Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.boston.com/news/education/2024/12/18/students-overpaid-elite-colleges-685-million-price-fixing-suit-says/

Another price fixing suit.

[DixieTune]

It's very clear that the top schools all collude. If they didn't, the prices wouldn't be nearly identical, irrespective of where in the country they were located.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

But COLA is different in different parts of the country.
What they collude on is the increases in tuition fueld by Biden's stupid AID. Does the moron EVER look at studies.

"Bennett pointed out in 1987 that federal student aid had risen 57 percent since 1980, while inflation had been 26 percent. A 2020 study by the Congressional Budget Office brought the numbers up to date: “Between 1995 and 2017, the balance of outstanding federal student loan debt increased more than sevenfold, from $187 billion to $1.4 trillion (in 2017 dollars).”

A 2017 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the average tuition increase associated with expansion of student loans is as much as 60 cents per dollar. "

[DixieTune]

That's my point. The cost of housing and other services varies tremendously throughout the United States. The fact that Columbia, in NYC, and Stanford, in Palo Alto, two of the most expensive places in the United States, have roughly the same tuition as Duke, in a much lower cost of living area, is an example of that.

[jb]

What's your theory about how loan forgiveness years after the fact caused tuition to rise in the meantime? It makes sense that real-time aid as discussed in your paragraph would increase tuition, but Biden's forgiveness programs seem very different.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, obviously Biden's "stick it to people who paid off their loans or didn't go to college in the first place" program won't retroactively increase tuition. It would going forward if the courts hadn't kept ruling that he couldn't legally do it, because expectation of another forgiveness would encourage people to borrow more, and the universities typically charge every cent they think you could borrow.

[m2t8cjxbdu]

Google paid $195 a hour on the internet..my close relative has been without labor for nine months and the earlier month her compensation check was $23660 by working at home for 10 hours a day..

Here→→ https://da.gd/income6

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Where have you been!

[Dr. Ed 2]

and are we surprised that Team Hamas cheats?

https://freebeacon.com/israel/jewish-voice-for-peace-committed-fraud-to-obtain-six-figure-covid-relief-loan-doj-says/

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the Left is in global retreat:

https://freebeacon.com/israel/jewish-voice-for-peace-committed-fraud-to-obtain-six-figure-covid-relief-loan-doj-says/

[Michael P]

Why are so many of the vocal defenders of groomers getting caught with child porn or worse?

https://twitter.com/JoelWBerry/status/1879899504134267022

[Frank Drackman]

Still has 72 hours to get a pardon, oh wait, that’s only for Federal Crimes, I’m sure Pedio-files do well in California State prisons. Maybe Calvin New-Scum will help him out before his recall

[Brett Bellmore]

Why did you think they were defenders, anyway?

[Sarcastr0]

This appears to be a liberal political cartoonist.

Where’s the groomer defending?

[Michael P]

He drew a cartoon likening Nazis to people criticizing groomers. Do you deny that likening someone to a Nazi is normally a critique of their position?

Well, we knew you were a denialist...

[Sarcastr0]

Seems more anti MAGA to me.

But MAGA uses groomer for so many random things these days.

[Michael P]

He literally drew "GROOMER!" as the one word coming out of the mouth of the modern Nazi-equivalent.

You keep pushing your denialism harder and farther.

[Sarcastr0]

I see you missed the MAGA hat. And that MAGA called all Dems groomer for a while there.

I don’t know him, maybe he has a ton of cartoons about pedophilia being okay. But I doubt it. I think this is the best you got.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0's isolated demands for rigor now extend to specificity of reference in leftoid cartoonists' political output. Maybe Bell was just defending those OTHER groomers!

[bernard11]

Gee, Michael. Do you think it's just possible he is criticizing those who like to call everyone they dislike a groomer?

I guess not, since you're not very good at thinking.

[Michael P]

Nobody calls everyone they dislike a groomer, so your suggestion is that Bell was criticizing imaginary people. That is a common pastime on the left, but I didn't want to assume that was what he was doing.

[Sarcastr0]

Nobody calls everyone they dislike a groomer.

You didn't hear when MAGA was calling the Democratic Party the groomer party?

Of course you did; you were probably part of that mob.

[Riva]

Because Democrats favor polices that enable the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

In essence, Sarcastr0 is engaging in more projection. Democrats are the ones who resort to childish labels. And they love to project, like Marxists. Sarcastr0, Marxist or not, does like to ape their methods.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Because Democrats favor polices that enable the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. "
What policies would those be?

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Michael, I found a great example of what that cartoon was about!

[Michael P]

Having a clearly articulated reason to call people groomers does not turn the label against "everyone they dislike". Even when you're in that group and deny that the label fits.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva said all Democrats are groomers.

He's the guy in the cartoon.

You're being cagey about your position on this.

[Michael P]

We can read what Riva wrote. You are lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Me: "You didn't hear when MAGA was calling the Democratic Party the groomer party?"

Riva: "Because Democrats favor polices that enable the sexual abuse and exploitation of children."

Explain how this is not Riva saying Democrats are groomers.

[Michael P]

That says that Democrats favor policies conducive to grooming. That does not mean all Democrats are pedophiles. You are the one who keeps trying to force a broad reading of what others are saying.

This isn't rocket science, but maybe someone who thinks identifying and calling out groomer enablers is "a Nazi tactic" would find it similarly challenging.

[Sarcastr0]

You called me a pedophile.

You want to cry about how I called out your tactic as one Nazis use? Because Dems are only pedophile *enablers*?

Cry harder, asshole.

Or hey maybe it's time to do more math about theoretical lesbian firechief populations!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You called me a pedophile."
...
"Cry harder, asshole."

And before NG chimes in with his "hit dog hollers" crap, I'll jump in to say that would be completely unfair of NG to suggest that this reaction supports the idea that Sarcastro is a pedophile.

[Michael P]

I heard that, and the Democrats were supporting and defending child grooming. That's not what bernard said.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA is largely about owning the libs. So yeah, this is everyone they dislike.

Your argument has crumbled now that you reveal the cartoon was absolutely about you.

[Michael P]

No, you are just projecting and arguing against straw men, as per your usual.

[Sarcastr0]

'the Democrats were supporting and defending child grooming.'

This is you, proving the comic's take on MAGA using groomer accusations as cynical culture war politics was on the money.

[Michael P]

Sarcastr0 goes hard in defending a "groomer critics are Nazis" claim by a child porn collector. Curious.

[Sarcastr0]

You're calling half the country pedophiles. And intimating I am one specifically.

Yeah, that's a Nazi tactic. You are doing EXACTLY what the comic describes.

Also, fuck you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Sarcastr0, he was comparing MAGA people complaining about groomers to Nazis complaining about "youth corrupters".

The question was why somebody would want to attack criticism of groomers. And the child porn answered the question quite nicely.

"But MAGA uses groomer for so many random things these days."

Hm, what sort of things? Care to back that up?

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this is the shit.

Groomer being used both as a synonym for pedophile at the same time it's used to go after like drag story hour.

And then when this shifting definition is pointed out, you can go: "why are you defending pedophiles? Are YOU a pedophile??"

Yes, you have pointed out exactly my issue with Michael's post, Brett.

[DixieTune]

We use "groomer" generically to describe any liberal who supports and advocates for sexual deviance. That would be about 80% of you, of course.

[not guilty]

"We use 'groomer' generically to describe any liberal who supports and advocates for sexual deviance."

I see. Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty theory of advocacy. Through the Looking-Glass (1873).

[Reallynotbob]

Well put.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Groomer being used both as a synonym for pedophile at the same time it's used to go after like drag story hour."

Yeah, strange how people use the same term to describe different instances of the same thing.

"And then when this shifting definition is pointed out, you can go: "why are you defending pedophiles? Are YOU a pedophile??""

Funny complaint to make, when the point is, he did turn out to be one.

[Sarcastr0]

Drag story hour isn't pedophilia, fucko.

You want to say pedophile, that's a fine word to use.

When someone uses groomer instead, I presume they're deploying accusations of pedophilia for partisan purposes.

With all the corrosive effect that has on political discourse and legitimate efforts to combat pedophilia.

You're not breaking that mold.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm yeah, the need Transvestites feel to be around a bunch of grade school children isn't related to Pedofilia,
Funny how they don't have any of these events at Inner City Middle Schools, say in Oakland, Watts, or a place I have experience with, No-Fuck Vagina, probably because the "Story Teller" would get sent out in a box with his balls stuffed in his mouth, and something else up his ass.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like Frank said. You can tell yourself all day that transvestites going out of their way to be around young children has nothing to do with pedophilia, or attempting to encourage sexual deviance on the part of impressionable children. Maybe you'll actually convince yourself, don't expect to convince many other people.

[jb]

Wait, what about straight, cis people doing story hour? Or even becoming school teachers! They are also going out of their way to be around young children. Why aren't you concerned that they are also groomers?

[David Nieporent]

You can tell yourself all day that transvestites going out of their way to be around young children has nothing to do with pedophilia,

So according to you all elementary school teachers are pedophiles. Otherwise, why would they go out their way to be around young children?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't find drag queens sexy, or pedophilic.

Your argument that they are is...corruption of the youth and sexual deviance.

This is just puritanism and calling anyone who disagrees a pedo.

[Stella Link the dog]

Do you have good reason to believe that the average "transvestite" is more likely to be a pedophile than the average Boy Scout leader or Catholic priest?

[Brett Bellmore]

We're not talking about the 'average' transvestite, we're talking about transvestites who go out of their way to be around small children.

[Stella Link the dog]

"We're not talking about the 'average' transvestite, we're talking about transvestites who go out of their way to be around small children."

Do you have good reason to believe that the average "transvestite" who goes out of his or her way to be around small children is more likely to be a pedophile than the average Boy Scout leader, Catholic priest, or kindergarten teacher?

You have suggested that consumers of child pornography are pedophiles. Do you have good reason to believe that "transvestites" are more likely to be consumers of child pornography than are typical Libertarian party members?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure. Because they don't go out of their way to display sexual deviancy while doing it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Wait, what about straight, cis people doing story hour? Or even becoming school teachers! They are also going out of their way to be around young children. Why aren't you concerned that they are also groomers?"

Because the men aren't dressed like strippers.

[Sarcastr0]

sexual deviancy

Seems pretty nebulous.

IIRC you do the libertarian thing and want to make sure people don't mix up pedophilia and ephebophilia, eh? Does that make you a deviant?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because the men aren't dressed like strippers."

Right. That's the difference between a "cross dresser" and a "drag queen", remember: The latter don't just cross dress, they cross dress slutty.

I'd object to "Straight guy in g-string" story hour, too.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Have you guys seen Brett Bellmore's style of clothing?

I guarantee he's a pedophile. I also have it on good authority he's fucking Trump, doesn't pay his taxes, and drug-rapes his wife.

[Stella Link the dog]

Brettmore says "Sure. Because they don't go out of their way to display sexual deviancy while doing it." in support of the idea that "transvestites" are more likely to be pedophiles than Boy Scout leaders, Catholic priests, or Libertarian party members.

To clarify, are these "transvestites" that you are getting so emotionally excited about sexual deviants because they like to dress up or because you suspect that they engage in "deviant" activity? Whatever the answer to that one, what reason do you have to suspect that these "sexual deviants" may be more prone to be pedophiles than Boy Scout leaders, Catholic priests, kindergarten teachers or Libertarian party members?

Could you give us a list of sexual deviations that deviants of various sexual orientations might engage in so that we can be on the lookout for likely groomers and nascent pedophiles?

[Stella Link the dog]

I'm wondering what it means for a "transvestites" to "dress[] like strippers." Perhaos the experts will weigh in.

[Bob from Ohio]

"average Boy Scout leader or Catholic priest?"

Your side never never mentions school teachers but teachers and other school employees commit far more assaults than Boy Scout leaders or Catholic priests

These days, the Boy Scout leader or Catholic priest abuser is just a trope you use to bash groups you don't like.

[Stella Link the dog]

"These days, the Boy Scout leader or Catholic priest abuser is just a trope you use to bash groups you don't like."

Hey, some of my best friends are Boy Scout leaders and Catholic priests.

And as usual, Pike County Bob, you miss the point.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I guarantee he's a pedophile. I also have it on good authority he's fucking Trump, doesn't pay his taxes, and drug-rapes his wife."

I'm naked under all this clothing, too. 😉

[Riva]

"So according to you all elementary school teachers are pedophiles. Otherwise, why would they go out their way to be around young children?" No crazy Dave, those would be found among the transvestite population.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 1 day ago

"You can tell yourself all day that transvestites going out of their way to be around young children has nothing to do with pedophilia,

So according to you all elementary school teachers are pedophiles. Otherwise, why would they go out their way to be around young children?"

DN - that is not what he wrote,
Though typical dishonesty from a leftist

[David Nieporent]

DN - that is not what he wrote,
Though typical dishonesty from a leftist

I'm sorry you can't handle a simple syllogism, and also don't understand what "leftist" means.

[Riva]

A fat slob man fulfilling his sexual fantasies by dressing up as a woman before a group of young children? And “dance”performances by the deviants in their g-strings? Yeah, perfectly normal, even wholesome.

[David Nieporent]

A fat slob man fulfilling his sexual fantasies by dressing up as a woman before a group of young children?

