item that wants to avoid inspection, confiscation, tariffs, etc. Many times the items are perfectly legal on both sides of the border, but for various reasons a party would like to avoid their going through the border customs.

The issue at hand is that a nation's control of its borders is a key and critical aspect to the country's survival. A country that makes no laws regarding what and who can cross its borders simply does not survive as an independent country for long.

The REQUIREMENT to make laws regarding an action (or else the country collapses) is what makes an item Malum in se.

It is a useful distinction to make.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Also, why focus on smuggling?"

[Armchair]

""Also, why focus on smuggling?""

It's about word choice. A lot of people decide this sort of thing on gut first instinct. Compare these series

1. Illegally having sex with someone; having sex with someone without their permission, rape
2. Illegal entry; entering a country without that country's permission, smuggling

To a first approximation each of the 3 items are the same. But the last item sounds much worse than the first.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I didn't think you'd admit it, lol.

Yes, you focused on smuggling, rather than on the underlying activity, because you're a propagandist.

[Armchair]

That indeed is true. The traditional way to draw the distinction was "gut instinct".

Problem is, if you start using it to support a logical position on certain crimes or issues, it helps to be able to define exactly WHY that gut instinct was right. Otherwise, you get into a contest of "Yes it is because it's my gut instinct....No it's not, because that's MY gut instinct".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Criminal actions that are Malum prohibitum are crimes that are not inherently immoral. For example, public nudity."

I'm not sure you have the distinction quite right. Public nudity is malum in se because it is perceived to be immoral, whether you agree or not.

Tax evasion, otoh, is malum prohibitum. Nobody things there is a free-standing obligation to send your money to the government, but not paying your taxes is wrong because the law has determined that that's what you owe.

Driving on the left side of the road is another example. There's nothing inherently wrong with driving on the left side of the road, but we punish it because we've created a scheme to prevent cars from colliding, so it's malum prohibitum.

That's my understanding anyway.

In both of the examples of malum prohibitum, the consequences of people breaking the rules are severe, but they're still malum prohibitum.

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with crossing the border, I do it all the time. So it looks like illegal entry and voluntary human smuggling would be malum prohibitum.

[not guilty]

"I'm not sure you have the distinction quite right. Public nudity is malum in se because it is perceived to be immoral, whether you agree or not."

If God had intended for us to go naked, we would have been born that way.

In the story of the Garden of Eden, the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25 RSV.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Please don't go naked in public.

[Bwaaah]

Sound advice for the odd possibility that he believes that which he tries to imply. (But there's little chance he does.)

[Armchair]

"There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with crossing the border, I do it all the time"

This is a classic error that is made, as it leaves off "without the other party's permission" clause. And it changes everything. For example...

1a. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with having sex with people, I do it all the time."
1b. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with having sex with people without their permission, I do it all the time."

2a. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with taking things from people, I do it all the time."
2b. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with taking things from people without their permission, I do it all the time."

3a. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with with crossing the border, I do it all the time."
3b. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with with crossing the border without that country's permission, I do it all the time."

The "a" are the general category. The "b" you can clearly see are wrong, and how the permission clause is critical to the analogy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Except that in example three the party withholding permission is the government via laws, which is what makes it malum prohibitum.

[Josh R]

Precisely. The very definition of malum per se is that the act is immoral without regard to whether it is illegal. Thus, 3B (by definition) can't be malum per se. In contrast, 1B and 2B can be maulm per se.

[Armchair]

This argument has already been addressed in the original post. You can respond to that if you like.

[Josh R]

I do not recall what your rebuttal was.

As to your analogy to taking a truck from the government without permission, I agree that is malum per se. But, taking a truck from any entity without permission is malum per se. The fact your analogy had the government as the entity is just one application of the larger principle.

In contrast, only the government can give permission to cross the border, and does so through the law (or implementing rules and regulations). As such, the law completely determines whether permission is given in every application, and thus doing so without permission is malum prohibitum.

[Armchair]

"I do not recall what your rebuttal was."
ie, you couldn't be bothered to read the original post for this thread.

As seen in the logic chain, the true difference between something that is "Malum in se" versus "malum prohibitorium" is as follows.
1) items that are "Malum in se" require some sort of laws or regulations...otherwise you see societal breakdown or country collapse if left completely unregulated. It does not mean that items that are Malum in se cannot morally occur...it means they need to be regulated. It is unrestrained, unregulated actions which cause breakdown. The "worse case scenario"

2) Items that are "Malum prohibitorium" do not require such laws. In a worse case scenario where there were no laws, one would not see a societal breakdown.

[Josh R]

Taking posessions without permission (theft) requires a law to punish it because society breaks down if people are allowed to steal. It's malum per se. I think we all agree on that one.

In contrast, crossing the border does not lead to societal breakdown. It's not malum per se.

Now perhaps you think that totally open borders lead to societal breakdown. Fine. But no one (not even Somin) is arguing that we should have no regulation of immigration. We must regulate where border crossing goes too far, becoming malum per se. The problem is where to draw the line of what is too far is a matter of opinion (even though we all agree 10,000 armed men crossing is malum per se).

[Armchair]

"Except that in example three the party withholding permission is the government via laws"

Actually, no. The government does not "make a law" that Joe can come in and Steve can't. There may be rules and regulations to guide this...

But that's exactly the same case with regards to taking something FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Let's give an easy example.
1) Joe takes a truck from the government with their permission (via some program that is decided upon by rules and regulations that decides who can get the truck)
2) Joe takes a truck from the government, without their permission

The second case is theft, and malum in se. Even if the government is "withholding permission" via "laws".

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps, but crossing the border without permission is still malum prohibitum.

[Armchair]

And, what if it's 10,000 organized armed men crossing the border without permission.

Is that still just "Malum prohibitorium"?

[Moderation4ever]

We often talk about faith and Jimmy Carter was the President with the most religious faith in my lifetime. I'm an atheist, if I am wrong then I am sure that Jimmy Carter will meet with his God as two old friends.

[Frank Drackman]

and maybe Jmmuh's looking down at everyone celebrating his long successful life (long anyway)
or maybe he's "Looking Up"
lets see, I've never attended a segregated church, employed hundreds of Blacks at sub-minimal wage, or killed my neighbor's cat.
Maybe there's hope for me yet!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

If "Speaker Emerita" was still in charge of the House would Carter be kept on ice until Jan. 20 to then lie in state at the Capitol?

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that if Jimmy Carter doesn't get into heaven there is not much hope for others.

[Frank Drackman]

Jimmuh Cartuh killed his neighbors Cat for eating birds, and not Jimmuh's pet birds, just birds in general. Of course being an incompetent fuck, he didn't "Mean" to kill the poor feline, he was just trying to scare it with an air pistol. He also used to shoot at chestnuts for being lazy. Only good thing he did was his Camp David Accords got Sadat assassinated so there's that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This was certainly a "nice" thing to say about an apparently genuinely good person during the festive season, but as an actual atheist, it struck me as needlessly patronizing. Why? Because religious people actually believe that bullshit; they don't need you (especially you!) to "validate" it for them.

(Just trying to see if it's possible to pick a fight with Mod...)

[Mr. Bumble]

Not so sure that he was so "genuinely" nice.
"Carter presents layer upon layer of difficulty to untangle. Carter’s one-time speechwriter Patrick Anderson observed that in Carter’s hometown of Plains, Georgia, neighbors said of him that after an hour you love him, after a week you hate him, and after ten years you start to understand him. (Anderson added that anyone who didn’t have a personality conflict with Carter, didn’t have a personality.) Anderson also described him as a combination of Machiavelli and Mr. Rogers. "

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/12/the-under-and-over-estimated-jimmy-carter-rip.php

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know if he was genuinely nice or phony. I do know your source is neither objective nor does it speak to that point.

Seems more like you just liked the quote and wanted to put it somewhere.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks Il Douche for proving once again that you are in fact a douche.
The quote is from a longer linked article which you did not read.
What "you know" could fit in a flea's navel and still have room for all the TDS comments that appear on this site.
For those unfamiliar with Powerline here is a link to the "AboutUs" page.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/about-us

[Sarcastr0]

No, I didn't click through. If you had a more relevant quote, perhaps that might have been something you should have used.

I know who Powerline is and what they do. They are ideologues, and certainly happy to shit on Carter by any means they got.

So when you post them shitting on Carter...I'm not sure what weight you think it should carry.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Apparently, it's not!

[Frank Drackman]

Not saying that Jimmuh's abstention from Tobacco/Alcohol is why he made it to the Century mark, but the only other living POTUS who abstains is 45/47, and you know how he has to be the best at everything, you fucks will have at least 21 more years of him!

[Dr. Ed 2]

What ever became of Billy Carter? Remember him?

[Moderation4ever]

I believed cancer. Jimmy's three siblings, Gloria, Ruth and Billy, all died very young (50s and 60s) from cancer.

[Frank Drackman]

sort of like a Redneck Hunter Biden, except with Libyan backers instead of You-Crane and Billy-Beer (it was horrible) instead of Co-cai-ne. Died of Pancreatic Cancer 1988, for a God-fearing family He sure swung his Cancer-stick pretty hard with them, trying to remember if there's a Carter who didn't die from the Big Casino.

[Commenter_XY]

Still have a 6-pack of Billy Beer. 😉

[Mr. Bumble]

Going for between $30-$40 in ebay.