For some inexplicable reason, the Rivabot is programmed to call anyone it dislikes "fat."

And if you see someone reading a book to kids and think "sexual fantasy," then the problem lies with you.

[Swede425]

LOL!
"ACKSHUALLY drag and pedos AREN'T the same thing!"
OK, groomer.

[Stella Link the dog]

"drag and pedos AREN'T the same thing!"

Are they?

[Stella Link the dog]

Bellmore: "I'd object to "Straight guy in g-string" story hour, too."

You've seen examples of "transvestites" doing drag queen story hour while in g-strings? If so, you patronize places that I don't.

[Reallynotbob]

How about "straight guy in a frock" story hour? That's called Sunday Mass.

And empirically more likely to involve pedophilia than Drag Story Hour.

[Stella Link the dog]

"That's called Sunday Mass."
That's an event I've never witnessed. God and I have an arrangement: I stay out of his house, he stays out of mine.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. here, for example.

[bernard11]

i>The question was why somebody would want to attack criticism of groomers.

Because some or all of the criticism will be unjustified, and could have serious negative consequences for the recipient.

ISTM that if you are going to criticize someone you need to be damn sure you're right, I mean with good evidence and everything, not just some vague BS or a manufactured rumor spread by assholes. And you certainly shouldn't direct it at entire groups.

Why should you be extremely careful? Because, unless you are talking about United Groomers of America, you are not going to have a group unanimous in its groomerhood.

[Life of Brian]

Seems more anti MAGA to me.

I'd imagine it seemed that way because you, like me, were not familiar with the German word "jugendverderber" on the right-hand side of the split. But I took a few seconds to look it up.

Third hit was this explainer from, coincidentally, another lefty cartoonist who felt the need to parallel Nazi Germany tactics with present-day Republican ones. Key quote:

“…the stereotype of the “homosexual” as “effeminate and degenerate,” “depraved,” and “corrupt” became the unifying view of the “homosexual personality” and a focus for homophobic hostility. So too did another common stereotype, that of the “seducer” and “corrupter” of youth (Jugendverführer and Jugendverderber), a uniquely dangerous figure who lured “normal” young men into depravity and thus spread the “epidemic” of homosexuality… in helping to marginalize the sexual within the movement’s masculine fraternal order, homophobia played a key role in stabilizing the National Socialist regime.”

With that bit of background, I think the message in Berry's cartoon is crystal-clear.

[Magister]

"MAGA uses homophobia the way Nazis used it to stabilize their regime" seems exactly an anti-MAGA message.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe reread the thread. Sarc posited that as an alternative to "likening Nazis to people criticizing groomers."

[Magister]

Except it wasn't "people criticizing groomers", it was MAGA people, using the Nazi playbook there as in so many other ways.

[hobie]

It's MichaelP. We all know his links are always in discord with his assertions

[SimonP]

We can ask the same of many vocal attackers of "groomers."

[bernard11]

Do you have any actual data to support your claim, or are you just generalizing form one case?

Do you have the slightest grasp of logic?

No. Of course not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is it a good idea for Congress to let Trump set up an External Revenue Department?

[Frank Drackman]

It’s more like a Government Insurance Agency, “Senor Panama, nice little Canal you have here, be terrible if anything happened to it” and why do we let immigration attorneys get rich off the poe? Charge every Immigrant a monthly fee, Gyms do it.

Frank

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Excellent idea because as my friend (former IRS seizure agent) said, the mainstream workers at IRS HATE the upper folks.
Look up LOIS LERNER

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Surely, some existing government department is already charged with the responsibility for collecting tariffs?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sure. U.S. Customs, I think, has that responsibility. But why isn't that good enough for Trump?

I speculate that there are processes and regulations already in use which Trump would have to change before he could take unfettered control of the money. If Trump sets up his own tariff collection agency he can staff it from scratch with loyalists, proclaim whatever regulations he wants, and dispose of the money however he pleases without any say-so by Congress.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What are the pros and cons of letting insurance companies deploy private fire fighting companies during urban wild fires? If residents are forced to evacuate a neighborhood, and subsequently denied reentry, on what basis does a private firefighting company enjoy a right of access?

[Frank Drackman]

You’re right, leave it to the Pubic Fire Departments, Rome burned and things worked out OK

[Dr. Ed 2]

We used to have volunteer auxiliary departments.
But half the fire trucks don't run and the Chief is championing diversity over mechanics?

[Brett Bellmore]

The obvious pros are,
1, Some houses don't burn down.
2, And thus, don't contribute fuel to keep the fire going.

I can't off hand see any cons.

Now, do you want to discuss the pros and cons of allowing people to build their houses out of fire resistant materials?

[Frank Drackman]

Asbestos Houses sounds pretty good right now, you can worry about the Mesothelioma later.

[Brett Bellmore]

When we were house shopping about a decade ago, we had to pass up a rather nice house, on account of the asbestos ceiling tiles in the basement. The cost of removing them would have put the house out of our reach.

But concrete and tile are a bit safer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Depending on the state, encapsulation is now approved (and often recommended for both lead-based paint and asbestos.

You often make a bigger mess removing them.

[Mr. Bumble]

Edison's concrete homes?
https://concretehomes.com/inspiration/thomas-edison-concrete-houses/

[Brett Bellmore]

That model looks suspiciously similar to a home not terribly far from here, in an old neighborhood. I wonder?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not likely in NC but anything is possible. Most of the homes that were built were in NJ where Edison's Portland Cement Company was located and in Gary, Indiana (I think US Steel built them with the idea of a company town).
Never caught on because of the number of molds required.
Edison could not make a go of the company but it's last hurrah was supplying the concrete for the original Yankee Stadium in 1922.

[Brett Bellmore]

SC, but that was my expectation. I suppose the Edison model just reflected a popular style at the time.

I've been considering retiring to the Philippines, where labor is cheap and concrete homes are quite common. I bet I could have one built that looks just like that model!

[DixieTune]

Do you speak Tagalog?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not much, I picked up a few words from my wife, chiefly terms like "Samok!". (No, she used it on our son.) But almost everybody in the Philippines speaks English these days, I had no trouble last summer on my scuba vacation.

[DixieTune]

Good to know. I'd like to do a southeast Asia trip and make that one of my stops.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't say I've been to the rest of Southeast Asia, but the Philippines do make for a fun visit. I just recommend getting out of Manila ASAP if you fly in by way of that city; It's just a city, nothing really special if you ask me.

Though I can't praise the Manila Savoy enough; We stayed there overnight on the way home, it is luxurious, affordable, and an easy walk from the Manila domestic arrival. Plan on taking a taxi to and from the international terminal.

We flew to El Nido for the scuba, and did our stay at the Submariner Dive Center, which is combined with an OK hotel and nice cafe right on the beach where the dive boat departs. Sunset from their cafe is incredible, and the scenery you're diving around is amazing. El Nido itself is... Well, it's a third world tourist town, if you've been to one. Crowded and smelly, but lots of tiny diners with amazing food.

Oh, if you time things right, you can fly into Manila and out on a local commuter to someplace like El Nido the same day, but doing the reverse seems to be hard to arrange.

If you want scenery on land, not to see from a boat, I suggest Camiguan island near Cagayan de Oro. There are nice beaches there, but plenty of inland stuff to see, too.

But, really, there are a lot of nice tourist destinations in the Philippines, that's just some I have personal experience with.

[Life of Brian]

These days, 3D printed concrete seems to be coming into its own. Some of the earlier efforts I saw a few years ago were fairly underwhelming, but these folks are doing some pretty sharp looking (and, from what I can tell, reasonably cost-effective) work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Flexcore was popular after WWII but does NOT meet code today.

It was only intended to be temporary, anyway.

[David Nieporent]

You can't see any cons? How about getting in the way of other firefighters, or using resources that other firefighters might need? Fighting wildfires (as opposed to ordinary firefighting) involves an overall strategy, not just protecting one particular building.

Now, I don't have any idea how those things might balance out. But to say that you can't even see those things says a lot about you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Regular firefighters get in the way of other firefighters.

[Reallynotbob]

To be fair, they can't see any cons with private school vouchers either. It's a general blind spot for investing in municipal resources, not a specific one.

[Moderation4ever]

Even in evacuated areas certain members of the public are allowed access. News crews or utility workers for example. What has to be established is the private workers have a purpose, they do not interfere with regular firefighting crews and there is clear understanding they are working in the area at their own risk. As for the pros, they are extra help that is privately paid.

[Frank Drackman]

Always love the Weather reporters out on the beach as the Hurricane approaches blathering about how everyone needs to evacuate or they'll die, except for them of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

My favorite is when the weatherman is making a big show about how awful it is, and somebody walks by in the background walking their dog.

[Bwaaah]

WNYC public radio studios in New York apparently lacked any windows as they provided 24 hour live, moment-to-moment coverage of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The giant storm came through New York, pummeling the city for hours, and then began to move away. As the milder trailing winds tapered down, WNYC advised listeners to stay tuned with them as "we await the storm making landfall."

It was a case of the clueless leading the clueless. Many of my neighbors would sooner look at CNN's take on a hurricane than look out the window and see what's going on out there.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Because some people are more equal than others....

There is no justification for this -- and the pros should be there officially under mutual aid rules.

[Absaroka]

Right.

I used to have fire extinguishers around the house, but then it turned out some of my neighbors hadn't spent the money to have fire extinguishers, so I had to get rid of them.

I was about to spend money on doing earthquake reinforcements, but some of my neighbors wanted to spend an equivalent amount on a trip to Disney, so I dropped that idea.

One of my neighbors wanted to hire a company to trim back the brush on their property as a fire precaution, but the rest of us preferred to spend the money on newer cars, and we couldn't have them having something everyone didn't have, so we made them stop.

Equality FTW!

[Bwaaah]

Uncharacteristically snarky of you. Don't turn pissy and facetious like me. Your reasonable, modest voice is a strong contender here in VC discussions. (In particular, you have an unusually strong tendency to avoid unsupported overreach.)

Keep it up.

[Absaroka]

In a less snarky vein, I don't think this is necessarily a case of the uber rich dumping on the poors. Our house is slightly over the local median, and our (retired) income a little less than median, and our insurance is USAA, which isn't something available only to the jet set. And we got a letter from them a few years ago saying 'FYI, we have contracted with Acme Structure Protection. In the event of a wildfire, people from Acme may show up to do various fire fighting things - spray gel, trim brush, extinguish spot fires, whatever. We just want you to know so you won't be surprised if they show up'.

It's not something we pay extra for. Our premiums are competitive with other companies. It's not a guarantee that an elite team of smokejumpers will parachute in to save our house. It's an insurance company trying to minimize their payouts.

FWIW, I'm happy to pay stiff taxes to provide better emergency services to everyone. When public safety bond issues come up, I vote for them. But they don't always pass; my fellow voters have their own priorities.

[DixieTune]

The real problem is that, if your municipality is anything like the ones I've lived in, 60-80% of the budget goes to wasteful school spending and other crap. But the first things they claim will have to be cut are police, fire, and library hours. It's a way of guilting people

[Brett Bellmore]

Notorious as the Washington Monument syndrome: Highly public and popular spending is always the first to be cut, to persuade the public to agree to tax increases to avert the cuts.

[DixieTune]

And even among the popular categories, like the fire department, they always propose to cut rank and file firefighters or close obviously needed stations. They never propose to cut $200,000 a year administrators who haven't held a fire hose in 15 years.

[jb]

The alternative explanation is, of course, the voters get more annoyed when they cut school spending than those other things. Politicians respond to political incentives after all.

[DixieTune]

If that were the case, they would lead with cutting school spending.

[jb]

Or it just turns out most voters don't agree with you on this topic.

[DixieTune]

I don't think you're understanding my argument. My thesis is that they claim that the things they'll have to cut, if a spending increase isn't approved, are the MOST popular things. That way, when the people get upset by the prospect of that, they back down from their opposition on spending increases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My issue is the off-duty local firefighters doing it -- the principle of mutual aid is that you send all you have downrange and the department behind you sends everything it has to cover you, with them being covered by the department behind them -- to the point where it is spread out enough where you can both cover your own town AND send crews downrange.

Hence there shouldn't BE available off-duty firefighters in the area.

It's like the military -- the base is under attack and you're going to have off-duty folks escorting the news media through the battle zone?

[Absaroka]

Well, if I was LAFD and called in an off duty firefighter and he replied 'sorry, working my private firefighting gig', then I'd fire them[1].

But I don't think that's always the case: "MacKenzie said Capstone is made up largely of retired firefighters and younger employees trying to gain the experience they need to be hired by a fire service. During the off-season, they visit insurers’ customers and give them tips on how to fire-harden their properties."

That's from this article, which strikes me as a pretty balanced discussion.

[1]Like with any job. I was a computer nerd. I got 2AM 'the mainframe is down' calls all the time. If I said 'sorry, not in the mood' I wouldn't expect to have a job in the morning.

[Absaroka]

A little further musing: I linked to an earlier article where that said one company had been very (99%??) successful at saving houses with a quick gel spray, remove ignition hazards (e.g. move patio furniture away), and what have you strategy.

That's not really expensive. The gel might cost $500 retail (obviously plus/minus depending on house/adjacent shrubbery/yadda). An individual can dispense the gel with a garden hose attachment, but slowly and with limited reach. If you spend a few hundred to couple thousand on higher powered dispensers (think pressure washer/fire pump) you can do it a lot faster.

I'd wager almost anyone would be happy to pay $500 for a 98% chance of saving the house. Probably lots of people would also be willing to spend another $1000 on a pump, especially if a few neighbors could chip in and share.

It is a little problematic for an individual to do, though. Depending on whose marketing you believe, plus wind and humidity, the gel might only last 4 to 6 hours before it dries out. It's not like Harry Homeowner can spray it and evacuate in a timely manner; you have to wait until the fire is kinda close for comfort to apply it. If it does start to dry, you can re-wet it. Dunno how many times.

So I don't think you want homeowners waiting around to spray gel and then do a just in time evacuation. OTOH, doing that kind of stuff can, I think, be safely done by fairly unskilled people with some skilled leadership. Decades ago I did a little firefighting for the USFS, and I sure wasn't the guy assessing the fire behavior and deciding when to GTFO. We were a crew of maybe 30 kids with a USFS pro in charge; all I knew was how to run a fire rake. The FS guy did all the thinking. But a team of 30 healthy kids could build a lot of line in a hurry.

So I think there are pretty strong arguments for having the capability to do that kind of last minute fire hardening. You want some pros around to pass the word ... 'everyone boogie to the soccer field now', 'you need some more goop on that roof', and 'toss that stack of firewood over there'. I don't think any municipality is going to staff to the level you need to do that on a widespread basis. For profit teams are an option - you could have people from multiple states deploying in a hurry as needed. Volunteer teams are an option if you make the right arrangements ahead of time. Pay college students like me (win-win!) in the day.

But 'under no circumstances do anything that doesn't involve full time municipal employees' seems ... quite unduly limiting.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, fire fighting militias?

[Sarcastr0]

m oved

[Absaroka]

Sure. I think it's really sad that 'militia' has come to mean a safe full of guns. What about first aid, ham radio[1], bad road capable trucks[2], firefighting, SAR[1], and what have you.

[1]In fairness, the ham radio and search and rescue folks do a pretty good job of being useful in emergencies
[2]as in, why not give surplus army trucks and humvees to motorheads who will agree to maintain them and show up ready to roll when needed.

[Stella Link the dog]

" why not give surplus army trucks and humvees to motorheads who will agree to maintain them and show up ready to roll when needed.{?}"

A pleasing idea but maintaining these vehicles so that they can be used in the rare (we should hope) disasters is a high cost, likely low benefit proposition. We have organizations dedicated to these tasks and they don't keep up. Perhaps the better solution would be to properly equip and finance dedicated emergency services, national guard, volunteer organizations, etc.

[Absaroka]

Just to be clear, I wasn't proposing providing old humvees to enthusiasts and maintaining them for the recipients. I was proposing that instead of melting them down, give them out on indefinite loan to people who promise to do the maintenance and have them on call when needed. I wouldn't give them any support other than perhaps spare parts if there is a warehouse full you are going to pay to dispose.

Some would do it just for grins, like the guys who fix up '57 Chevys. Some would have a a use - we have a couple of rural neighbors who have gotten them on their own and use them (deuce and a halfs) to haul water. Etc, etc.

There was a yuuuge need for such vehicles after Katrina, and I bet a couple hundred would be pretty useful in NC over the last few months. It would beat throwing them away.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, actually at the height of the militia movement, back in the early 90's, most of the rural militia DID do that sort of thing.

[bernard11]

You mean, when they weren't blowing up government buildings?

[SRG2]

In London insurance companies had their own private firefighting teams and would had out metal plaques to their customers to place on the walls of their houses so that the teams would know which house was "theirs".

[Dr. Ed 2]

That was true in Colonial America -- with rival teams trying to prevent the team from doing so. Mote fistfights than firefighting.

That's why Ben Franklin said that if you wish to fight fires, you will be on the municipal team

[Mr. Bumble]

...as did certain cities in colonial America.

[Sarcastr0]

They had an incentive to get there fast.
They also had an incentive to sabotage competition.
They also often ended up getting in fights.

It's a great bit of trivia, and a great argument not to privatize firefighting.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

The question resolves into "Do i want my home and family safe from destruction" or would I like to get my hands on that scrumptous bountiful $770 Biden saved from the mega-billinos sent to Ukraine.
Sure made the difference in the horrible Hawaii fires, that overflowingly generous $770 .

Some will say "that is was not all that was given" but that IS MY POINT !!! To say, hey person with a burned-down home there's hope, here is $770 is heartlessly shitty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Over half the fire trucks were broken, they didn't hold over the shift, but they are LESBIAN-led.

I know some (small "l") lesbians who would have instead done their jobs -- and prioritized their jobs...

[MoreCurious]

Please explain why you posted this comment about lesbians. Why does a person's sexual orientation matter, whether that person is firefighter or something else? And what's the difference between a LESBIAN and a lesbian?

[David Nieporent]

Some will say "that is was not all that was given" but that IS MY POINT !!! To say, hey person with a burned-down home there's hope, here is $770 is heartlessly shitty.

Yes, this exact bit of stupidity came up with respect to the Hawaii fires a couple of years ago. That's how federal law works. It authorizes a small initial payment to people on an emergency basis with virtually no documentation required. Later, when the situation is no longer emergent, FEMA programs will allow additional resources to help businesses and individuals with bigger needs.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
If such fire fighting teams are deployed subject to the authority and control of the public fire authorities, then I see no problem. They would be like any other volunteers, just like public firefighters from other jurisdictions who have no legal authority in the are in which they are volunteered.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Do you suppose local authorities will be empowered to commandeer insurance company fire fighting crews, and tell them which structures to bypass, and which structures to protect?

Do you think priorities about where to deploy fire fighting effort and resources will be alike for government fire crews and insurance company fire crews?

If insurance company fire crews are given free rein, will actuaries, or public policy, determine in what order insurance companies deploy their necessarily limited resources? If so, should insurance companies remain at liberty to charge all their insureds for services that only some of them will reasonably be privileged to receive?

More generally, if it is bad policy to let a building owner wait to buy an insurance policy until his building is on fire, why is it good policy to let an insurance company wait to see what catches fire before delivering a product that all the insureds have paid for?

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
I told you at the outset, it external firefights come on the scene, they have to be under the command of the governmental fire authorities. Nobody gets "free rein"; that is a prescription for tragedy.
Governments should NOT be expecting mercenary forces. They ought to plan adequately in advance. Unfortunately The state and local officials in California did no such thing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, do you really believe firefighters paid for by insurance companies are not tasked to prioritize customers' property?

[bernard11]

In addition to the reasons others have given, it's probably a good idea to minimize the number of rescues needed when people stay, and then change their minds when things get really dicey.

[Kazinski]

What's this "letting" stuff?

I thought this was a free country.

A lot of places are served by volunteer fire departments, which are usually corporations, and often will not save homes where the owners refuse to pay dues.

What's the difference?

[Brett Bellmore]

It hasn't been a free country for a while now, and especially in California.

[ducksalad]

Not relevant to the discussion, but JFTR the VFDs I've dealt with went out of their way to assure us that (a) it was a donation, not dues, and (b) they would absolutely make no distinction between those who donated and those who didn't when they got a call.

[Commenter_XY]

MAGA-mesis (MAGA + emesis) has begun; the Deep State forced to vomit out it's members. 🙂

Rep Turner 'fired' as House Intelligence committee chairman.
State Dept has three senior admin personnel removed.
Defense department has seen several reassignments in Pentagon.
Monday 12:01pm, the entire current NatSec support team to be fired, replaced with a slimmed down team.
I anticipate many departures at DOJ, FBI; start with Mary McCord.

Only 999,990 DC-based DOGE-worthy bureaucrats to go, or more. This is going to be something to behold.

[Frank Drackman]

I’d rather have public executions (after fair trials of course)

[Dr. Ed 2]

No.

Just get the problem people OUT -- give them the pension to expedite this.

[Bwaaah]

Skip the retribution? That's uncharacteristically pragmatic of you. Nice!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

One would think that Jews in particular would avoid celebrating the installation of authoritarian loyalists in a government.

Then again, you are an idiot. You deserve what’s coming.

[bernard11]

Do you just think we shouldn't have a federal government at all?

Do you think Donald Trump and his crew have any idea which civil servants are competent, where "competent" does not mean being a Trump loyalist.

Do you want to fire 1 million people based on nothing more than your own ill-informed ideas about they do?

WTF is wrong with you?

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11, may I remind you that elections have consequences.

You are going to see changes you won't like. We are plagued with a bloated DC bureaucracy that is completely disconnected attitudinally and behaviorally from taxpayers and voters. It doesn't matter if you agree with that proposition or not, the people who got elected (e.g. Pres Trump and his extended team) do believe that and are acting upon it. I expect far fewer DC-based bureaucrats (by the time Pres Trump leaves office). How? Just 'algorithmically AI' them out of existence and eliminate their position. I personally advocate natural attrition, and no replacements of those who leave. This is actually what happens in private industry; technology destroys some jobs, creates new ones.

I'd call 1MM a rather low number, but could be increased by looking outside DC for more bureaucrats to cut. The focus of my attention would be DC, though. That is where the problem is.

My thought is in ~3 years, real estate in Northern Va will be attractively priced, from more selling. Start saving cash now (still attractive ST rates).

[Sarcastr0]

As he said, you don’t know any details. You have provided no information about what these millions actually do.

Just number go down.

Like a child having a tantrum.

[Mr. Bumble]

C-XY.
Maybe a start would be looking at all of those jobs deemed non-essential during the Covid disruptions and various government shut downs.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ommenter_XY — If you were making the staffing policy back in the days of the spoils system, would you have decreed that all the employees in the various U.S. mints be replaced with political cronies at the President's say-so?

[darkknight9]

"The 73rd Yokozuna, Terunofuji (real name Suginomori Masayama, Isegahama stable) has retired and recognized the elder Terunofuji."

We will miss his dominating style!
https://x.com/sumokyokai/status/1880042462758281453

[Frank Drackman]

Is he a big hitter like the Llama?

[Don Nico]

That is a shame. Unfortunately, he has been plagued by injuries, but he was a powerful competitor.
Of the present Ozeki, I think that Horshoyu has the best chance of promotion.

[darkknight9]

Agreed. Koto has imploded during this basho and Onosato is having an adjustment sophomore slump...
Hoss is well on his way...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Is there any general explanation for Trump's unusual number of absurdly unqualified cabinet picks?

[Commenter_XY]

Unqualified...like this Biden admin official, right? 🙂

https://nypost.com/2022/12/12/non-binary-biden-nuclear-official-sam-brinton-fired-after-multiple-luggage-theft-charges-reports/

[SRG2]

And the Holy Sacrament of Whatabout is presented to us yet again.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Obviously this wasn’t actually a counter example, but Stephen Lathrop’s framing did invite a comparison.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Which cabinet appointment was he tapped for again?

[bernard11]

Stop being an idiot. This is not Euclidean geometry. One counterexample does not refute a general proposition.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s not a counterexample!

[bernard11]

All the worse for XY's argument.

[Frank Drackman]

I’d draw you a picture but the only things you’d understand would put me in jail, is there even one one who’s at the level of Fuck-up-ed-ness as Mayor Dork-Ass, Merit-less Garland, Pete Booty-Judge, who am I leaving out? Oh yeah, Winkin Blinkin and Nod, and “where is he?” Lloyd Austin (Lloyd Christmas or Austin Powers would be better)

[Brett Bellmore]

That it's his political foes evaluating them as absurdly unqualified?

[bernard11]

A reasonable point, Brett, but it's also true that those raving about the wondrous, magical, appointments are hardly unbiased either.

There have always been underqualified, politically based, nominees. Postmaster General used to be the spot to put unqualified cronies and political operatives, with no regard for whether the nominee even knew where the nearest post office was.

But the really important ones, Defense, Treasury, State, Justice , are where the money is. So far he seems to have one disaster - Hegseth - one "well OK" - Rubio - one dubious - Bondi - and one normal - Bessent.

[VinniUSMC]

Absurdly unqualified, says the failure.

[SRG2]

Yes. Trump picks celebrity over qualifications because he's a star-fucker, and the authoritarian clowns who support him fall into the really really stupid trap of thinking that if someone qualified fails, the solution is to bring in someone unqualified, rather than to do a better job of bringing in qualified people.

[Frank Drackman]

What was Pete Booty-Judge qualified for other than (Redacted) his Husband Jizz up the (Redacted)??

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Even WaPo disagrees with you. So I will let you deal with that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unqualified but competent, honest, & loyal beats swamp creature every time. What were the qualifications of Washington's cabinet?

[David Nieporent]

Is there any general explanation for Trump's unusual number of absurdly unqualified cabinet picks?

Trump doesn't care about competence or governance, and isn't smart enough to figure out who's qualified and who isn't anyway.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The people who are smart enough to be good cabinet secretaries are also smart enough to look at the people who worked with Trump last time and realize that signing up might not be the best idea.

[Kazinski]

Looks like everyone except Gaetz, who had the good sense to drop out early, is going to get confirmed.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It does.

What’s your point?