[John F. Carr]

A randomly(?) recommended YouTube video pointed out to me that the begging popups you see on Wikipedia this time of year are not looking for money to keep the servers running. The Wikimedia endowment generates enough income to run the servers. Wikimedia needs donations for its $50 million per year DEI program. I checked the wording of the solicitation. I didn't notice any lies. If I get the wrong impression, it's not their fault.

I didn't find a lot of detail about corporate DEI budgets. Intel pledged $60 million per year back in 2015 to diversify its work force. Intel also buys $2 billion per year from "diverse" suppliers. I don't know if it would cost them any less to buy the same things from white men. Possibly, as with carbon emissions pledges, what they would have done anyway got rebranded as a socially conscious move. Global spending on DEI is said to be around $10 billion.

[Kazinski]

The Bloomberg had an eye opening article this week saying corporations had gone DEI crazy and 94% of new hires were non white:

"Corporate America Promised to Hire a Lot More People of Color.
It Actually Did.
The year after Black Lives Matter protests, the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs — 94% went to people of color."
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-black-lives-matter-equal-opportunity-corporate-diversity/

But it turns out the reporters don't know how to do math, or interpret data, and no such thing happened, although the % of minorities did go up slightly. What happened is they took the number of non-white new hires and divided it by the number of newly created positions. Which might sound ok at first, but most new hires go into old positions that are vacant because someone quit or retired.

Here is the real story.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bloomberg-flubs-data-for-bombshell-report-that-only-6-of-new-corporate-hires-are-white

A Daily Wire analysis of the same numbers examined by Bloomberg found that, in reality, the demographics of hiring figures for 2021 were barely different from previous years. The percentage of new jobs that went to whites was likely about 46%, eight points below the 54% white makeup of companies’ existing workforces. That’s to be expected given demographic changes in the United States since the time that the currently-retiring baby boomer generation first entered the workforce.

Though Bloomberg spun the tale as a victory for Black Lives Matter, blacks benefited the least of any racial group from the slight decline in whites, according to the analysis. The percentage of black hires was up from the status quo by 1%, while Asians were up by 2%, and Hispanics were up by 4%. That’s also explained by demographics — decades ago, when baby boomers entered the workforce, the U.S. was mostly white and black; in the decades since, the numbers of Hispanics and Asians in the United States have increased."

[Brett Bellmore]

"The percentage of new jobs that went to whites was likely about 46%, eight points below the 54% white makeup of companies’ existing workforces. That’s to be expected given demographic changes in the United States since the time that the currently-retiring baby boomer generation first entered the workforce."

According to this, non-Hispanic whites made up 52% of the 18-24 demographic as of last year.

So while only 46% of new jobs going to whites could have various innocent explanations, it actually IS out of line with demographic changes, which are not nearly as profound as the Daily Wire implies.

[Kazinski]

What might make the numbers hard to pin down is the large cohort of fully assimilated Hispanic Whites.

[bernard11]

Why do you assume that "new jobs" means primarily jobs for 18-24 year-olds?

Expanding companies hire people for all sorts of jobs - sales, finance, engineering, etc. A fair number will be filled by people 25+ years old.

[John F. Carr]

A few years ago the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that putting a GPS tracker on a car was stalking. Possibly due to that decision, when a friend got a loaner car from a dealer she was told about the tracker. If this baby hits 88 miles per hour you're going to see some serious shit. Maybe not those exact words. Keep it under 90 or something unspecified will happen.

This caused YouTube to start recommending a lot of videos about trackers hidden in cars. Some dealers put them in all their cars hoping to sell customers a service. Not just for repossessing financed cars, even in cars that are bought for cash. Sometimes the car's own networked services hardware reports your location to home base. A sentence or two in a long contract will disclose the tracking.

Is it still stalking if the customer didn't read the fine print in the 50 page agreement? Contract law has lagged behind the real world. In my opinion, some contract provisions should not take effect unless the customer has actual notice.

[DixieTune]

I haven't read the Massachusetts decision, but I suspect stalking, as they envisaged it, requires some level of intent that wouldn't be present in the case of the car dealer.

[John F. Carr]

I checked the case and it was criminal harassment, not stalking. If there is a difference. Commonwealth v. Brennan, SJC-12518 (2018). The prosecution must prove that a reasonable person would suffer emotional distress and that the victim was in fact seriously alarmed. The defendant need not have subjectively intended to alarm the defendant.

[DixieTune]

Exactly. A reasonable person would suffer emotional distress when finding out a spurned lover was tracking them. A reasonable person given a loaner car from a dealer would not, even if not told of it.

[Zarniwoop]

I personally know someone whose abusive ex put concealed an AirTag in her car. She got “you’re being tracked” warning from her phone. Attempts to find and remove it took weeks, because she had to use the car to go to work to be able to eat and pay rent; all the time knowing her abusive ex is tracking her. Ultimately, she had to have much of the interior disassembled to find it. The AirTag ownership was traceable to the ex, and it featured in a successful application for a protective order. It definitely happens.

But I also concur that tracking by a car rental company is a completely different issue, especially if fully disclosed.

[John F. Carr]

I see that as a jury question.

[DixieTune]

Which means practically speaking the plaintiff wins, because the jury will always side against "evil" insurance companies or car dealers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is is possible to detect a GPS tracker from the radio signals it is transmitting?

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on whether it's active, (Transmitting.) or just a data logger which somebody has to physically access to get the tracking data. But, generally, yes.

[John F. Carr]

When I mentioned the tracker somebody sent me this: https://www.wikihow.com/Block-Vehicle-GPS-Tracking

The article's recommended method is to acquire a GPS jammer, which is said to be legal to own but illegal to use, and use it.

The article also mentions a sweeper to detect radio signals when the tracker phones home. Comments online say trackers usually have SIM cards with data plans and you can appropriate the card for your own devices if you find one in your car.

It should be possible to detect signals from a GPS receiver. Even receivers can emit. Police have devices to detect radar detectors. These devices can be detected in turn. One brand of radar detector would detect radar detector detectors and shut itself down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" Police have devices to detect radar detectors. These devices can be detected in turn. One brand of radar detector would detect radar detector detectors and shut itself down."

The electronic signature of the average police car must be immense, and detectable. Kinda like a bell tied around the cat's neck.

[John F. Carr]

I want a 400 MHz band direction finder.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

RADAR is not GPS; there are no GPS "signals" (emitted from a GPS receiver) for a GPS "detector" to detect, period.

"GPS trackers" only receive GPS signals, but they then transmit that information using Bluetooth, GSM (cell phone) or some other means, which can (in theory) be detected and/or jammed.

Can't see a GPS jammer as a practical solution, considering how much everything else these days relies upon GPS location.

(Besides, it's a Wikihow article. 'Nuf said, really.)

[John F. Carr]

Radio receivers generate radio waves. At least the conventional kinds do. The gigahertz signal is shifted down to the megahertz range for analysis. That process generates some unintended emissions, called "spurious emissions" in FCC rules. There are regulatory limits for such emissions.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A "radar detector" is a specific kind of receiver which generates detectable electromagnetic emissions in operation; a GPS receiver has a completely different design which does not.

The source of this kind of confusion is usually due to the fact that GPS trackers both receive GPS signals and transmit other signals (which can be detected).

[Frank Drackman]

Getting a head start on the Recipes,
Like Mint Juleps, Catfish, and Slavery, Black-eyed Peas (the Legume, not Fergie) on New Years is a great Southern Tradition
Way I heard it, is your financial success for the new year is directly proportional to how many Black-eyed Peas you eat (and not the canned variety)
Cheap store brand ones are the best, soak them over night, simmer with Kosher Salt, and Hog Jowls until they're the consistency you like
I know what you're saying punk, where do I find the Kosher Hog Jowls for Seasoning? I don't, I can worry about my Soul the other 364 days of the year.
Only New Years I've missed was 1991 (hard to find Black-eyed Peas, Kosher Salt, or Hog Jowls in Saudi Arabia)

Frank

[Jerry B.]

Don't forget the collard greens. per my family, the collards are to get greenbacks, and the peas are to get coins. Also, you have to have cornbread to soak up the pot likker from the collards and peas.

[SRG2]

I only discovered this last weekend that collard greens and kale, like brussels sprouts, broccoli and cauliflower, are all the same species as cabbage. They're just varietals of Brassica oleracea. Yet I dislike brussels sprouts and cauliflower, like red cabbage and broccoli, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a very versatile plat, isn't it?

[apedad]

We've talked about pardons and expungements a lot recently.

Here's a recent 5th Circuit decision where they upheld a court's denial for a request to expunge records.

"The district court denied (Robert) Corkern's Motion to Expunge Records due to a lack of jurisdiction (and reasoned that he) 'fail[ed] to identify a statutory basis for expungement . . . . '

The court then noted, 'that a presidential pardon does not in any way reverse the legal conclusion of the courts; it does not blot out guilt or expunge a judgement of conviction (and added) [t]he power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record-keeping.'"

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ruling-on-trump-pardonee.pdf

I can agree with that especially in today's Google-everything; a finding of guilt - while pardonable - simply cannot be extinguished from (electronic) memory.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your comment makes sense except for the last sentence.
Electronic memory is easy enough to extinguish.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly will be as actual search gets routed through AI's, anyway.

[John F. Carr]

The Words That Stop ChatGPT in Its Tracks:

Jonathan Zittrain breaks ChatGPT: If you ask it a question for which my name is the answer, the chatbot goes from loquacious companion to something as cryptic as Microsoft Windows’ blue screen of death.