[DaveM]

Is there any general explanation for Trump's unusual number of absurdly unqualified cabinet picks?

Sure, this could be fun. Let's try! But first, some clarifications:

- You are looking only for explanations of the "unusual" number of unqualified cabinet picks. What is the usual number?
- You are looking for "absurdly unqualified" picks. How can we distinguish these from plain, ordinary unqualified picks?

You haven't quite risen to the level of "have you stopped beating your wife yet". Do better.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DaveM — A cabinet pick the like of which the Senate has never previously endorsed is a reasonable standard for ridiculously unqualified. As is the notion that it is okay to put in overall charge of the Defense Department a loon with character flaws which would disqualify from Senate confirmation any of the subordinates said loon was to be in charge of superintending.

[David Nieporent]

- You are looking for "absurdly unqualified" picks. How can we distinguish these from plain, ordinary unqualified picks?

The ones that are plain, ordinary unqualified are the ones whose names one hears and says, "Come on, that's a terrible choice." The absurdly unqualified ones are the ones whose names one hears and says, "Are you fucking kidding me? You're just trolling, right?"

[Mr. Bumble]

Humor us. Are any of his choices qualified in you not humble opinion?

[David Nieporent]

Sure. Some of them are quite normal: Rubio, Bondi, Burgum, Stefanik. (By "normal" I mean the sorts of people any GOP president might nominate. Not saying they'd necessarily be my first choices, but they fall comfortably under the "President is generally entitled to his choices" category.) That's not a comprehensive list; those are just the ones that come to immediate mind.

That's in contrast to utterly unqualified and/or batshit like Hegseth, Gaetz, Gabbard, and of course RFKJ.

[darkknight9]

Eugene, as someone who seems interested in the sealing of cases, do you think the Minnesota Clean Slate Act will withstand scrutiny?

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/criminal-convictions-sealed-for-estimated-500000-criminal-cases

"The Minnesota Clean Slate Act took effect Jan. 1 after state lawmakers approved it in 2023.

Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or non-violent felony will have their criminal record sealed from the public.

State Rep. Jamie Long (DFL-Minneapolis) co-authored the bill, which is now law. He told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS it gives people a fair shake after serving their time and remaining crime-free for anywhere between two to five years depending on the offense.

“Most of these are for minor offenses that they might have committed when they were younger. But, those often stick with them for a long time and can provide barriers to getting housing, or employment and education,” said Long.

Rick Hodsdon, general counsel for the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, told KSTP the law is well intended but is too broad and has flaws.

For example, Hodsdon said, someone could be charged with a child sex offense but plea bargain to a lesser charge which includes registering as a sexual predator. In that situation, Hodsdon said, the law would seal those records.

“And that’s just, you know, that’s the most blatant, troubling example,” said Hodsdon.

And, he said some felonies are a little bit tricky to classify as non-violent.

“How about the delivery of firearms to juveniles?” Hodsdon asked. “That’s not classified as a violent offense, but it is a very serious crime which the public will no longer see.”

Rep. Long said the state will expunge these records and the people who’ve committed the crimes are not obligated to do anything to make it happen."

[Michael P]

The article, and the earlier one linked to within it, use both "sealing" and "expungement" (or forms thereof) in describing what this law does. I understood those to be different: sealing simply hid the records from public disclosure but could be overridden for particular purposes or by court order, but expungement was more complete and could not be undone. Is my understanding incorrect? Or is there more nuance in what this law does?

[darkknight9]

It (to me) appears to be expungement lite, a sealing and expungement except to certain arms of the state of MN. So a background check could still see it, but you and I could not.

I am willing and able to be corrected on this (I was kind of hoping that if I was wrong/mislead that someone would correct me on it) 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Hm. I wonder: Could a private company record these public records, and add to their own local copy any new ones, and make the data available to the public for a minor fee, without doing any sealing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's pretty much what's happening in Massachusetts -- CORI seals all convictions so there are paid persons sent to the local courthouses pulling the arrest records (i.e. case files).

[John F. Carr]

That's similar to what a credit reporting agency does. There are limits on what credit reporting agencies are allowed to report.

[Michael P]

Sure, but it's dissimilar too: the things that credit reporting agencies report were not originally public records.

[John F. Carr]

Credit reporting agencies report both public records and private records. There are rules about how long bankruptcies "stay on your credit report."

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, that "It'll go on your permanent record!" kept me in line until about 7th grade when I realized it was Bullshit, and I don't know, I'd sort of like to know if Dante' the "Caregiver" used to deliver firearms to juveniles, or shoplifts, or has 67 DUI's, maybe be like Frank and don't deliver firearms to juveniles (do Daughters count? and it was more like "gave" than "delivered") and OK, who hasn't shoplifted? WHEN THEY WERE 13!?!?!?! Jeez, now I'm shouting like Dr. Ed, just don't get caught, and 1 DUI is OK (be honest, who has never, I mean NEVER (Dr Ed again) NEVER EVER driven after having a few drinks? I'll even let 2 DUI's have a break, but after that, you're a potential Ted Kennedy, and should be a life sentence (Love when they Re-Revoke some slobs license for driving on an already Revoked license, it's like Dean Wormer and his Double Secret Probation)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Forgiving Frank.

You never know what you'll get here on VC. It's as if he has a mind of his own.

[David Nieporent]

For example, Hodsdon said, someone could be charged with a child sex offense but plea bargain to a lesser charge which includes registering as a sexual predator. In that situation, Hodsdon said, the law would seal those records.

Yes, we don't treat people "charged with" crimes as if they committed those crimes. This makes law enforcement sad.

There's a simple solution to this "example": if you can prove someone committed a child sex offense, prosecute him for that. If you can't, stop pretending that he's guilty.

[Noscitur a sociis]

As I suspect you probably know, it’s not uncommon to allow someone to plead guilty to a lesser offense while admitting their factual guilt of a higher-level one, particularly when that higher one carries significant mandatory penalties and onerous collateral consequences. We could stop doing that, of course, but I would imagine that the offenders who benefit from these discretionary acts of mercy would rather continue to have access to it, even if it meant that their convictions would be publicly accessible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"As I suspect you probably know, it’s not uncommon to allow someone to plead guilty to a lesser offense while admitting their factual guilt of a higher-level one, particularly when that higher one carries significant mandatory penalties and onerous collateral consequences."

Hey, I have an idea! If we want to give lesser punishments to people who have committed more serious crimes, why don't we just allow the lesser punishment for the more serious crime? Then nobody's confused about who did what.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor or non-violent felony will have their criminal record sealed from the public."

Hiding information from people is terrible policy. If we want people to hire people with criminal records, we should convince people to hire people with criminal records.

[Commenter_XY]

The CNN defamation trial is about to go to the jury.

Does Zachary Young win his case, and does CNN get popped for 1B?

Could CNN even afford a 1B judgment?
Are CNN staff held personally liable in defamation cases?

[Michael P]

The coverage I've seen makes it sound like a decision in favor of Young is almost certain. I don't see how he could justify a $1B award, though. I have not followed all the details, but I can't imagine that his ordinary damages run to nine figures, which I think would be necessary to support ordinary+punitive reaching $1B.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he values his reputation more than you do yours? I’d take the approach Mark Antony did with Cicero.

[Michael P]

He can value his reputation as much as he likes, but that won't drive damages very high. The usual way to show reputational damages is by lost income. How much was this guy making per year at his peak? Did he have a plausible likelihood of that going up a lot?

[Mr. Bumble]

Explain the $150 million judgement against Rudy? (I understand a deal has been worked out to resolve that.)

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man, those 2 (Redacteds) goin' be Tick-Tock Stars! Like with Rodney King and Biggie smalls, I don't expect them to reach the average Black life expectancy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The term "morbid obesity" comes to mind...

[Frank Drackman]

It’s why it’s not called “Benign” Obesity

[Michael P]

From CNN: "Freeman and Moss were awarded more than $16 million each for defamation, $20 million each for emotional distress and $75 million total in punitive damages".

Young is one person, so he might get half as much as those two plaintiffs got -- a long way from a billion dollars. The Giuliani award was also under appeal and might have been reduced, but that case settled yesterday for a so-far undisclosed amount. And that was a pretty anomalous award, not a typical defamation case.

[Commenter_XY]

This is what Guiliani wrote yeaterday....

I have reached a resolution of the litigation with the Plaintiffs that will result in a satisfaction of the Plaintiffs’ judgment. This resolution does not involve an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the Parties. I am satisfied with and have no grievances relating to the result we have reached. I have been able to retain my New York coop and Florida Condominium and all of my personal belongings. No one deserves to be subjected to threats, harassment, or intimidation. This litigation has taken its toll on all parties. This whole episode was unfortunate. I and the Plaintiffs have agreed not to ever talk about each other in any defamatory manner, and I urge others to do the same.

Strange.

[Mr. Bumble]

Winning a judgement is no guarantee you'll get a payout. Maybe half a loaf (whatever that is) is better than none.

[Bwaaah]

He beat back the mafia in major industries in NYC (e.g. trash hauling, Fulton fish market, fashion). He chased threatening "window washers" away from all the street intersections and drove crime stats down. He put the words, "Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect" on the doors of all the police cars as a reminder of our expectations and hopes.

"Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect" is being removed from the police cars now to remind us of how our politicians really feel about policing, which is to say that they really don't give much of a shit about policing. "Fuck Giuliani" is just another way to say "Fuck Trump." And that's just a way to say "Fuck all the people in this country who disagree with us."

Giuiliani's predicament is a tragic turn for a politician who greatly helped to improve New York City. (You can't make a big difference in life without making enemies.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

...And then he went on to lose his mind to the MAGAvirus and needlessly defame a couple of innocent women.

Guess which activities he's been forced to curtail?

[Mr. Bumble]

For which he pleaded guilty and was the hit with a ridiculous judgement by a DC jury that was allowed by a vindictive black harpy.

[Mr. Bumble]

That should be "black robed harpy".

[DixieTune]

Yeah, it was an example of Trumplaw.

[David Nieporent]

Explain the $150 million judgement against Rudy? (I understand a deal has been worked out to resolve that.)

It wasn't mostly for reputational¹ damages. The non-punitive damages were mostly for emotional distress; the evidence was that Freeman/Moss had to go into hiding because Rudy had riled up a mob so much against them.
​
​
¹Spellcheck refuses to recognize this as a word.

[Frank Drackman]

I think Mark Antony was making umm, not that much actually, and those travel expenses to Actium really took a bite, on the other hand, Cicero didn't do much slandering after his hands and tongue were cut off/out.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the linked article questions by jurors is alluded to. Does anyone know if this is accurate and if so do any other jurisdictions allow for this?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/cnn-in-deep-trouble.php

[Noscitur a sociis]

Federal judges can, but are not required to, allow jurors to ask questions. It’s fairly rare, and somewhat more common in civil cases than criminal ones, but it’s really just up to the individual judge. I know some states have a similar rule (in mine, it’s more about regional culture, being ubiquitous in some places and unheard of in others); no idea about how widespread it is.

[Michael P]

The jury has come back: $5M for Young in compensatory damages, punitive damages to be added: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cnn-defamation-trial-verdict-b2681743.html

[Commenter_XY]

And CNN capitulated settled on punitive damages.

[Commenter_XY]

The list of 33 hostages to be released by hamas.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-838001

Glad to see our American hostages are on that list.

This ceasefire will not hold.

[darkknight9]

While I'm always happy to see a declaration of a ceasefire when lives are at stake, I have never seen a ceasefire that actually sticks. 🙁

[SRG2]

USSR/Russia and Japan after 1945

[Don Nico]

That was Japan had unconditionally surrendered to the US. And the US then controlled Hokaido (and the rest of Japan). There was nothing more for Russia to grab.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how Hostages tend to get released right around when weak POTUS’s are put on the Ice Flow

[Bwaaah]

Poor Jimmy. Nice guy.

[Frank Drackman]

Jimmuh Cartuh was Not a nice guy, he killed his neighbor's Cat for the crime of killing Birds, which is what Cats were created to do, and I'm pretty sure that Jay-Hay is a Cat Lover, because he cursed Jimmuh to live to be a 100, seriously, who wants to go out that way? I'd rather exit Stage Left the David Carradine style (It's Autoerotic Asphyxiation, NOT Drowning, there's a difference) although maybe not at 72

[Bwaaah]

What now? Jimmy Carter, cat killer? I'm having trouble confirming that one.

[VinniUSMC]

33? Where's the rest? Dead?

[Commenter_XY]

Their status is unknown, but given the past behavior of hamas and their allies on 10/7, I would not expect many to be alive.

I just don't see this ceasefire holding. Once terrorists are released into Judea and Samaria, there will be an uproar. Particularly when they resume their terror activities.

At this stage, I just want the Americans out.

[Jmaie]

Seems like these exchanges typically run hundreds to one in terms of Palestinians vs. Israelis released. Odd...

[Brett Bellmore]

It reflects the relative concern for human life, naturally.

[Commenter_XY]

palestinian lives matter, heh.

The ratio is 50:1 for men, and 30:1 for women in the ceasefire agreement. Guess we have to add sexism to the list in addition to antisemitism for hamas.

[Bob from Ohio]

"33? Where's the rest? Dead?"

Most, yes. Of course some of those 33 are also dead. Hamas trades the dead too.