Anytime ChatGPT would normally utter my name in the course of conversation, it halts with a glaring “I’m unable to produce a response,” sometimes mid-sentence or even mid-word. When I asked who the founders of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society are (I’m one of them), it brought up two colleagues but left me out. When pressed, it started up again, and then: zap.

[Voize of Reazon]

If you are interested in this phenomenon Ars Technica reported on it here.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

N/a in Europe--and wherever else the fuzzy "right to be forgotten" is still in vogue.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I didn't vote for Carter either time; instead I threw my vote away on third party candidates. I'm smarter now, at least I hope so.

Carter was maddeningly vague in the 1976 campaign and like many others I was sure he would become conservative as hell once he got into the White House. I was wrong, and remember being pleasantly surprised, especially when on his first day in office he pardoned all Vietnam draft resisters. He also gutsily vetoed the F-1 bomber.

He is remembered as an "unsuccessful" President but that is unfair. He knew there were things that had to be said and he said them. Appearing on TV in a sweater and urging a lesser dependence on oil was lampooned but it was a necessary message, as I think we all recognize now.

He was also unlucky. Interest rates were cranked way up by his Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, whom he legally had no control over (this was before we allowed Trump to become Dictator of the Executive Branch) and that is what finally brought 1970's inflation down, but it didn't kick in until he was out of office.

Carter did tried to do the hard thing; Reagan did the easy thing. At no point did Reagan ask Americans to work toward something or sacrifice anything (except those who suffered from his service cuts). Instead Reagan gave rich people a massive tax cut and left our children with the tab. He took the solar panels off the White House roof and threw big parties for the rich and well-connected. He also did not bother to familiarize himself with any policy issue.

Carter was also responsible for the Camp David accords, which established a peace which still exists between Israel and Egypt (the only neighboring power which can win a war against Israel). He did that by carefully listening to both sides and understanding their positions. Nowadays that kind of behavior is considered "weak" and unbecoming a President.

Another part of the myth was that his only response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics. This assertion was made here recently by a commenter who otherwise strikes me as well-informed. It's not true. In response he 1) started the military buildup we associate with Reagan, 2) sent in the CIA to create an insurgency which created a Vietnam-style quagmire which did much to weaken the Soviet Union in general, and 3) tried (and failed) to get Congress to cancel the sweetheart grain deal Nixon had worked out with Brezhnev ("the Great Grain Robbery").

He was undone by the hostage crisis, but let's not forget that 1) it was provoked by his humanitarian decision to allow the Shah into the U.S., which according to his information was the only place which could offer treatment for his cancer, and 2) the Islamist regime much preferred Reagan, as we saw later with the Iran-Contra affair, where Reagan's people actually cozied up to the Islamists by inviting them to see the situation room in the White House basement.

Finally in his post-Presidency he did not go on the ex-President "good time gravy train". For years Republicans considered him a pest and got laughs by saying his passport should be revoked. Again, they were doing the easy thing; he did the hard thing.

[DixieTune]

I would never claim Reagan was perfect, or even good, but he didn't give rich people a tax cut. He gave everybody a tax cut, and taxes on the top brackets were immorally high, as in 70%, when he took office.

[Frank Drackman]

They're still immorally high, Self Employed guy/gal making $150K (sorry, that's not rich, even in Jaw-Jaw) pays %15.3 FICA, 24% Federal, plus whatever your State/Local adds on, so even in Florida or Texas that's a %39 Marginal Rate, and I've given up trying to explain to the Wage Slaves how they're paying their entire FICA even though their W2 only shows their part, it's like trying to explain that getting a big Tax Refund isn't a good thing, unless you like letting Uncle Sammy have your money interest free for a year

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Long Post and you ruin it all by calling it the "F-1 Bomber"
See, in the Air Force, designations for Attack Aircraft start with an "A", Bombers start with a "B", Fighters start with an "F", and Trainers start with a "T".
OK, I'm not sure where the "K" for Tankers comes from, and to get even more tricky you have your Fighter-Bombers which were "FB".
So Jimmuh did cancel the B-1A, which Ronaldus Maximus un-canceled as the B-1B, whose main achievement is it looks cool as shit coming into the Break (what the Air Farce calls "The Overhead")
Ironically it was proposed to replace the B-52's Nuke-ular mission, but 50 years later the B-52's still carry Nukes while the B-1s are restricted to Conventional bombs (and to the nicer hellholes of Ellsworth AFB SD and Dyess AFB TX while the B-52's get Minot AFB ND and Barksdale AFB LA)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Capt. Dan forgot to run it by his sister who is the family member who served.

[Dr. Ed 2]

tanKer???

T was already taken...

[Dr. Ed 2]

" At no point did Reagan ask Americans to work toward something or sacrifice anything (except those who suffered from his service cuts)."

Clearly you don't remember this from the summer of 1982:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKxfxixwdXE

[bernard11]

He was also unlucky. Interest rates were cranked way up by his Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker, whom he legally had no control over

Not bad luck. I think Carter knew what Volcker intended when he appointed him, and also knew it would hurt him in the election. He is given far too little credit (and Reagan gets too much) for that sequence of events.

[RedheadedPharoh]

How come no one is talking about how the Democrats and the federal bureaucrats made health insurance so shitty that people are murdering health insurance CEO's on the streets?

Also, look at how bad government schools are, that guy shot the wrong person! It wasn't the CEO who made his insurance so shitty. It was the governing class in Washington D.C.

[DixieTune]

Health insurance isn't the problem. The cost of health care is. And it's the problem because people largely don't pay it. When you make things "free" people consume more of it. Basic economics.

[SRG2]

Would you therefore abolish health insurance and require everyone to meet their health needs out of pocket?

How would you fix the US's healthcare system?

[DixieTune]

No, but I would limit health insurance to truly insurable events, meaning not preexisting conditions, which is the car insurance equivalent of buying insurance after you've had an accident, and not checkups.

I'd also ration care to the very old. No reason society should be paying to keep Boomer Granny with COPD who weighs 400 pounds alive another 6 months.

[Brett Bellmore]

It actually makes a bit of economic sense to route the cost of genuinely cost effective preventative measures through insurance, because that way the insurance company can know for sure you're getting that checkup, and adjust your price accordingly.

It works for dental cleanings, anyway; So long as you get your teeth regularly cleaned, that's usually the extent of the dental work you need.

The problem is that for general health insurance, what counts as "preventative" is heavily political.

[DixieTune]

In theory yes, but my understanding of the research is that the numbers don't back this up, that preventive care ends up costing more, as doctors overdo it to avoid being sued.

Tort reform is an important part of any solution.

[Brett Bellmore]

But in a free market the insurance companies could do it only where it made sense.

[DixieTune]

Correct, and they'd be able to undercut their competitors on pricing for premiums. But of course that exposes another big issue, that insurance comes with your employment, which is just stupid.

People should buy health insurance the same way they buy vehicle or homeowner's insurance.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Further, not many people buy auto insurance that covers trivial, routine, a.d expected expenses.

Yet here we are being forced to do that for health.

[SRG2]

No reason society should be paying to keep Boomer Granny with COPD who weighs 400 pounds alive another 6 months.

You may recall the faux outrage after the GOP promoted the lie that Obamacare contained death panels. (Oddly, Texas had actual death panels in limited instances).

IIRC one of the reasons for very high health costs in the US is the huge cost in the last 6 to 8 weeks of life, where no-one wants to pull the plug on granny, countless tests are performed, and there's 24-hour oversight.

[DixieTune]

I'm not the one who is bringing partisan politics into it, you are. Neither party really wants to fix this problem.

[SRG2]

The Democrats at least attempted a fix and the GOP lied about death panels to undermine the legislation.

Am I not supposed to point out facts because they support one party or another?

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

So outcomes don't matter? Only what the politician states their intent was?

Of course that's a standard you have only for Democrats.

Republicans don't have good intentions with just different beliefs?

Re: death panels

There aren't unlimited resources so of course some government agency is going to deciding who lives or die. Government agencies that we know are unaccountable to anyone.

And now have racist DEI policies.

[RedheadedPharoh]

The purpose of insurance is to indemnify yourself against risk.

The government has transmorgraphied our healthcare insurance into some Frankenstein buyer's club/insurance where people are forced to cost-share trivial and routine life events whether or not they can occur for them.

E.g., why on Earth would you buy insurance to cover something that costs $50 a month that you absolutely know you'll be purchasing? Like prescription birth control for example.

What risk are you protecting yourself from with the insurance? That you'll be horny and couldn't afford a $0.50 condom? Is that the risk you're indemnifying yourself from?

And this is where the stupid government Democrat cost-share buyer's club comes in. They say, fuck you and your individual needs, we're going to make you buy insurance for trivial routine healthcare whether you need it or not so you can help pay for others trivial and routine healthcare.

Hence why the average family's healthcare premium is $24k a year, and they get "free" check-ups and "free" family planning even if you don't need or want either.

You know how the Aristocrats joke is always some disgusting tale that ends with "The Aristrocrats"?

Our federal government is similar. There's always some sordid, gross, disgusting tale that makes a handful rich and powerful while making everyone else suffer and miserable and it should similarly end the same.

The Democrats/Bureaucrats!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The government didn't cause health care to be expensive and inequitable. It did temper the damage though we should have gone further. Insurance involves spreading risk, including things you might not need. Some things are generally good policy, including check-ups to guard against further problems.

Birth control is health care that addresses a basic human need and practice. People have sex. Women can't rely on men with condoms. The health care in various cases isn't just used for contraceptive purposes too. It will cost more than .50 a pop.

Like clean water, health care is basic to a good society and the goals of the preamble to the Constitution. Democrats repeatedly were the ones who furthered policies to protect it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>The government didn't cause health care to be expensive and inequitable.

The government controls 60-70% of the healthcare dollars spent, either directly, or through regulatory compliance. Systems theory tells you that the most likely cause of any failure is going to be the largest input to that system.

Our healthcare system was molded by the government. It's failures belong to the people who did that molding.

>Some things are generally good policy, including check-ups to guard against further problems.

Why do you buy insurance for an annual checkup? You're arguing that having an annual check-up is good policy, not having insurance for an annual check-up.

>Birth control is health care that addresses a basic human need and practice. People have sex. Women can't rely on men with condoms. The health care in various cases isn't just used for contraceptive purposes too. It will cost more than .50 a pop.

So what? What does any of that have to do with having insurance for birth control? I also love the line about how women don't control their bodies, but men do. Good one.

>Like clean water, health care is basic to a good society and the goals of the preamble to the Constitution. Democrats repeatedly were the ones who furthered policies to protect it.

Are you conflating healthcare with healthcare insurance? Democrats made the last major reform with the ACA, why is our healthcare insurance worse than before? It's like you're regurgitating some catechism and not beliefs formed from observation.

[SRG2]

Systems theory tells you that the most likely cause of any failure is going to be the largest input to that system.

You missed the important qualifier, "other things being equal".

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

What do think is influencing the health insurance market more so then the government?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

>Our healthcare system was molded by the government. Its failures belong to the people who did that molding.

The government is regulating an underlining system & the "molding" is not just done by the government. The free enterprise system in place is involved. Granted we could have a better health care system -- the for-profit health care system in place is quite problematic -- but the people have opposed significant change. Thus, the ACA went half-way.

>Why do you buy insurance for an annual checkup? You're arguing that having an annual check-up is good policy, not having insurance for an annual check-up.

Insurance covers various things. Check-ups are useful preventive devices etc. They are cost effective.

>Birth control is health care that addresses a basic human need and practice. People have sex. Women can't rely on men with condoms. The health care in various cases isn't just used for contraceptive purposes too. It will cost more than .50 a pop.

So what? What does any of that have to do with having insurance for birth control? I also love the line about how women don't control their bodies, but men do. Good one.

It explains why it is a useful thing to have covered, how it is not just about paying .50 per condom, and is not just about sex. Toss in the "love" trope that doesn't actually mean what you said. Women being covered HELPS them control their bodies & not rely on men to do so via cheaper birth control.

>Are you conflating healthcare with healthcare insurance?

Health care involves health insurance.

>Democrats made the last major reform with the ACA, why is our healthcare insurance worse than before?

It isn't. Republicans had a chance to significantly change the ACA. They did not in part because the people opposed them doing so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

why on Earth would you buy insurance to cover something that costs $50 a month that you absolutely know you'll be purchasing? Like prescription birth control for example. What risk are you protecting yourself from with the insurance? That you'll be horny and couldn't afford a $0.50 condom? Is that the risk you're indemnifying yourself from?

You are protecting the insurance company from a risk of costs for pre-natal care which would be notably more expensive. Plus infant care for a newborn. So the birth control coverage makes everyone's insurance less expensive.

[Brett Bellmore]

It only makes everybody's insurance less expensive given the assumption that you're already not accurately pricing the insurance according to customer risk, so that people are having to pay for risks they aren't personally subject to.

Neither me nor my wife are going to have any more children, there's no actuarial reason why our insurance cost should be affected at all by things like prenatal care.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Neither me nor my wife are going to have any more children, there's no actuarial reason why our insurance cost should be affected at all by things like prenatal care.

Not to get unduly personal, but have you actually made medical arrangements to guarantee that? For both of you?

[Mr. Bumble]

Time would seem to take care of that for most people who stay married.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Wrong, Bellmore. There is a sound actuarial reason.

If only fecund people were subject to all the medical costs occasioned by reproduction, then the annual rate to cover them would for the majority of the insured skyrocket beyond ability to pay. By stretching out the payment period over a lifetime—an actuarial measure if ever there was one—that problem is reduced.

Your insurance advocacy seems always to be predicated on optimizing the rate for you, in your circumstances, right now. It apparently baffles you that doing that cannot address the needs of everyone, all the time. So your advocacy boils down to, "Favor me, and cut the others off."

As a policy prescription, that is self-evident nonsense.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Wait, so the HHS is mandating every policy have family planning, whether you could have a family or not, to protect Big Insurance's profit margins?

And that's what you and Democrats support? You support forcing people to buy an insurance for a $50/mo product even when they don't want or need it to protect an insurance company's bottom line?

I told you Luigi got the wrong people.

[Brett Bellmore]

Kiinda the whole point of Obamacare was to give politically favored people cheaper than market insurance, paid for by everybody else having to overpay for their insurance. So don't be shocked that it involved people paying for stuff they didn't get; They're paying for somebody else's stuff, that was the point.

[DixieTune]

Of course. If you make insurance companies cover people with preexisting conditions but only let them charge the same $400/month premium as everyone else, what you're saying is that other people should pay for the already sick. That's fine to advocate for, but be honest about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The reason not to be honest about it, is so that the Luigis of the world shoot CEOS and not ex-Presidents. They wanted people to blame the insurance companies for their insurance getting worse and more expensive, and to keep the cost of the program off budget.

[DixieTune]

Yup, kind of like Ticketmaster. They're paid to be the bad guys.

[John F. Carr]

"When you make things 'free' people consume more of it."

I think it's more: when demand does not respond to prices, prices rise.

[SRG2]

This is why the idea that the market for healthcare should be a free market is garbage, much as I am generally in favour of free markets. There's a very high inelasticity of demand, and very asymmetrical bargaining power.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Thats only true for catastrophic care.

But not for the rest of it.

One only has to look at the history of LASIK to see what the free market can do for non-catastrophic healthcare

[bernard11]

Pitiful example. LASIK is elective. Lots of things aren't. Who's going to shop around or bypass surgery?

Besides, for all the free market talk, people are going to want health care insurance, and insurers are going to offer it. That's free market too.

[Frank Drackman]

So people should be shooting Barry Hussein??? Or dig up John McCain and shoot him too? and don't call the Federal Gestapo of Investigation, I'm against shooting either one.

[SRG2]

look at how bad government schools are,

He went to a private school before UPenn.

[RedheadedPharoh]

What's the difference these days between Leftist professors/teachers and government/bureaucrats?

None.

[bernard11]

Because that's not true. Not remotely. Have you forgotten all the problems with health insurance before ACA?

You're just throwing shit against the wall.

[Stella Link the dog]

I do recall. ACA advocates were making several claims. One was that the American healthcare system was way too expensive considering the results. Another was that a great number of Americans were not able to access the healthcare that they needed, including preventive care. The ACA was promoted as a way to get uninsured Americans who did not have access to the healthcare that they needed the ability and incentive to consume more healthcare. The suggestion was that by consuming more healthcare services costs would come down because the ensuing healthier American populace would ultimately consume less costly healthcare. To the best of my knowledge, there was never anything beyond conjecture to support this idea. There was also the question of where all the healthcare supply was supposed to come from to meet the increased demand that incentivizing millions of Americans to consume more services would create. I recall one of the Emanuel brothers trying to explain that magic.

There were those who advocated single payer, what is erroneously described as "Medicare for all" -- that is having the government take over the health insurance industry. Of course, that was never an actual possibility. Way too much power and money invested to allow that to happen. Contrary to what Brettmore claims, the reason we didn't get total government healthcare is not because the ACA was designed to fuck everything up and place the blame on private insurers. The reason is because there was an insufficient constituency for "single payer" and very much pressure, money, and influence on the other side.

The result, all these many years later is a perpetuated but different fucked up Frankenstein's monster of a system that is still too expensive and still inadequately serves a lot of people. I think that overall, life with the ACA is better than it would have been without, but, of course, that question is not answerable.

It seems that what people would like is a system in which people can consume all the healthcare they want from any provider that they want immediately and with an affordable price. That's basically what I had before the ACA, provided generously by my employer. It's pretty much what I have now, also, provided by Medicare. I recognize that I am one of the very lucky ones in this contest and would be happy if more people could be so lucky.

Free advice for those contemplating Medicare options -- if you hear someone talking about Medicare Advantage, run away as fast as you can. There is a reason that the insurance companies are pushing this stuff and it's not because it will make you happy.

[Frank Drackman]

Stella, I agree with you on Medicare Advantage, it's right up there with Defense Contractors, Reverse Mortgages, Lotteries, and Credit Repair with businesses I'd love to see have their testicles cut off and (figuratively of course) shoved in their mouths, like happened with Vito in "The Sopranos".

[Stella Link the dog]

"on Medicare Advantage"
The pitch for Medicare Advantage is that they will give you everything you want and a free lunch and a pony (or for Brettmore, because he was once confronted by a mean pony, they will substitute a miniature donkey but you have to pay extra for the pictures) and it won't cost anything. As they say, if you're at the poker table and can't figure out the identity of the mark, be very, very careful.