[John F. Carr]

Because the sides don't trust each other the exchange has to be gradual. If Hamas turns over everybody right away then Israel claims a violation and resumes flattening Gaza.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

But with the hostages back they can prosecute the war to extinction.
I am sure that was the main reason for the exchange.

[Don Nico]

As you say that is typical. Already palestinian leaders are reveling in Oct 7 and vowing a repeat. This "deal" will not end well.

By the way Hamas doubtless will be retaining some live hostages for further blackmail

[Commenter_XY]

PM Netanyahu wrote an interesting post on X...If this deal falls apart b/c of hamas violations (all others have), Israel has the full backing of America (with Pres Trump) to finish the war and eliminate hamas from gaza. We'll sell the Israelis whatever they need to get the job done. Since I am certain that hamas will violate the ceasefire, I am fine with this = finish the war and eliminate hamas from gaza.

There is no role for Judeocidal groups like hamas or the PA in gaza. Abbas is incapable; his 'youthful' successors are circling around him like a pack of hyaenas. Two state is dead. KSA are not invested in it (TSS) with MBS in charge. The Israelis won't agree to it anytime soon, what country would? New thinking is needed.

PM Netanyahu had no choice about this deal, he has to get what he can, while he can. And we want our Americans out, dead or alive. That's it. Pres Trump has been emphatic about that.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
If the two state "solution" is truly dead, then the only alternative is Eretz Israel, starting with accepting the pleas of the Druze to incorporate their areas into Israel and followed in short order by the annexation of Judea and Sameria.
Gaza is a separate thorny issue. Egypt won't take it back, but it should be publicly offered

[Mr. Bumble]

"Egypt won't take it back, ..."
I wonder why?

[KenveeB]

33 hostages released. 1,000 prisoners set free. Doesn't really seem to be an even exchange, and definitely a good incentive to attack again in the future when you want something. You'll gain more than you lose.

[John F. Carr]

Israel has been collecting Palestinians at a higher rate than Hamas has been collecting (mostly) Israeli hostages. If the prisons run dry the IDF can make another sweep through the West Bank.

[Bob from Ohio]

" If the prisons run dry the IDF can make another sweep through the West Bank."

You think Israel is just grabbing people without cause? You are confused, these are people who murdered and committed other terrorist acts.

[John F. Carr]

It doesn't matter how Israel gets its prisoners or if they are innocent or guilty. It only matters how much they are worth in a trade. High ranking Hamas members will be worth more than innocent bystanders. Innocent bystanders are easier to acquire.

[Frank Drackman]

Like we Southerners like to say about the Past, the Ceasefire won't hold because the Terrorists haven't Ceased Firing.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden in his farewell speech made mention of an emerging tech oligarchy that does not have the interests of ordinary Americans (or America for that matter) at heart.

Is he right? (note: I personally think that he is right)
What, if anything, should (or could) be done about that, legally?

[Frank Drackman]

So why did “he” (I mean Cums-a-lot et al, Joe hasn’t wiped his ass without help in years) wait until day 1456 of his term to bring it up? I’d say deport the leadership of NBC, PMS-NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, except that they’re mostly irreverent and if anything contributed to “45” becoming “47” on Monday

[Dan Schiavetta]

He is correct.

Unfortunately we are too dependent on tech, and the public is too easily fooled or distracted via tech.

[Commenter_XY]

We agree on something here, Dan. 🙂

The serial SEC 'processes' and 'investigations' that Elon Musk has endured. Is that the legal mechanism, meaning serial investigation and big dollar settlements to address the tech oligarchy? That seems to be the default now.

Is there a better way?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps Musk could try abiding by the law?

[Mr. Bumble]

SEC doesn't make laws.

[hobie]

I like Bernie because he always says what he believes and never wavers. "The oligarchs and billionaires control all of this and that blah blah...". Never really paid attention to that because I figure if you made a better mouse trap you should get all the money you deserve.

During the height of the pandemic in 2020 with everyone out of work and broke and businesses crashing, for some reason most of America's billionaires were making huge profits when no one else was. How was this possible? We were in a global recession and no one was working. And I thought to myself, although I didn't understand how, Bernia seemed to be correct. These guys were making huge amounts of money when no one else was. Could there actually be some kind of two-tiered system as Bernie has said?

[Commenter_XY]

I kind of like Bernie too. He is like my crazy Jewish uncle, kvetching about this or that. The man is a blossoming Bolshevik. The thing is, he is right if you look at it from his perspective. All fine and good.

So suppose POTUS Biden is right. What can and should one do, legally?

[Sarcastr0]

Biden provided a list of his recommendations. I guess you didn't actually read or hear the speech.

"You know, in the years ahead, it will help to be — it’s going to be up to the president, the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the free press, and the American people to confront these powerful forces.

We must reform the tax code — not by giving the biggest tax cuts to billionaires, but by making them begin to pay their fair share.

We need to get dark money — that’s that hidden funding behind too many campaigns’ contributions — we need to get it out of our politics.

We need to enact an 18-year time limit — term limit — time and term — for the strongest ethics ref- — and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court.

We need to ban members of Congress from pra- — from trading stock while they’re in the Congress.

We need to amend the Constitution to make clear that no president — no president — is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president’s power is limit- — it’s not absolute, and it shouldn’t be.

And in a democracy, there’s another danger to the concentration of power and wealth. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning, and people don’t feel like they have a fair shot.

But we have to stay engaged in the process. I know it’s frustrating."

[Brett Bellmore]

"We must reform the tax code — not by giving the biggest tax cuts to billionaires, but by making them begin to pay their fair share."

If you judge their fair share by the fraction of the budget devoted to providing them with services, they already pay vastly more than their fair share.

"We need to get dark money — that’s that hidden funding behind too many campaigns’ contributions — we need to get it out of our politics."

How can the left retaliate against conservative donors if they don't know who they are?

"We need to enact an 18-year time limit — term limit — time and term — for the strongest ethics ref- — and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court."

So much for claiming not to support Court packing.

"We need to ban members of Congress from pra- — from trading stock while they’re in the Congress."

I suppose even a blind pig finds some acorns.

"We need to amend the Constitution to make clear that no president — no president — is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president’s power is limit- — it’s not absolute, and it shouldn’t be."

We don't need to so amend the Constitution, because Presidents already lack such immunity. You just can't make it illegal for them to exercise the normal powers of the office.

"And in a democracy, there’s another danger to the concentration of power and wealth. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning, and people don’t feel like they have a fair shot."

There is no greater concentration of power and wealth in America than the government itself.

[Sarcastr0]

Man, this is a weak one. Just going through the motions, eh?

Some weak intimations of liberal bad faith and then 'government is the biggest oligarchy of all' is just tepid.

[Commenter_XY]

Libs have a track record and earned the bad faith. 😉

[bernard11]

How about some facts to backup your assertions.

[bernard11]

You've had a day to respond, but seem to have nothing to say.

Bluntly, you're full of shit, XY, spouting nonsense you got somewhere.

[RedheadedPharoh]

I sure hope he can change his ways to earn your e-approval!

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Biden did not come up with that list, the last speechwriter at the WH came up with that list.

I am perfectly fine with total transparency on money in politics.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Unless it's being applied to Trump, that is.

[Commenter_XY]

I am fine with total transparency on money in politics, that means everyone. I am a firm believer in knowing who 'bought' our politicians, and whether their interest aligns with mine (sometimes it will).

It all starts with transparency.

[DixieTune]

The billionaires were making huge profits because most developed nations, and the U.S. in particular, were handling out trillions in free money. Most of that got spent, and ended up in the hands of the oligarchs.

[VinniUSMC]

Seems obvious. No wonder Leftists don't understand.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I like Bernie because he always says what he believes and never wavers."

LOL He used to complain about "millionaires" too. Then he became one, so that dropped out of his rhetoric.

Daffy old man.

[Frank Drackman]

Bernie lives a Two-Tiered system, he's one of the Apparatchik with a Dacha on Lake Champlain, another home in Vermont worth more than most Vermonters make in a lifetime (They're the "White Niggers" Robert KKK Bird used to talk about) One of the "1%" who wants higher taxes for the "1%" but doesn't pay them himself, He did vote against the "Brady Bill" in 1993, got to keep the White Niggers happy I guess,

Frank

[Kazinski]

The stock market went up, it shouldn't be that big of a mystery people make more money when what they own goes up in value.

The Nasdaq in particular was up 43%, the highest since 2009.

And one of the main reasons the market went up was the fed and government flooded the economy with money lowering interest rates, making stock returns more attractive.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/us-stocks-in-2020-a-year-for-the-history-books-idUSKBN29513J/

I hear Nancy Pelosi has done well in the market too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have telephone networks interconnected with 10-number dialing and number portability, why can't social media be likewise?

In other words, have similar interconnections and portability?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I really have trouble believing that even you don’t understand the answer to that.

[Frank Drackman]

Bob Ueker, finally in the “Front Row” Carson’s already got him and Rodney booked for 64 guest appearances

[Stella Link the dog]

"Bob Ueker"

Who the hell is "Bob Ueker?"

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I left out the "C", it's Uecker, happy now?

[Stella Link the dog]

Sure am, you ignorant unt.

[A Japanese Student]

Laken Riley Act was amended in the Senate, 70-25, to require mandatory detention after "any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person" by a noncitizen: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00003.htm

Question is, does this include negligent homicide?

[Michael P]

I believe negligent homicide is a crime everywhere in the US. By definition it results in the death of another person. So the answer should be "yes".

[A Japanese Student]

Yeah, as I expected.

Immigration law does need some reforms, but I'm not sure the method Laken Riley Act took is the right one. One day another noncitizen would commit a different crime, gain national attention, and Congress adds that crime to the predicate.

I think the most urgently needed reform is the clarification of CIMT. Chevron is dead, and with no official authority to defer to, judges have to decide case-by-case whether a particular statute is CIMT. I'm not surprised if Justice Gorsuch writes an opinion striking it down in a few years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Strictly speaking, almost all crimes are already predicates for mandatory detention and deportation, it's just that the law is widely unenforced. The innovation here is really the provision for state action to compel enforcement.

[Stella Link the dog]

"Strictly speaking, almost all crimes are already predicates for mandatory detention and deportation"

I don't believe this is true for aliens legally in the U.S. Consider that in Texas, for one, almost all traffic law violations are crimes. Indeed, the SCOTUS has ruled that it is perfectly acceptable to arrest and jail someone for nothing other than a seat belt violation when the maximum penalty for this misdemeanor does not include incarceration.

Legal aliens only get deported for serious felonies, I believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

"(c) Detention of criminal aliens
(1) Custody

The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who-

(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title,

(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title,

(C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been sentence 1 to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, or

(D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title,"

Basically it only applies to aliens who weren't, or aren't anymore, legal aliens.

[Stella Link the dog]

Or Japanese student friend said "by a noncitizen" which I interpret as any alien, legal or otherwise. Was the student mistaken?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe so. The act, on its own terms, only applies to inadmissible or deportable aliens.

Inadmissible aliens are, by definition, illegal aliens if they're here at all. While deportable aliens are aliens who might originally have been legally present, but who have lost that legal status.

[Stella Link the dog]

If we're only talking about illegals, then it's sort of redundant as there won't be any of them left in the U.S. in a couple weeks.

[David Nieporent]

Just to be clear: Loper-Bright is not retroactive; any prior decisions about CIMT stand even if they relied on Chevron.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think negligent homicide is a crime everywhere. In Massachusetts there is a crime negligent homicide with a motor vehicle. The standard is ordinary tort style negligence. If you are careless while driving a car and run somebody over, criminal motor vehicle homicide. If you are careless while driving an excavator and run somebody over, not criminal homicide. An excavator is not a motor vehicle, even though it is a vehicle with a motor. Just a quirk of state law. Ten or fifteen years ago somebody went on a drunken rampage with a front end loader. He beat the DUI rap.

Reckless homicide is manslaughter. It may be called a name like third degree murder depending on the jurisdiction.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd try and work it out with the guy first, what you're doing demonstrates Pre-mediation, you might even get a few years in the Pokey in California.

[hobie]

Since 70% of all crime is committed by white people (men) and 99% by heterosexulas, I think we should pass the Volokh Act.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

But that shows the flaw right there. I am a white female Catholic Republican pro-lifer--- If I commit a crime is it because I am whiter? Catholic? Republican? Female? etc.
Your view would be crushed even in the lowest courts.

[hobie]

We pass laws based on immigration status, or sex alteration not linked to vanity or religion. So why not based on race and orientation?

[Brett Bellmore]

Care for another try at getting the statistics right?

[Bwaaah]

Thanks for countering Hobie-BS. I forgive him because he likes black people.

[Frank Drackman]

and 100% of Pro-Death supporters have already been born, whats your point, besides the one on your head?

[John F. Carr]

A 1983 law requires Massachusetts to provide housing to families and pregnant women who would otherwise be homeless. The recent influx of migrants caused the expense to become noticeable. This week the Governor asked the legislature to limit the program to long term Massachusetts residents lawfully in the United States.

In the past Massachusetts has been called a sanctuary state. I have not heard the governor herself use this term. The label stuck after the Supreme Judicial Court prohibited holding people on civil immigration detainers.

https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-proposes-significant-changes-to-right-to-shelter-law

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I the only person who has noticed how much Healey has aged?