[Josh R]

I don't doubt that Medicare Advantage is a bad deal on the open marketplace. However, I am on one that is subsidized by my former employer. For no additional premium, I 1) get a $900 maximum for Part A plus B per year which even covers unlimited hospital stays, 2) have no deductible for Parts A or B, 3) pay $20 PCP and $40 Specialist instead of 20% coinsurance, 4) can see any provider that takes Medicare, and 5) get Part D which matches the industry standard.

[Stella Link the dog]

Sounds like traditional medicare with supplementals and a subsidy from your employer. Our total medical insurance situation is similar: medicare with suppementals and a considerable subsidy from my former employer (I'm a retiree) which largely covers all the premiums. We still have out-of-pocket expenses but it's very affordable for us.

Medicare Advantage, as described to me, is more like an HMO and all the coverage and treatment denial horror stories, so I understand, apply there as well.

[Josh R]

My plan is a Medicare Advantage plan from United Healthcare. I can only guess my employer negotiated the plan so that and in-network provider need only accept Medicare and agree to bill UHC directly (UHC pays the standard Medicare rates). There are some things which require pre-authorization such as surgery and colonoscopies. But they also did when I was employed and under 65.

[Commenter_XY]

I recently had to help someone navigate the Medicare options. There is a place for Medicare Advantage (Medicare part C), but I ultimately recommended the following (which was accepted).

Medicare B (traditional medicare)
Medicare D (Rx, $0 premium, generics only)
Medicare Supplemental Plan G (via Cigna)

What decided the question for this person was 'may' vs 'shall'. Medicare B = 'you shall provide X treatment' - cannot be denied
versus
Medicare C = 'you may provide X treatment' - can be denied

The decision is a VERY BIG decision.

[Mr. Bumble]

As with everything else in this world, one size does not fit all.

[Brett Bellmore]

It was not designed to fuck everything up, though it did.

It was designed to create winners and losers, with the winners crediting the government for their wins, but the losers blaming the insurance companies for their losses.

If it had been purely a government subsidy for insurance for specific groups, a sort of "health insurance stamps" program, it would have been less distorting, but the cost of the program, (Which was immense.) would have been on budget for everybody to see. By imposing it via regulation, the insurance companies were required to impose that cost by raising the price and degrading the features of the already insured, and take the blame.

[Stella Link the dog]

Another of the most "stupid, ill-considered declarations seemingly possible. "

I would suggest that if you always, as you have asserted, carefully say exactly what you mean, explain exactly what you mean here and that you explain your argument. Exactly who did what with what goal in mind and exactly how you know.

Otherwise, I see no reason to debate the various aspects of the purposes, results, costs, etc of the ACA with the world's most deluded self-declared genius crackpot conspiracy theorist who, once again, with LASER focus ventures forth to give fatuous crap a bad name.

[wreckinball]

I don't consider less expensive a problem.

[John F. Carr]

Last week I noted the 45th anniversary of the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan. This week marks the 30th anniversary of the Russian adventure in Chechnya, specifically the first battle for Grozny. In the whole war Russian military deaths per capita compared to America's in Vietnam. Per capita civilian deaths blamed on Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia compare to 9/11.

[Frank Drackman]

and yet there are still Amurican Troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, 2 Georgia National Guard troops were killed this year in Jordan. Jordan?? but any Tomas, Ricardo, or Haroldo can traipse into the US and kill whoever he wants.

[SRG2]

I have no particular views on Carter as a good or bad president - I didn't move to the US until 1997, though I did observe US politics from the outside.

But what I invariably find in discussions of whether someone was a good or bad president is the absence of quantified data. Instead, it's all about feelz. And feelz can be based on tribalism, racism, etc. with no consideration of actual data.

[Dan Schiavetta]

One can objectively evaluate 1) what the needs of the country were, 2) how a President either addressed them, ignored them, or made them worse. Of course there will be disagreements. But a serious discussion does not involve "feelz".

[Armchair]

While tribalism and partisanship play a roll, the bigger issue is that there's no unified quantifiable metric.

Being President is hard. Each President presides over different circumstances making decisions based on a series of events that other Presidents don't. All we can do is use subjective criteria to evaluate that decision, full in the knowledge that we can't evaluate other Presidents and whether they would have made similar decisions.

To give an example, FDR currently ranks between #1 and #3 as President, and a large part of this is due to winning* WWII. (*Yes, I know it was ultimately Truman) Which of course, was a big deal. But, to be honest, the US had a lot of baked in advantages in that war. You drop a more lowly ranked president (William McKinley?) in that situation, and odds are good they would win WWII as well, and then McKinley would be ranked #3.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, the only thing you can know about a historical counterfactual is that it could never happen. That makes it a stupid topic, quite different from speculating about a future occurrence, which could happen.

Because the past has already happened, it is a topic notably different than almost everything else folks are accustomed to talk about. Accustomed topics deal mostly with the present and the future. To review the past on the basis of personal experience—for instance by reference to a previously signed contract—comes nowhere close to the challenge to understand the past more generally.

But folks go merrily on, speculating about the past as if it were the future, and even using those speculations as if they might inform consequential present decision making, as in cases of so-called originalist legal decision making.

[Dr. Ed 2]

FDR won in 1932, Hitler in 1933 --- that's over seven years before the war even started.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller#Public_transit_ads

Geller and [her organization] paid to run ads on the transit systems of New York City, Washington D.C., and San Francisco. The ad...read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” ... New York's MTA initially refused to display the ads..., but the decision was overturned in July 2012 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that the ad was protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the MTA's actions were unconstitutional. The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer, held in a 35-page opinion that the rejected ad was “not only protected speech — it is core political speech ... [which as such] is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.” ... [In the aftermath of the court's ruling,] the MTA, SEPTA, and Washington's Metro have decided to ban all political ads.

Well, it appears that, at least in Washington, the "ban [on] all political ads" is no longer in place:
https://nypost.com/2024/12/29/us-news/dc-scrambling-to-remove-city-transit-ads-likening-maga-supporters-to-garbage-after-uproar/

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't think that this was an approved, paid ad.

More like a college prank.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why would you assume the ban is no longer in place? The Post article did not say that these ad(s) were real ads. Indeed, the supposed sponsors of the ad(s) have denied having anything to do with them.

"“This image was not created, funded, or authorized by the DC government, and our teams are currently working to remove them,” DDOT DC wrote on X in response to Morell’s post."

Have you never heard of street art?

[apedad]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) took initial steps to sue video sharing app TikTok . . . over alleged misrepresentations it made about the Chinese government’s ability to access user data . . . .

The threat of litigation ratchets up pressure on TikTok over its Chinese ties ahead of a looming nationwide ban.

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on Jan. 10, a little more than a week before the ban takes effect. President-elect Donald Trump asked the court on Friday to hold off on the ban to give him time to “seek a negotiated resolution” of the dispute. His request cut a contrast to a brief from 22 Republican state attorneys general asking the court to uphold the ban.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/tiktok-may-face-boutique-firm-hired-by-texas-over-china-access

Has Trump done anything since the election to show he's on the Republican side?

[Noscitur a sociis]

He has expressly identified himself as on TikTok’s side, including through filings in the Supreme Court case.

[Frank Drackman]

so who's holding a gun to peoples heads making them use Tik Tok? I "use" it occasionally, as my daughters use it, and I like to see what they're up to, and Facebook went the way of Compuserve. What are the Chinks going to exploit? my obsession with Charli D'amelio?

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they're going to exploit the built in key logger, potentially.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think Erik Loomis, a history professor, has a good all-around Carter obituary. He takes the good man/bad president take of many though he lists various good things he did as president.

Paul Krugman's Substack notes Carter (shades of Hoover, who also did a lot of good outside the presidency) was a product of bad luck too. It in my view is a mixture of things.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/12/jimmy-carter

Jimmy Carter put into practice Micah 6:8:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

He died at a good time. Who wants an official state funeral for Jimmy Carter a month from now? RIP. You did good.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I want separately to talk about a more minor thing: ranking presidents after they left office.

John Quincy Adams became a member of Congress and fought the good fight against slavery. Carter had more concrete successes such as his efforts against the Guinea worm.

But, regardless, both had good post-presidential public lives.

[bernard11]

Funny. I read Loomis' post, and found it self-contradictory in places and, while there was some balance, a bit unfair to Carter.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think it's fair to critique it but overall I think it does a good job.

I could have said "good overall."

[RedheadedPharoh]

Elon Musk made one tweet:
“only the AfD can save Germany”

And the German establishment has going full crazy over it.

>Friedrich Merz, leader of the opposition Christian Democrats and current favorite to succeed Scholz as chancellor, said in an interview with the Funke Media Group: “I cannot recall a comparable case of interference, in the history of Western democracies, in the election campaign of a friendly country.”

If one tweet is the greatest case of election interference in history, what 's all of Martinned's stupid comments here?

Can Germany ban speech by foreign citizens if they say things that go against the Establishment?

We saw the US trying to ban speech by it's own citizens if they spoke out against the Establishment, going so far as labeling it as characteristics of "Domestic Terrorists".

The Democrats/Globalists must be stopped. Human freedom & flourishing is at stake.

[apedad]

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) of Germany is center-right and not aligned with US Democrats.

[John F. Carr]

The British Labour Party was interfering in the U.S. election just a couple months ago. Does that not count because it was not in the form of a popular tweet?

[RedheadedPharoh]

I'm going to guess it depends on who their comment supported. If it was the Establishment, then it was free speech. If it was against the Establishment then it was illegal election interference and a threat to democracy.