[Kazinski]

I'm wondering what Pam Bondi is doing to look so good at 59.

https://x.com/TalkWithSally/status/1879758772148776971

[not guilty]

Some people get their blonde hair from their mother's side.
Some people get their blonde hair from their father's side.
Some people get their blonde hair from peroxide.

She apparently touched up the dark roots for the Senate hearing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Where do some people, like VP Harris, get their light brown highlights?

[Kazinski]

Its a lot more than the color of her hair, I generally prefer darker hair anyway.

However the blonde hair may have something to do with it, she seems to have kept out of the sun.

[John F. Carr]

She is close to the same age Nikki Haley was when Trump said she was past her prime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That wasn't Trump, it was Don Lemon.

[Armchair]

Thought experiment - Police badges that declare support for a particular group.

As a thought experiment, imagine that Small Town USA has a police department. That department approve certain badges for its police officers to wear, if they so desire. One of these badges is "White Lives Matter." A "Black Lives Matter" is not approved to be worn by the department.

Officer Smith and Jones decide to wear these badges. They are then called to a fight between a White man and Black man. They break up the fight, but the Black man argues that disproportionate force was used against him and he suffered an injury. And this was partially due to Smith and Jones bias against black people....conscious or unconscious. Questions for the legal commentariat.

1. Does Smith and Jones wearing "White Lives Matter" badges potentially provide evidence of their racial bias?
2. Is there also a case against the department itself for racial bias, as it approved the "White Lives Matter" badges but not the "Black Lives Matter" badges?
3. If the examples of "Black" and "White" were reversed in this hypothetical, would that also be a potential problem, and potential racial bias?
4. Is there a general problem when a police officer while on duty visually expresses support for a certain class of people?

[Moderation4ever]

Why not just include sponsorship also and have the police officer arrive with a Penzoil patch?

[Commenter_XY]

The badge thing is just a bad idea, Armchair.

Answers are 'Yes' to all four questions.
What is visual support...wearing the patch?

[Armchair]

"What is visual support...wearing the patch?"

Yes, in this case.

[Commenter_XY]

Answers stay the same; yes to all 4.

[Armchair]

Now, what prompted this was a post a few days ago about the San Jose Police Department allowing its police officers to wear "LGBTQ" type patches (but not other ones).

What this does is allow the officers to show support for a particular group (LGBTQ). But then you get the question, if there's a conflict between an LGBTQ member and a non-LGTBQ member (say, a protest and counter protest outside a church on gay marriage), it can create the perception of bias. Furthermore, you have the perception of institutional bias on the part of the police department itself.

Perhaps even worse, in the wake of wide-scale adoption of the LGBTQ badges, the ABSENCE of a badge can be looked at as evidence of bias. This creates further divisions.

[Commenter_XY]

As public servants, police (especially) should avoid the appearance of bias. That is what the patches communicate, an overt preference for one favored group over another and that simply cannot be in the case of law enforcement.

Arm, I might feel differently if the public servant who wanted to wear their patch was in a role that does not interact with the public.

The problem I see is what happens when I want to wear my Star of David as my patch. Or an American Gadsden flag patch? And the government of that area says, "Nope, it is too [fill in the blank...controversial, divisive, etc].

[Mr. Bumble]

They wear uniforms, that means all the same. There should be nothing on the uniform except what is required to identify the person as a member of the department.

[Commenter_XY]

My preference is no badges whatsoever. But if you allow one, you open the floodgates.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The Ninth Circuit says otherwise.

[Commenter_XY]

I know, Nas. It is a close question. I come out on 'all, or none'. And preferably none.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See Jason Vassell at UMass.
Vassell (Black) alleged that the UMass Police didn't aggressively prosecute a past assault on a Black victim by White perps and thus couldn't prosecute Vassell for attempted murder -- and prevailed.

[David Nieporent]

He did not, in fact, prevail.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is not what he argued (a selective prosecution claim is focused on the prosecutor, not the police), not the result he asked for (the assault with intent to murder charges were dropped before he raised the selective prosecution issue) and not the result (he reached a retrial resolution before the judge ruled on his motion). Nor would it be especially similar to
Armchair’s hypothetical if it had been what happened.

Other than that, great point!

[Noscitur a sociis]

The specifics of your hypo don’t make a whole lot of sense, but to try to embrace the spirit:

In a situation where demonstrating a police officer’s racial bias was relevant, their wearing a White Lives Matter patch would probably be a relevant piece of evidence. Wearing a Black Lives Matter patch strikes me as less probative, but probably still admissible.

All of which, I think, tends to support the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and illustrate why it’s important for the police department to be able to exercise judgment over this sort of thing.

[Armchair]

"illustrate why it’s important for the police department"....

The issue is of course, the police department "exercising judgment" over which badges are to be allowed, in many ways only exacerbates the situation.

A police department which allows "White Lives Matter" badges (but not "Black Lives Matter") in many ways represents a systemic bias by the management of the police department. A department where the bias is so ingrained that they don't see a problem with this.

As Commenter_XY points out, the proper answer is a neutral answer.....where no group is given special recognition.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Police departments also benefit from being (and being perceived as) engaged members of the community. And much as I hold Black Lives Matter in contempt, it’s silly to pretend that it’s the equivalent of “White Lives Matter”. Still less (to take an example from the real case) is a Pride flag akin to a Confederate flag. The government certainly should treat citizens espousing those views equivalently, but there’s no reason it has to be neutral when deciding the messages its own officials are going to send: it can allow officers to support the troops without letting them express support for our enemies’ troops, and it doesn’t have to let them say it’s good for people to die from breast cancer just because it lets them say it’s bad.

[Armchair]

" it’s silly to pretend that it’s the equivalent of “White Lives Matter”" Until it's not. It presents as BIAS. Which is a problem.

"But there’s no reason it has to be neutral when deciding the messages its own officials are going to send" There is absolutely a reason. Because it sends the message that certain citizens are favored....and others aren't.

But there’s no reason it has to be neutral when deciding the messages its own officials are going to send: it can allow officers to support the troops without letting them express support for our enemies’ troops, and it doesn’t have to let them say it’s good for people to die from breast cancer just because it lets them say it’s bad.

But, see what you did there? You switched...you're no longer favoring certain citizen groups. Enemy troops aren't a US Citizen group. "Cancer" isn't a US citizen group.

But when you start selecting for some citizens above others...it's a problem.

But when you put up a Pride flag...you send a message. You send a message that the LGBTQ community is a favored group by law enforcement. And if you're not a member of that group...well, you aren't a favored group. You'll be treated differently...implicitly.

And having a "favored group", White, Black, Gay, Straight, is a problem.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But when you put up a Pride flag...you send a message. You send a message that the LGBTQ community is a favored group by law enforcement.

1. Or it sends a message that the group isn’t a disfavored group, which has long been the justified perception. Emphasizing to people that they can trust the police seems like an entirely legitimate measure to me.

2. How is that any different from wearing a Support the Troops/POW-MIA patch? Or a mourning band?

[Mr. Bumble]

Surgeon General says drinking like you must be doing is bad for your health.

[Sarcastr0]

No surer sign of someone who has lost the argument than an aggressive disengagement.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fuck off dipwad.
There is no argument to be won or lost, just opinions as to what should be allowed.
Uniform:a particular set of clothes that has to be worn by the members of the same organization or group of people:

uniform /yoo͞′nə-fôrm″/
adjective

Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying.
"planks of uniform length."
Being the same as or consonant with another or others.
"rows of uniform brick houses."
Having always the same form, manner, or degree; not varying or variable; unchanging; consistent; equable; homogenous.
"the dress of the Asiatics has been uniform from early ages; the temperature is uniform; a stratum of uniform clay."

[Sarcastr0]

There is no argument to be won or lost, just opinions as to what should be allowed.

Opinions are not unassailable.
Some opinions have arguments that support them. Other opinions don't comport with observed facts.

I mean, that's a lot of what we do around here.

Not you who mostly just insults people and fails at basic statistics.
But other people.

[Zarniwoop]

Would you have a problem with police officers asking to wear "I support the Ku Klux Klan" patches on the job?

Personally, I'm fine with a police department saying "nope!" to that.

And if it's OK for a police dept to say "nope!" to "I support the KKK", and the issue is a "white lives matter" patch ... now, as the joke goes, we're just haggling about the price.

[Armchair]

"Would you have a problem with police officers asking to wear "I support the Ku Klux Klan" patches on the job?"

Yes, I would have a problem.

To be perfectly clear, police departments shouldn't be approving ANY badges.

As I stated before, "the proper answer is a neutral answer.....where no group is given special recognition."

[Mr. Bumble]

Why do people have trouble with the idea of a uniform and what it should mean?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why do you think you’re better-qualified than the chief of police to determine what the uniform means?

[Noscitur a sociis]

To be perfectly clear, police departments shouldn't be approving ANY badges.

As I stated before, "the proper answer is a neutral answer.....where no group is given special recognition."

Should they be able to fly the flag at half mast during days of mourning? Permit officers to wear mourning bands when one of their colleagues gets killed? Hold ceremonies to recognize fallen officers? Officers from other departments? Other emergency responders? Soldiers from the community?

[John F. Carr]

The First Circuit recently vacated a wire fraud conviction because the prosecutor failed to produce a witness qualified to testify that data sent using iMessage traveled in interstate commerce. There is a circuit split on whether use of the Internet is always interstate commerce. The First Circuit says yes. So a message sent from Massachusetts to Massachusetts over the Internet travels in interstate commerce. The FBI agent who testified didn't know how iMessage worked. He was not qualified as an expert on the subject and did not have any personal knowledge. He had been told in training it used the Internet. That was not enough to convict.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1200P-01A.pdf

[Commenter_XY]

John F Carr, is it assumed interstate because of the physical location of servers that handle traffic?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, because of random routing of packets.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

That is the IP protocol, from the governemtn DARPA network. 🙂

[not guilty]

"John F Carr, is it assumed interstate because of the physical location of servers that handle traffic?"

No essential element of a criminal offense can be assumed. The government's burden, both of persuasion and production, is to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. See e.g., Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Unless judges pull a different rule out of their butts. If judges say iMessage is interstate commerce as a matter of law, the government doesn't need to prove jack.

For example, the government doesn't have to prove venue for crimes committed aboard airplanes.

[Michael P]

Did the First Circuit have an alternative hypothesis about how iMessage works? It assuredly uses the Internet. iMessage messages are related through "APNs", which is a set of Apple servers on the Internet.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/how-imessage-sends-and-receives-messages-sec70e68c949/web
https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/configure-devices-to-work-with-apns-dep2de55389a/web

A court should not need a qualified expert to determine that fact to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, sure, but "if it's on the internet it's interstate" is just a legal fiction, which is to say lie, intended to spare the government the burden of proving actual interstate commerce. It's perfectly possible for internet communications to be entirely within a single state.

[Absaroka]

I know people who run their own IMAP servers, on a computer in their basement. If hubby is in the basement and sends an email to wifey in the living room, the packets never leave the house.

That's assuming it's a local domain, of course. If they are using a protonmail account, it's a safe bet the packets went through Switzerland.

[Brett Bellmore]

I will agree that use of most commercial email or platforms does practically guarantee that the message traveled interstate, unless you live in a large state, or close to their server. "Practically".

But, as an element of the crime, it ought to be proven, not just assumed.

[Michael P]

"Internet means Interstate" used to be a very good presumption. Except for local-network cases like Absaroka mentioned, it's still pretty good: even if the proliferation of data centers and growth of CDNs means you happen to be exchanging data with a server within your state, an entity owning or operating the server is probably foreign to your state, and a lot of the federal laws on this use broad jurisdictional hooks like "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce that you are definitely using. So in my book, "Internet means interstate" is a sound but rebuttable presumption.

On the other hand, "iMessage means internet" is a very easy fact to establish. Apple declares it does not use SMS or MMS, and does not describe any kind of peer-to-peer local transport for those messages.

[Brett Bellmore]

It may be a good assumption, but it's still an assumption, and as an element of the crime, it's on the prosecution to prove, not the defense to disprove.

[Stella Link the dog]

Shouldn't it be a question for the jury regardless of proof?

[not guilty]

"Shouldn't it be a question for the jury regardless of proof?"

A criminal prosecution where the government has failed to show sufficient evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the government, from which any rational trier of fact could find every essential element proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- a very low threshold -- should not go to the jury in the first place. If the trial judge finds the evidence insufficient as to any such element, he should enter a judgment of acquittal.

[Stella Link the dog]

I'm mocking Brettlaw.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's who the prosecution presents said proof TO.

[Stella Link the dog]

But, the jury is not bound by these trivial little notions about such things as proof. The jury gets to decide, regardless of proof.

[DixieTune]

Even if the packets do travel interstate, federalizing as "interstate commerce" any internet traffic is clearly against the intent of the founders.

Sending a text to someone sitting 5 feet from you should not be interstate commerce, even if it gets routed through a data center in Reston, VA.