[Ed Grinberg]

If one tweet is the greatest case of election interference in history, what 's all of Martinned's stupid comments here?

LOL
"Foreigner hates America (and really hates Republicans). News at 11:00."

[John F. Carr]

Ten years ago today the United States declared victory in Afghanistan, handing security duties over to domestic forces.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Year in Review:

Testicle Injuries in Women's Sports:
1800s : 0
1900s : 0
2000s : 0
2000 - 2010: 0
2011 - 2020: 0
2021: 0
2022: 0
2023: 4
2024: 15

We need to spread awareness about testicle injuries in women's sports, maybe instead of pink ribbons, athletes wear something like pink truck nuts?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

By any chance, are you getting your statistical info from Danica Patrick?

[loki13]

Huh. Been a while! Anyway, hope everyone is keeping their blood distinctly unangry this holiday season, and everyone had a very merry Christmas and holiday season, and is looking forward to spending New Year's Eve with their significant other, or, at a minimum, a candidate for that position.

For the New Year, I will be imparting the following pieces of advice. All of them are ones that I am aware of, and I even follow most of them successfully... well, some of the time.

1. You can disagree with people without being disagreeable. You don't win the internet. There are no points awarded. Those endorphins you get from dunking on someone? Well, you're probably not as clever as you think you are, and it doesn't matter.

2. People can have different and valid opinions about what is best for themselves and the country. Differences in policy opinions doesn't make people commies and fascists.

3. Facts matter. If you find yourself reading something that tells you what you already wanted to believe, why not ... you know, dig a little deeper before you start breathlessly sharing it. And if you regularly consume a source that has provided you incorrect facts in the past, why are you still using it?

4. Most people, in day-to-day life, in person, in America are not monsters. They are pretty good people. If you have a sour disposition regarding 50% of Americans, why not spend more time in real life and less time on-line?

Finally, I will repeat the same thing I always try to do- if you want to feel good, do actual things in your local community to help. The words you spend here do nothing. But seeing the positive impact that you can make- mentoring, coaching, volunteering, whatever it is? Not only will you have a more accurate view of how things are actually working and the people that you are talking about, but you will feel good about the positive things you are doing!

Anyway, hope everyone has a safe, happy, and healthy 2025.

[Josh R]

I would add you should put yourself on the other side of the debate and construct the best arguments against your position. It will both help you understand the other side's viewpoint and strengthen your own position (or modify it).

[loki13]

I think that is a wonderful suggestion and we would all be better off if people would do it!

However, while I am trying to be positive, I think that the amount of critical thinking that it requires is probably too much to ask of most people. As a general rule, most people don't have well-considered arguments for their own positions. On the ethos/pathos/logos scale, everyone thinks they are all about the logos, but it's really pathos all they way down (assuming it isn't just an argument of affiliation).

That said, yes, arguing and UNDERSTANDING* the other side's position doesn't just allow you to strengthen your own position, it allows you to actually understand that the "other side" is making a good-faith argument that you can empathize with, while still disagreeing that it is the better position.

*If I had a dime for every time a person said they understood the "other side's" position, but really just understood their caricature of it, the richest man in the world wouldn't be writing editorials for AfD, because I'd be the richest man in the world.

[Josh R]

Unfortunately, the trolls often do not have well-considered positions, but they aren't worth debating. Another thing I wish for in the New Year is a return to the old days of the Volokh Conspiracy Theory which didn't attract so many trolls.

What's the best argument for supporting AfD? Is Musk making a good-faith argument or is he a troll?

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you aren't able to put yourself in the position of those you deem trolls.

[loki13]

For some, an admission that they don't know the arguments and is asking for them is ... a failure? To try and dunk on?

For others, it's healthy. I know which camp I prefer to be in.

FWIW, I somehow doubt you know enough about German politics and the AfD to actually make arguments either way, but also know that you would google stuff to pretend otherwise.* Me? I know that I don't enough now, and I also know that quickly googling something isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.

*I know, argument of affiliation. But maybe you shouldn't be nasty to other people who are not trying to do that?

[Mr. Bumble]

What did my comment have to do with Elon's "editorial" and where did "nasty" come in.
You're making a lot of assumptions here including what I know and don't know.

[loki13]

Mmmhmmm. Okay. Res ipsa.

Have a good 2025 Bumble. Assuming I still see you around. Hope you're interested in conversations again at some point.

[MoreCurious]

Bumble hasn't said anything intelligent or interesting in years. Why do you expect him to start now?

[loki13]

I don't know, off the top of my head, that there are good arguments.

Then again, if I was the richest man in the world, I would also understand that being rich does not make me an expert in German politics. And I wouldn't be penning editorials about why German voters should be voting for a particular German party that is, at a minimum, quite controversial, unless I was sure I understood all the nuances of the German history and politics that were involved. And even if I thought I did, I still wouldn't because hey, not my country, not my culture, not my issue.

Moreover, German history (and the echoes on the present) are, at a minimum, complicated, and I would be concerned that I might be opining on issues that I not only know nothing about, but that might make me look like an idiot.

[Armchair]

There are good arguments for almost anything.

Take a political party that is economically liberal, but Euro-skeptic and opposed to increased immigration. You don't see any good arguments to support such a party?:

[bernard11]

Take a political party that is economically liberal, but Euro-skeptic and opposed to increased immigration. You don't see any good arguments to support such a party?

A very carefully cherry-picked description of AfD, taken from Wikipedia, and ignoring the rest of the entry.

[loki13]

"Another thing I wish for in the New Year is a return to the old days of the Volokh Conspiracy Theory which didn't attract so many trolls."

Admittedly, even in the better days (the old VC, pre-Post, pre-Reason) there were trolls. Remember Mick? The Ace?

But, and I say this with a bigger but than Sir Mix-A-Lot, the overall community was much more likely to reject the trolls, and keep the issues focused on debating the law. It wasn't perfect- nothing is on internet, but it had a signal-to-noise ratio in terms of the law that was so much higher.

[Frank Drackman]

AfD is like the Repubiclown party circa 1991, i.e. "Moderate"

[loki13]

Given that AfD isn't actually a team in the SEC, I will have to take your evaluation of them with a grain of salt, Frank.

I mean, they aren't, are they? Oregon is in the Big10, Stanford is in the ACC, and Arizona State is a Big12 team .... *checks notes* ....

Nope. Unless AfD is Frank's pet term for "Okies," I don't think so.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Real debate requires people to have an open-mind and being willing to change their beliefs if presented with sufficient evidence.

How many people have had their minds changed by a well thought out and argued internet comment?

Not many. Internet commenting, for the most part, is just shit slinging, rage masturbating, virtue-signaling, or trying to create e-struggle sessions.

[not guilty]

As Jonathan Swift observed, “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

Loki, a bit of care about that ethos/pathos/logos stuff.

If you invite some folks to prefer any of those as superior to the others, those folks lose sight of the notion that all of ethos/pathos/logos are accounted means of rhetorical demonstration. On that view, each must be deployed appropriately, or the demonstration may fail. All get prioritized according to need; none get prioritized objectively with regard to each other.

Around here, we've got commenters who are all pathos all the time, who suppose logos is inherently superior, and insist they practice it. Which damages their ethos.

In short, commenters pretty far afield from classical insight. Lead them with care.

[Commenter_XY]

Happy New Year, Loki13. Have a good year.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is a guy who spent a couple of months pasting random insults into the reply box on people's comments.

[apedad]

We're having raclette on NYE.

It's a table-top meal, like fondue, where everyone basically chooses from different options, e.g., meats, veggies, cheeses, etc., and then cooks their own meal.

The word 'raclette' comes from the type of cheese used with the electric table-top grill.

You cook your meat and veggies on the grill top and melt the cheese in the little pan underneath the grill.

Here's an example: https://www.everythingkitchens.com/swissmar-raclette-machine-classic-black-nonstick-8person-kf-77041.html?msclkid=f2516ca98da413794b130bdb327c1ff5&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping%20%7C%20General%20%7C%2010&utm_term=4584413765462948&utm_content=Catch%20All

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought raclette was supposed to be melted in front of a fire? I think we might try that tomorrow night.

[apedad]

Yup, that's the original way.

You can also do it indoors on an electric melter.

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B07DTG1KFD/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Mr. Bumble]

Ironic that at the same time as Jimmy Carter's passing the Islamic Republic he helped come into existence may finally be crumbling.
https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1873331952251813933

" Today, Sunday, December 29, 2024, large sections of Tehran’s bazaar went on strike in protest against crippling price hikes and skyrocketing currency rates. They organized a protest march, urging other merchants to join the strike.

The strike and protest began in the Shoemakers’ Bazaar and quickly spread to the Rasteh Bazaar, Small Charsu, the Fabric Sellers’ Bazaar, Bagh Sepahsalar, Seyyed Vali Passage, Hammam Chal Passage, and the Coppersmiths’ Bazaar. Shortly afterward, the fabric sellers in Abbasabad Passage, Sepah Bazaar, and Mellat Passage also joined the strike. Protesters chanted: “Courageous merchants, support, support!” “Don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid, shut it down, shut it down!” and “You can’t do business with an 80,000 toman dollar!”

In a statement, the merchants cited several reasons for their strike, including the shortage of raw materials due to soaring currency rates, severe economic stagnation caused by exorbitant prices, lack of liquidity in the market, and heavy taxes."