[jb]

I'm pretty sure the founders didn't intend anything about the Internet since it didn't exist at the time. This is why discussions that attempt to limit the scope of the Commerce Clause that harken back to a time when it took days to travel between states and the vast majority of commerce was local in almost every respect are kind of silly. The world is vastly more interconnected today and goods, services and information move orders of magnitude more rapidly than in the late 18th century. Of course the role of a federal government is vastly larger in a country where there's vastly more interstate interactions.

[DixieTune]

Of course. But there's a difference between the role of the federal government being properly larger (because it's not something the states can easily handle), and the federal government usurping authority.

A crime committed with a text message sent within a state is not something the states can't handle, and thus, the federal government need not do so.

[jb]

Fair. I think the definition of Interstate Commerce that Michael P posts below is pretty reasonable.

[John F. Carr]

It's up to the prosecution to prove the "wire" part of wire fraud. The defendant doesn't have to prove how the messages were transmitted. The prosecution in this case gets a second chance.

If I were the dictator of the Supreme Court I would say the content of a message from Massachusetts to Massachusetts is not subject to interstate commerce jurisdiction no matter how the packets happened to be routed that day.

[Absaroka]

"I would say the content of a message from Massachusetts to Massachusetts is not subject to interstate commerce jurisdiction no matter how the packets happened to be routed that day."

That has the advantage of being workable :-). As 'that day' indicates, routing can be very dynamic, potentially varying second by second. If I send you a message that spans multiple packets, they don't have to travel the same route. And outside of a network completely controlled by sender+receiver, you can't control how things are routed. And you may not even know after the fact; as extensive as logging is, the path of every packet isn't tracked.

The NSA has been accused/caught in the past deliberately causing intra-CONUS traffic to be routed via overseas nodes so they could snoop it using foreign rather than domestic rules. The same techniques could be used to force traffic interstate. I don't think that kind of behavior ought to be rewarded.

Lastly, I think the original justification for the feds regulating interstate commerce has to rest on said commerce actually affecting more than one state. If an (encrypted, perhaps) packet from Kansas to Kansas happens to wander across the Nebraska border for an instant, describing how Nebraska is negatively affected seems like it would involve Schrodinger's cat or something.

[Michael P]

18 U. S. Code section 921(a)(2):

(2)The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s a definition only for the purposes of Chapter 44, i.e. a handful of gun laws.

[Michael P]

18 U.S. Code § 10 seems to be the applicable definition for wire fraud. It doesn't elaborate on what "between" means, and I think the logic of the definition in section 921 makes sense for other purposes of Title 18.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The definition in § 10 doesn’t include the last clause, and the fact that Congress knew how to specify elsewhere in the title counsels against reading it in here by implication.

[not guilty]

"A court should not need a qualified expert to determine that fact to a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' level."

Agreed. The First Circuit did not so hold here. It affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, but ruled that some of that evidence was erroneously admitted. At page 32 the Court expressly rejected the proposition propounded by the defendant that expert testimony is required.

The Court opined that the FBI agent in this case lacked an adequate basis in personal knowledge to give lay testimony, whether fact or opinion, concerning how iMessages are transmitted. The Court accordingly vacated the conviction on two counts of the indictment and remanded for a new trial. If the evidence had been insufficient to convict, the remedy on appeal would have been to vacate the conviction and dismiss those two counts.

[David Nieporent]

A court should not need a qualified expert to determine that fact to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense. The defense does not need to come up with an "alternative hypothesis"; the burden is on the prosecution. If the prosecution did not introduce competent evidence, then the conviction can't stand. There are of course things so widely known and obvious that no expert (or even lay witness) is needed to prove them to the jury, but I doubt the operation of Messages (formerly iMessage) is actually one of them.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s still the prosecution’s burden to get that information into the record via admissible evidence (or a stipulation). There’s a similar dynamic in bank robbery cases: everyone knows that Wells Fargo is FDIC insured, but prosecutors still sometimes forget to actually nail that down.

[bernard11]

Especially with Wells Fargo it would be quite foolish to rely on the bank's word. Check with the FDIC, and get documentation.

[John F. Carr]

I should add, credit to the defense trial attorney who cross examined the FBI witness.

Also credit to the defense attorney in U.S. v. Sowards (4th Cir. 2012). A police officer made a routine visual estimate of speed. The defense attorney got him thoroughly twisted up on units of distance. I'm sure the officer didn't really know the car was going 75 in a 70 zone, but it wasn't because he thought there were 12 feet in a yard. https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-sowards-3

[Moderation4ever]

I have visited Seattle a number of times and have noted the influence of fire on the city. On June 6, 1889, the City of Seattle essentially burned to the ground. The citizens began to rebuild within a few days and that rebuilding included lessons learned, wood structures were rebuilt with stone or brick. Can areas of Los Angeles do the same? It will be interesting to see how much society has changed and how much that will slow rebuilding. Will those rebuilding take lessons learned from the spared structures?

[Frank Drackman]

So you're saying they should build their houses on Rock, not on Sand? Sounds familiar, I think someone else might have said it before you, a Carpenter I seem to recall.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and not too close to a cliff.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14294435/nantucket-beach-house-terrible-investment-don-vaccaro-erosion.html

[Commenter_XY]

Earthquakes could be an issue = wood structures were rebuilt with stone or brick

Insure properly for the risk. Yes, the insurance will be expensive.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a choice, really: In an area subject to extreme risks, either the construction will be expensive, or the insurance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Structural steel meets both fire and earthquake codes. Non-load bearing walls are of less concern in an earthquake. And steel roofs don't burn.

MA code calls for sprinkler systems in new construction -- wonder what each home having a sprinkler would do here.

Brady Bunch construction is out!

[Mr. Bumble]

Sprinklers wouldn't be much help with inadequate water supplies.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd need a large cistern, too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They had a large cistern, it was just empty.

Would sprinklers at the first five houses that caught fire have stopped it? IDK...

[santamonica811]

I do know. No, they absolutely would not have stopped it. On the other hand, a 2-miles-high stone fence surrounding [fill in name of city or area] would have. The wind was the critical factor, and anything that didn't block the wind was doomed to failure.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

"In 2011, a NAHB study found that “25.0 percent of the price of an average single-family home built for sale is attributable to regulation imposed by all units of government at various points along the development/construction process.”

so clarify your thought.Are you interested in costs or safety.

[Dr. Ed 2]

1: Much of this initially was voluntary but required to get a mortgage, e.g. FHA specs.

2: After Hurricane Andrew, houses built to the Florida Building Code survived -- ones not, didn't.

3: It's the insurance companies who got rid of knob & tube wiring -- they wouldn't insure it.

4: "Met current code" is a legal defense, codes were adopted as an alternative to litigation. Massachusetts adopted one because of shoddy construction at UMass.

[DixieTune]

Which is fine, if people take it on themselves.

But when people complain about insurance being "unaffordable" and that the government needs to "do something," what they mean is that they want taxpayers to subsidize their insurance premiums.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like flood insurance?

[DixieTune]

Yes, exactly like that. Flood insurance is obviously a loss for the federal government. If it was profitable, the private sector would provide it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Who claims otherwise? And by the way, flood damage in places like Hatteras Island are covered by private sector insurance, unless it is caused by a named storm, then it is excluded from other insurance and is covered by FEMA managed flood insurance. If they would just stop naming storms, FEMA would save a lot of money!

[Don Nico]

Brick structure can be very badly damaged in earthquakes if not properly reinforced structurally with steel.

[Brett Bellmore]

At my favorite tech site, an essay on that topic:

Rebuild Los Angeles With Ultra High Strength Concrete and UHPC Domes Where Possible

Monolithic Dome Institute

Whether it's fires, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, or flooding, it is generally possible to build homes and other structures in a manner that they'll survive with minor, if any, damage. In fact, you don't generally have to go as far as NBF suggests. A conventional looking home can laugh at fires if constructed with the right materials, and a bit of attention to control of where flammable landscaping is located.

[VinniUSMC]

No joke, that first dome house shown on the first link looks kinda nice. Maybe it's time for "houses of the future" (as imagined in the past) to become the houses of today.

[hobie]

In Europe, the roofs of homes usually use steel or concrete beams as supporting members...and then tiles or concrete on top. I just don't see us making roofs with anything other than wood. So that will always be our Achilles heel

[Bwaaah]

"In Europe, the roofs of homes usually use steel or concrete beams as supporting members"

Now do Asia.

[VinniUSMC]

Are you referring to the amazing carpentry skills of, for example, Japanese artisans making metal fastener-free buildings that are nearly earthquake proof? Their joinery is beyond beautiful.

I don't know that there's much arid/desert area in Japan to be worried about massive wildfires though.

[Bwaaah]

I'm trying to tap into Hobie's knowledge of pan-continental engineering practices. I didn't know there was such a thing. I suspect there isn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean amazing Japanese carpentry? Yeah, that's a real thing. Though large wood buildings won't be built without fasteners unless there's a reason to make them very traditional.

[Brett Bellmore]

Steel beams actually have some problems in house fires. Though I think the problems tend to kick in after the point where the house would already be a dead loss.

[Moderation4ever]

I am not suggesting fireproof houses as much as fire resistant housing. Use wood on the interior but fireproof material on the exposed exterior. That could be brick, stone, or metal, but there are also synthetic materials like concrete siding. Second idea is better landscaping to keep fire pathways away from the house. Yard design also means getting rid of wood fences in fire prone areas. Again, use metal or synthetic materials in the fencing.

And this doesn't really need to be code if insurance companies and mortgage companies set the standards.

[Zarniwoop]

I just don't see us making roofs with anything other than wood. So that will always be our Achilles heel

I heard an interview with my own WI senatuh (Ron Johnson) making the same argument that Cali is to blame and shouldn't get Federal aid, for refusing to solve problems caused by wood (cedar) roof shingles. The reality:

Now, the California State Building Code states that no wood roofing materials are to be sold in the state on or after January 1, 2001, unless the product has passed at least 5 of the 10-year natural weathering tests. In addition, under Title 24, wood shake roofing would have to be treated with fire-retardant chemicals, among many other requirements.

Due to the hazards that are posed by cedar shake shingles in California, the state had strictly enforced these codes, requiring all wooden California roofs to be replaced with fire resistant roofing by August 2012.

https://www.cedur.com/cedar-shakes-california

[dwb68]

If the Supreme Court can produce a TikTok opinion in a week, they should be able to produce every opinion in a week. They need to take more cases a year. Stop wordsmithing the dicta they don't enforce anyway. The reasoning is important, but c'mon, they already know it and have the briefs nearly ready going into oral argument (Dobbs proved that too, the leak was nearly identical to the final).

[Michael P]

That seems like a recipe for burnout and bad decisions in hard cases.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes there aren't bad decisions now. They can surely pickup the pace and hear more cases.

[Commenter_XY]

And seriously, why get summers off? = July, August, September

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Will Rogers

“if you can start arguing over something, and get enough publicity, and keep the argument going, you can divide our nation overnight”

It's to make sure the argument doesn't keep going !!!

[John F. Carr]

If I could police the Supreme Court I would require concurrences and dissents to be short. "In my opinion the statutory definition of 'tail' to include legs resolves this case for petitioner."

[David Nieporent]

This is just a terrible form of argument: "If you can rush and do something in a week when it's an emergency, then you can always just do everything like that in a week."

[Noscitur a sociis]

In my opinion, the Supreme Court can and should take more cases (at least twice as many), and the fact that they don’t is the single biggest problem with the institution. But I don’t think this opinion is a particularly compelling piece of evidence in favor of that position; for that matter, the amount of time it takes to resolve the cases that they do hear seems fine.

[tylertusta]

I can think of two things that would immediately improve productivity of the Court:

1) No long summer break. The Justices will get 4 weeks of vacation (2 during holidays, 2 during summer).
2) Decrease the word counts of the Court's majority opinions. They're just too long.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Decrease the word counts of the Court's majority opinions."

Page limits on briefs, page limits on opinions. Its only fair.

[bernard11]

Decreasing the word count would probably make for more readable, clearer, opinions, but I suspect that doing so would increase the time it takes to write the opinion, not decrease it.

[not guilty]

As the maxim attributed apocryphally to Mark Twain goes, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

[Sarcastr0]

Zuck making sure Stephen Miller greenlights Facebook's new hiring policies.

I presume those mad about social media companies talking to the government think this is actual government-guy-in-the-decisions-loop thing is bad?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/16/us/politics/stephen-miller-trump.html?

[Commenter_XY]

The Old Grey Hag? Paywalled. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

https://archive.is/BLxai

Easy. Come on, man.

You uncritically read the fucking NY Post.

[RedheadedPharoh]

You're chastising him because he doesn't pay for a subscription to the NYT?

lmao what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Noscitur a sociis]

No, he’s chastising Commenter_XY for not taking 3 seconds to get free access to the article if he’s not willing to pay for it.

[Bob from Ohio]

It takes more than "3 seconds" if you have not done it before.

Maybe Commenter_XY just respects private property more than you?

[RedheadedPharoh]

So he's being chastised for not being an immoral shitheap who steals people's content?

[Commenter_XY]

An anonymously sourced, breathless and trashy gossip piece.

So what is the problem? That Meta made a business decision and ditched DEI? So did Coor's and Boeing...did Stephen Miller commune with Adolph Coor's ghost?