[Ed Grinberg]

"...and heavy taxes."
Hey, they should give their government a break. It isn't easy having to simultaneously fight the Little Satan and the Great Satan, while also having to kill Jews around the world (see example below). They're doing the best they can!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing

[Moderation4ever]

Please explain how Jimmy Carter had anything at all to do with the Islamic Republic of Iran coming into existence. He like most of us were spectators. You may recall that his troubles did not start with the revolution, but rather his compassion. He allowed the deposed Shah to the US for cancer treatment.

[Bob from Ohio]

The US withdrew support from the Shah and negotiated with Khomeini's people, thinking they were "moderate " religious fanatics.

[Moderation4ever]

You are talking reactive and not proactive. I think the time had come when the Shah's regime had simple worn out its welcome and its downfall was simply in the cards. This happens with authoritarian governments and the result is rarely democratic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He could have told France not to let Khomeini go back into Iran, or have -- perish the thought -- closed the US Embassy and not recognized Khomeini's government BEFORE they sacked the embassy.

Or, and this would have been playing hardball but I doubt that the Soviets would have objected -- kidnapped the Iranian delegation to the UN and offered to trade. Or less extreme -- threaten to withdraw from the UN (and kick it off US land) unless the UN got the diplomats back itself.

Or even less extreme -- say that if the UN didn't get our diplomats back by a set date a month hence, the US would no longer honor diplomatic license plates and permit NYC to tow cars for unpaid parking tickets.

[Moderation4ever]

Again reactive, the Islamic Republic had already come into existence in Iran. You are talking the hostage crisis and that is after the fact.

[not guilty]

The Islamic Republic did predate the taking of the hostages, but Ayatollah Khomeini used the hostages to solidify his hold on power.

[Moderation4ever]

I definitely agreed here. The hostage crisis isolated Iran and gave Khomeini and his followers the opportunity to consolidate power. As I have noted before strongmen taking power start by shooting their enemies and then move next to shoot their friends. We certainly saw this happen in Iran.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moderation — Even before that, I was a spectator. This is apropos of nothing, except a bit of spice to apply to the history.

If memory serves, in April of 1962 the Shah made one of his several visits to the U.S. I was then in high school, in the Maryland suburbs of DC. It was announced that we students would a couple of days hence be bussed into DC, to line the curbs, and demonstrate our nation's solidarity for the Shah.

That was extraordinary. It came without explanation, and its like never happened before, nor to my knowledge afterward.

Years earlier, I had quite by chance seen Eisenhower and King Saud, riding together in the back of an open convertible, the second vehicle in a two-car motorcade, headed out McArthur Blvd., toward Eisenhower's preferred local golfing venue, the Burning Tree Country Club. There had not been a peep in advance about that.

However, in '62 a classmate of mine had a dad with musical talent, who composed jingles for the advertising industry. The dad rose to the Shah occasion.

As the motorcade rolled by in DC, we students were there on the curb to chant:

"Shah, Shah, Shah of Iran! He's our man, Shah, Shah of Iran!"

It had a catchy tune, but with a sort of gleeful twist in the mouths of my almost entirely Jewish classmates.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

So that's where the Beach Boys got their lyrics for "Barbara Ann"...

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny, but the Beach Boys was a cover of the song originally done by The Regents in 1961. Fun fact; the lead on the Beach Boys version was sung by Jan Torrence of Jan & Dean because none of the Beach Boys knew the lyrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTffa6I27iA&t=2s

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Ha, that's exactly what I was going to write. The song was written by the great Fred Fassert for the Regents. There is also an amusing version recorded by The Who that's easy to find.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and I stand corrected it was Dean Torrence and not Jan who sang lead on the Beach Boys version. A great song no matter the version.
Also, there was Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Senator Katie Britt is warning colleges that the new Congress isn't going to tolerate the Hamas Fan Club harassing Jews.

https://freebeacon.com/campus/i-and-my-colleagues-wont-stand-for-this-republican-sen-katie-britt-warns-universities-anti-semitism-crackdown-is-coming-with-new-majority/

[Josh R]

From the article:

Last week, anti-Israel activists at the University of Rochester hung hundreds of "wanted" posters around campus that accused specific faculty members—many of whom are Jewish—of supporting "war crimes" in Gaza.

Sounds like protected speech to me. We will have to wait and see what Britt and the new majority will do.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, A-rab Terrorists speech is always "Protected", don't blame me when Cellphones start exploding.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You gotta love the exploding pagers...

[loki13]

Well, you know how it is, Josh.

The GOP is all about making sure we have freedom of speech on college campuses!

And by that, they mean, "Freedom to speak what we like, and no freedom to say the stuff we don't like."

Of course, this isn't a GOP thing. Everyone says that they like the freedom of speech- but only to say the things that they want said. The other stuff? Well, not so much.

Always remember- if you aren't arguing for freedom of speech for the speech that provokes and offends and shocks ... for the speech that YOU DON'T LIKE, you're doing it wrong. If you only invoke it to defend the stuff you like? Yeah, that's not freedom of speech. That's "Listen to me, and shut up otherwise."

ETA- and to avoid the response, I will remind people that I am concerned about how anti-Semitism is so quickly spreading and becoming acceptable with many youth (and the extent that bad actors conflate opposition to Israel's policies with anti-Semitism, in order to spread anti-Semitism) and that anti-Semitism must be removed, root and branch, from society. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let people announce who they are, and judge them accordingly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem is that the left didn't speak up over the past 30 years when the right was being silenced, so please don't expect the right to much care that you are being silenced now.

The time to defend free speech was 10-20-30 years ago...

[Stella Link the dog]

'And by that, they mean, "Freedom to speak what we like, and no freedom to say the stuff we don't like." '
'If you only invoke it to defend the stuff you like? Yeah, that's not freedom of speech. That's "Listen to me, and shut up otherwise." '

Mostly, I agree. Let the nazis march in Skokie. But, colleges have a mission and when speech and advocacy start to morph into behavior which is antithetical to the mission, it's not so clear to me. As for the University of Rochester, that appears to be a private institution so they can do pretty much anything they like with respect to what appears to be pretty blatant antisemitism.

[Josh R]

I thought academic freedom argued for greater protection of speech in universities because part of the mission is tolearn about all viewpoints.

[Stella Link the dog]

"I thought"

That does not appear to be true.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, I don't think it's an easy question. Reasonable people (and schools) will differ at what threshold speech gives way.

The naming and picturing of specific faculty has me pretty on edge, but also professors are not students.

[Josh R]

Do go on ...

[Stella Link the dog]

I apologize for my previous comment, if I could delete it I would.

Academic freedom is important, freedom to express disfavored opinions is important, learning about other viewpoints is important.

Avoiding chaos is also important as is preventing targeted harassment etc.

[Bored Lawyer]

I thought academic freedom argued for greater protection of speech in universities because part of the mission is tolearn about all viewpoints.

Amy Wax would like a word.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" As for the University of Rochester, that appears to be a private institution so they can do pretty much anything they like with respect to what appears to be pretty blatant antisemitism."

Not if they wish to continue to receive Federal funds...

[Bored Lawyer]

Always remember- if you aren't arguing for freedom of speech for the speech that provokes and offends and shocks ... for the speech that YOU DON'T LIKE, you're doing it wrong.

Assuming that's done evenly to all opinions on both sides. Which is not the case on current college campuses.

Try putting up posters saying any of the following:

"Islam is the biggest source of terrorism in the modern world."

"Claims of racism in America today are mostly a scam for money or to cow white people in to supporting the Democratic party."

"The Palestinians are not a real nation -- they were made up in the 1960s."

"Kamala Harris was DEI hire."

[Josh R]

All protected speech (at a public university) in my opinion.

[Bored Lawyer]

Your opinion is not what controls public universities. It's university administrators who do so.

IOW, policy is only as good as the personnel who implement it.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypothetical hypocrisy is so easy.

[Commenter_XY]

And you're such a skilled practitioner.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It has nothing to do with hypothetical hypocrisy. But if you don't have bright lines about what's protected and what isn't, your standards will look like Calvinball and people will be skeptical about whether or not the speakers viewpoint is factoring into your decisions.

So free speech requires not just arguments about why a particular utterance may or may not be protected, but clear rules that don't allow administrators to make arbitrary decisions.

[Josh R]

The rule is whether the speech falls under one of the exceptions (harassment is covered under intimidation which is a form of a threat). It is unvoidable that it's a subjective call, be it by an administrator or a judge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So is "Niggers Go Away" (free speech) except that I somehow suspect it wouldn't be permitted to be posted on university property.

While the activists and racists both have a right to free speech, the *UNIVERSITY* does not have the right to permit them to post their speech. Or are you arguing that the racists have the right to post "Niggers Go Away" signs on university property???

Or how about the (White) fraternity that was chanting "No means Yes, and Yes means Anal" -- that was Yale's DKE fraternity and they were chanting it in front of the Women's Center. OCR found that Yale had a "hostile atmosphere towards women" and Yale had to address that or lose all Federal funding. Same thing here, OCR will conclude that U-Rochester has a "hostile atmosphere towards Jews" and will either have to remedy it or lose all Federal funds...

[Josh R]

"Niggers Go Away" and "No means yes and yes means Anal" might be proscribed if they are targeted threats (the chanting at the Women's Center looks like a target). In contrast while the wanted posters are targeted, they likely aren't threats, but rather statements of opinion.

A public university must allow speech that is protected by the First Amendment. A private university is free to allow or disallow it absent a statutory mandate. A statutory mandate would have to comply with the First Amendment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"statements of opinion"

Its the Wanted part that takes it to threat, Wanted Dead or Alive is the cultural idea of such a poster.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Its the Wanted part that takes it to threat, "

Is that right? Are the wanted posters designed and displayed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and are they likely to incite or produce such action? Not everything that appears at first glance to be threatening constitutes a true threat.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Graphically "targeting" people has now gone out of fashion, for some reason...

[Stella Link the dog]

"A public university must allow speech that is protected by the First Amendment. "

But, I believe, may impose reasonable and neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. Can't protected speech coupled with disruptive and harassing conduct be prohibited?

[Josh R]

Conduct? Sure. The hard question is when does speech cross the line to proscribable harassment (noting that when it does, the restriction is not content neutral).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"'Niggers Go Away' and 'No means yes and yes means Anal' might be proscribed if they are targeted threats (the chanting at the Women's Center looks like a target). In contrast while the wanted posters are targeted, they likely aren't threats, but rather statements of opinion."

Freedom to speak what we like, and no freedom to say the stuff we don't like. The stuff we like is opinion, the stuff we don't like are threats.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Josh, I was giving the bigots the gift of coherence.

I've seen action on just the word "nigger" or even a swastika that wasn't even drawn properly.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like harassment under NY state law, to me.

[Commenter_XY]

And property damage (which is what they were formally charged with). They're on camera. Cute.

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-830347

[Josh R]

That charge takes the First Amendment out of the equation (*). However, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the students intended to damage property. The article says it was the adhesive used to put up the posters that caused the damage. I'm not sure if that will (ahem) stick.

(*) I suspect the students will point to other posters that also damaged property but did not lead to arrest and argue they were targeted because of the viewpoint expressed in the poster, thus putting the First Amendmebt defense back on the table.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It seems like a wall at the end of a runway caused a lot of casualties in the South Korean plane crash. People are wondering why there was a wall there.

Response: Well, we were going to remove it, but we didn't know why it was there...

[Kazinski]

Well the question is, what was on the other side of the wall that it was protecting?

Looks like just runway lights which seem not as important as a plane full of people.

[tylertusta]

I'll provide the answer: the concrete wall war built to elevate and stabilize the localizer, which is important for the airport to have.

Should it have been built out of materials that would deform if hit by a passenger plane? Yes.

Why was it built out of concrete instead? Probably because it was cheaper/more durable than other options.

[Voize of Reazon]

They may also have felt that nearly 1000 feet past the runway end was enough room to leave for overruns.

[Dr. Ed 2]

American technology has a solution -- weak concrete.
Seriously -- it saved Mike Pence's life in a runway overrun incident.

It works on the same principle that a truck runaway ramp does, except they use concrete with LOTS of air bubbles in it so that the airplane wheels sink through it, losing LOTS of energy in the process and thus quickly stopping the plane (which then needs to be dug out of the muck) and leaving it upright with no wing damage and hence no fuel leak and thus no fire.

See: https://runwaysafe.com/mitigating-runway-overrun-risks-with-emas-a-proactive-approach/

Now why a bird strike on an engine can prevent landing gear from coming down is beyond me. GRAVITY is supposed to do it in extremis...

[John F. Carr]

Aviation experts are speculating that the crew accidentally shut down the working engine and didn't have much time to prepare to go down. Usually the plane would spend a long time circling while the pilots run through checklists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_caused_by_wrong_engine_shutdown

[tylertusta]

In a modern aircraft, gravity by itself is insufficient to lower the landing gear. That's by design.

[Kazinski]

Trump has come out to endorse Mike Johnson as speaker which should help immensely to round up the last 4-5 votes he needs to nail down by Friday.

The House leadership situation has been volatile since Gaetz brought down McCarthy, but despite the drawbacks I think its a positive in that the era of the Imperial House speaker is over, at least for now. The Senate should also take their Majority and Minority leaders down a notch too.

The recent spectacle of the 4 leaders negotiating a 1500 page wishlist behind closed doors and presenting it unread as a done deal to both chambers shouldn't be repeated.

[SimonP]

Someone evidently told Trump that if the House doesn't have a Speaker by January 6, it'll throw his nascent presidency into a round of chaos totally owned by the Republican Party. "Come on, guys, we've gotta pretend we're serious for a few days."

I don't have any desire to see a chaotic transfer of power or constitutional crisis, but I sure would find some vindication if those asshats went ahead and pushed that big red button.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Congress do anything about extending the statute of limitations on unemployment fraud?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/30/stole-billions-covid-19-relief-money-feds-won-allo/
In that same vein, California has passed a law assessing each employer $21.00 per year for every employee in order to pay back the Federal government because they failed to timely repay the money loaned for unemployment benefits due to Covid lay offs (that will increase by $21.00 per year until the loan is fully repaid).

[John F. Carr]

Congress already extended the statute of limitations for some COVID fraud. I didn't know unemployment claims were excluded.

[bernard11]

I think its a positive in that the era of the Imperial House speaker is over, at least for now. The Senate should also take their Majority and Minority leaders down a notch too.

I agree. The current arrangements are silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Agreed, they transfer too much of the power of individual members to the leadership, effectively transforming a democracy into more of a oligarchy.

[apedad]

What's silly about the current arrangements?

This lists the Speaker's roles and authorities, and some things ze is not allowed to do.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-108/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-108-35.pdf

[not guilty]

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the $5 million jury verdict against Donald Trump in favor of E. Jean Carroll. https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-793/23-793-2024-12-30.pdf?ts=1735572608

I may have more after I have read the 77 page opinion.

[not guilty]

Nothing earth shattering in the Court of Appeals opinion.

[Roger S]

It says Trump admitted crimes in the Access Hollywood. Bizarre, as it is a comedy routine. It only mentions consensual behavior.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A "comedy routine" is what they're calling it now? And you believe it...

[John F. Carr]

The "locker room talk" excuse is possible. Deciding whether it is true is how juries earn their pay.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Comedy routine" clearly implies it was done as a public performance; "locker room talk" would be more accurate in implying that it was done (or at least had been intended to be done) privately.

[Brett Bellmore]

Either way of looking at it ignores that he was marveling at the supposed fact that they'd consent to it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, as in most things, in the matter of consent to the digital penetration of women's genitals, Trump's grasp of reality is unquestionable.

Strange, though, how he really, really didn't want the jury to hear about all that "consenting"?

[M L]

The more I learn about H1B visas, the more I learn that it has nothing to do with talent or "skill" at all but is explicitly a program to get cheaper labor when Americans would be more expensive. There is a visa for attracting the "best and brightest" that is the O1 visa.

As someone who is an employer and owns US stocks perhaps I should favor that. Even if I didn't, perhaps I should favor it as part of a broad growth agenda or a view of what is best for the world as a whole. But that's obviously not the "MAGA" view of things which has a more specific focus on the individuals that may be displaced by these choices, and on maximizing the middle and working class wages of American citizens.

[Sarcastr0]

The more you learn, the more you reach the conclusion everyone knows you were already at.

O-1's need to be renewed every years. H-1Bs can be renewed for 3 years. H-1B has a lottery. O-1 has a much higher requirement for peer support/publication. H-1B's spouses are allowed to work while O-1's are not.
Different visas for different purposes.

If you look at the talent pool from other countries that come here, it's not wage undercutting shmoes. They tend to be very good at what they do. I'd also recommend the studies that compare the companies that take advantage of H-1B program and those that choose not to.

[apedad]

We can start with Trump's companies.

[David Nieporent]

Some spouses of H1B workers can work in the U.S. Most can't.

[M L]

Nobel Laureate discusses how mass immigration leads to lower wages & income inequality in the United States

https://x.com/NumbersUSA/status/1873789063817551900

[not guilty]

In the government's appeal as to Donald Trump's codefendants from the dismissal of the Florida indictment, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida has entered his notice of appearance in the Eleventh Circuit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.83.0.pdf Attorneys associated with the Special Counsel's office have moved to withdraw. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822/gov.uscourts.ca11.87822.84.0.pdf

In all likelihood the incoming DOJ will move to dismiss the appeal if the Court of Appeals has not ruled by then.

[SRG2]

Courtesy of ChatGPT:

A New Year’s Greeting in the Style of H.P. Lovecraft

As the fleeting hours of the mortal year wane and the veil of time is drawn aside, we find ourselves on the precipice of the unknown—a year uncharted and vast as the cyclopean gulfs of space. Dare we gaze into the abyss of what is to come? For within its swirling depths lie possibilities both wondrous and monstrous.

May your journey through this eldritch plane of existence be guided by fortitude and an unyielding mind, lest the shadows of dread overwhelm. As the stars align and the calendar turns, let us raise a trembling toast to the ineffable. For though the future may hold secrets that slumber in the crypts of eternity, it also beckons with the promise of revelations yet to be.

Beware, yet embrace, the mysteries that lurk beyond the threshold of January's dawning light. For in every shrouded moment of darkness lies the potential for light—and in every whisper of chaos, the seeds of a strange new order.

Ia! The New Year awakens!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Good one.

[Bwaaah]

A Happy New Year and well wishes from me to all y'alls. And if the Rev happens to look in, to him too.

[ThePublius]

Happy New Year! Let's hope 2025 is more relaxing, less intense than 2024.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, let's hope our skin doesn't appear too brown!