GMAFB

As for Stephen Miller, if he can magically make a company like Meta just change their policy overnight with a single magical and mythical conversation, just imagine how effective he could be with DOGE and reducing the DC-based bureaucracy headcount! If a mere conversation moved Meta, let him filibuster (talk much more, that is) when it comes to reducing DC headcount.

Just imagine...another 1,400 days of this, Sarcastr0. Pace yourself. 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to claim it's not happening until confirmed further, fair enough.

But if it is happening, isn't that a much closer relationship than what the right's been complaining about re: Facebook and twitter previously?

Just imagine...another 1,400 days of this, Sarcastr0. Pace yourself.
You constant gloating at liberals on this site does not become.

[Commenter_XY]

I'm sorry, but what is your case here? You assert Miller somehow changed Meta DEI policy with a single conversation, based on a trashy gossip piece in the old grey hag. I cited several other companies that ditched DEI...where's the secret Miller convo?

Dare I say...stop moving the goalposts? 😛

[Sarcastr0]

based on a trashy gossip piece in the old grey hag

If you don't want to engage, why do you bother to comment?

[David Nieporent]

His question is, (assuming the story is true) are the people who have been whining for years about government pressure on Facebook/Twitter going to be equally upset about this? Is the problem government pressure on private businesses, or is it just that a bunch of loons on their side were impacted by it?

[Commenter_XY]

You're saying there was pressure. Prove it.

An anonymously sourced article from the Old Grey Hag isn't proof.

[Sarcastr0]

"assuming the story is true"

[Noscitur a sociis]

That’s literally the opposite of what he said.

[Kazinski]

Facebook was violating the law with its old DEI policies and could still face legal liability, anyone with any sense, and any connections, will get right with the administration and make sure their new policies pass muster.

What do you think is the bigger scandal, the Biden Administration refused to enforce the law on racial discrimination in hiring, or that the Trump administration will rigorously enforce it?

In fact SpaceX got sued for following the law as a defense contractor and requiring at least a green card to be considered for employment.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/spacex-wins-reprieve-us-lawsuit-alleging-anti-immigrant-bias-2023-11-09/

[SimonP]

You didn't even bother to read the piece, did you?

[Commenter_XY]

I did read the piece, that was the point. Sarcastr0 helpfully provided a link that we plebes could read, and I read it. A lot of breathless speculation, and nobody on record.

Sounds like 2017 redux.

[SimonP]

Got it. So you're not lazy, you're just an idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

You uncritically read the fucking NY Times.

No sources at all on the Miller article.

[Sarcastr0]

1. To anyone who is a serious person, NYT has reporting standards and checks. It is is not the same as NYP.

2. As I said, if you want to disbelieve the facts presented, that's fine. In which case I offer the hypothetical if the story is true as reported.
If true, doesn't it seem a much closer government direction of private social media companies than the right has in the past been very upset about?

Do you have consistent standards, or is that for fools and whatever gets your policies in place nationwide is good.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh yes, the Old Grey Hag has standards! LMAO.

[Sarcastr0]

You're having real trouble staying on topic today, it seems.

[David Nieporent]

It does indeed. It is a real, reputable media outlet. It has biases, it makes mistakes, but it has standards.

[Life of Brian]

What are these standards?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Correct, they do. In the words of someone who has as much reason to hate the mainstream media as anyone:

The Media Very Rarely Lies

I.

With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point. I’ll start by making the point, then explain why I think it matters.

The point is: the media rarely lies explicitly and directly. Reporters rarely say specific things they know to be false. When the media misinforms people, it does so by misinterpreting things, excluding context, or signal-boosting some events while ignoring others, not by participating in some bright-line category called “misinformation”….

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies

[Life of Brian]

Two thoughts on your linked article:

1. "We tell the literal truth, but reserve the right to do so in massively deceptive ways" doesn't seem like a very useful sort of standard. Indeed, the author himself calls it a "very nitpicky technical point."

2. The article attributes this "standard" to InfoWars as well as NYT, SciAm, etc. (in fact, in support of his main premise that everyone engages in "disinformation" of this sort and thus that's a poor rationale for selective censorship of undesirable sources like InfoWars.)

So this doesn't seem particularly helpful vis-a-vis Sarc's contention that NYT has certain unspecified standards NYP does not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"NYT has reporting standards and checks."

Libs believe anything.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"NYT has reporting standards and checks. It is is not the same as NYP."

How so? The NYP also has reporting standards and checks.

[Krayt]

Zuckerberg just told how he was coerced to censor as those in power wanted.

It wasn't just leaning in and saying, "You wanna do this, right? Right?"

He said they actually made threats to sic antitrust on him, and mess with section 230 unless he played ball.

The former is something I've been complaining about for well over a decade as part of my corruption complaints, especially in Europe. Scream antitrust, get useful idiots on your side, twist arms until coffers swell, hidden and unofficially or officially and out in the open, or maybe in exchange for government being fed a back channel of info, EZ-access to servers, whatever.

But use it to coerce censoring the way those in power want? Shame on me! My imagination didn't go that far!

As for the second, section 230 "reforms", I've been saying for years, since the 2020 primaries, where one of the Democratic debates, broadcast on national TV, had a discussion unit on how to coerce Internet social media companies to deal with harrassment.

They all talked about altering or abolishing section 230 unless they censored harrassment the way those presidential wannabees wanted. It was a display of one upsmanship, I'll hurt them worse than that previous weakling!

Yeah. These are the people "concerned for the future of democracy." I could grant everyone every last fear of Trump, and that has zero to do with this disgusting behavior against the spirit and law of the Constitution.

[David Nieporent]

Zuckerberg just told how he was coerced to censor as those in power wanted.

He did not. In fact, he admitted once again that they were free to ignore "those in power."

[not guilty]

I have been commenting here for about 20 years or so (originally under my given name). I have observed that "coerced" is among the verbs most frequently misused on these threads.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and you're free to not buy the Mob's insurance. The resultant risk of your store catching fire has no bearing on that.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, grow up, you lunatic. Nobody was burning down Facebook, which not only was free to ignore those in power, but in fact did so routinely. Biden isn't Trump.

[tylertusta]

I like the M-W-F format for Open Threads.

The only way it would be better is if the comments system itself was overhauled by Reason.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got any ideas for a better comments system?

[Brett Bellmore]

Allowing people to put part of their comment "under the fold" would be nice. Being able to do formatting without typing in the html yourself would be nice, too.

And, how about being able to peek at the contents of a muted comment, without having to temporarily unmute the person?

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, thinking about Lathrop, it would have to be automatic, wouldn't it?

[Bwaaah]

Nope. All of his stuff is above-the-fold material. Your feature would be appropriate for everybody else.

[Krayt]

They fixed accidental flag commenting, by putting up a confirmation box. I still think they should implement unflag as well, just for design classiness.

And a larger issue, that all such sites suffer from, not just this one, is the result of unthinking design implications from my inferior programmer brothers.

Its not realizing the combined "product" of web site editor and surrounding web browser allows accidental, destructive actions. If you forward or back, or click another site on your favs bar, off by a few pixels as you fumble-mouse up by the top of the web page, or just have a thumb twitch as you whip the mouse around, bye bye, almost-filled edit box!

This has been partially addressed, as if you acidentally go fw or back or to another site, then hit back immediately, the text buffer will still be filled if you seek to re-reply. Usually.

Of course, many of you have made a suspicious post at the top level of a thread, wtffing, gosh, you were sure you were replying to something! You went through this cycle, but, upon returning here, the edit box forgot where it was and just posted to top level.

Lots of work to do. I'm not even sure the site can do it all. It may need a rethink at the browser level. It's cute browser designers, rightly, look at a browser as a general purpose application framework, but FW and back and "change to different app" aka different web site, accidentally, is dangerous for the user.

[David Nieporent]

This has been partially addressed, as if you acidentally go fw or back or to another site, then hit back immediately, the text buffer will still be filled if you seek to re-reply. Usually.

Many many years ago I had a browser extension called "Lazarus" that saved (locally) all text entered into text boxes, so that you could resurrect (get it?) accidentally erased comments. But that died, and I never found an adequate replacement.

[Kazinski]

On my kindle it will sometimes clear its buffer and reload when I am looking for something on another tab.

Pretty annoying, probably needs all the memory to track what to suggest I buy next.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt, if you need to follow a link, or otherwise go elsewhere during drafting, just open a new window. It's a small PITA which prevents a large one. When you are done, your drafting box is still right there like you left it.

[bernard11]

Another annoyance:

The site asks me to log in at random times, and the request is not that prominent.

Sometimes I forget, write a comment, and am then informed I need to log in. OK. I log in. But the comment is gone. My wisdom lost forever.

How about saving it?

[not guilty]

I sometimes compose a comment in an email addressed to myself and then cut and paste from the draft to the comment thread here.

[Stephen Lathrop]

bernard11 — for some reason that problem went away when I switched the browser I was using to Firefox. No more repeat log-ins have shown up.

[bernard11]

Second.

[Zarniwoop]

Collapsible threads. I’d like the be able to skip the usual whining by the usual suspects.

[Don Nico]

Hear, hear!

[David Nieporent]

Heck, I'd just like to make it easier to trace which comments are responding to which other comments. On the long threads (e.g. the open threads), you can sometimes have to scroll up 20 screens to figure out who someone was replying to, and that's not always accurate.

[Don Nico]

Agreed, that would be very useful

[Frank Drackman]

Just ignore it like I do, did Einstein care who he submitted his Anus Mirabalis papers to? Would Relativity be any less true if it'd been printed in "Screw"?? (I'd like to see a "Screw" magazine from 1905)
For my Shekels his Investigation into the etiology of Brownian Motion (Titled "Investigations on the theory of the Brownian movement" remember when Scientists spoke plain Engrish? me neither, it was actually,
"Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen" combines Chemistry, Calculus, Fluid Dynamics, Fick's Law, Avogadro's Law, to prove those Pollen grains aren't alive, but are just doing a microscopic Slam Dance.
The Photo-Electric Effect is like a 3 Stooges Short in comparison,

Frank

[Zarniwoop]

+1

[Stephen Lathrop]

That problem we could fix collectively. Just begin each reply with the name you reply to, thus:

"Nieporent — See, now you know, and can search conveniently for the gems I offer you."

[tylertusta]

Formatting options besides a kludged, half-working html method. Collapsible threads. Other QoL improvements.

[David Nieporent]

Or at least have it not strip out formatting when you use the "edit" feature!

[Brett Bellmore]

They already did once, when they made the comments unindexable. Be careful what you wish for.

[hobie]

Need the ability to add images

[Michael P]

Why, so we can more easily discuss topics like https://twitter.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1879823838181212277 ? I think that's a feature that we don't need.

[Commenter_XY]

I had no idea that was a trend. My, my.

[tylertusta]

Or at least have a thumbnail + link generated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Any sort of picture would immediately lead to a desperate need for intense moderation, even if Reason shelled out for the sort of software that keeps track of and automatically blocks known offensive images.

They're just not going to do it, because they don't want to have to put work into moderating.

[Noscitur a sociis]

More intense moderation sounds fine.

(I agree that they’re not going to do it. But I doubt that they’re going to do any of the other things either, since they’ve chosen not to despite of how easy it would be to.)

[tylertusta]

We aren't already swamped with spam bots, porn bots, or malicious links, so they're doing some kind of basic filtering.

[John F. Carr]

The amount of spam has declined over the past year.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume that they have somebody look at comments that get flagged, particularly if it's by more than one person.

[Kazinski]

That seems like something AI would be good at.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about preventing multiple accounts?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Paid for by whom? Why should Reason bother making unnecessary changes, when the main comments section is used on a regular basis by no more than a few dozen people?

[hobie]

Farewell President Biden. You did good despite it all.

- Here in Ohio (my new favorite state), between the Infrastructure and Chip acts, i see road and bridge repair all over the state with highspeed internet going in simultaneously. A new $20B Intel plant is underway as is battery and auto plants
- Inflation and unemployment are down to pre-pandemic levels
- Drug and insulin prices negotiated down
- Unemployment way down
- Stock Market has been soaring all four years

You did good, Sir. Enjoy your retirement

[Commenter_XY]

Did you forget 2022? = Stock Market has been soaring all four years

Inflation has not been reduced to pre-pandemic levels (yet).

[bernard11]

Yet the economy has done remarkably well under Biden.

And if you hate inflation wait until Trump implements his tariffs, tax cuts, and deportations.

[DixieTune]

No it really hasn't. If it had, Harris would have won.

[DixieTune]

First, inflation being down from its 9% peak just means that the rate of increase has slowed. We need an actual drop in prices.

Second, a soaring stock market does not benefit America as a whole. In fact, it directly leads to inflation, due to the "wealth effect" advocated for by Bernanke and others. When you cheer on a "soaring" stock market, you're cheering the fact that the rich are getting richer. It's as simple as that. This is especially true given that nearly all of the gains in the past few years have been multiple expansion, and not actual economic growth.

[Jmaie]

Anyone with a pension or 401K plans will have large investments in equities. Something like 70% of Americans who are employees fall into this category. A soaring stock market does *not* just make the rich richer.

And while a return to 2022 prices would be welcome (if accompanied by a return to similar wages), be careful what you wish for. Deflationary spirals can kill economic growth.

[DixieTune]

The top 10% of Americans own 93% of stocks. That means that the rich are disproportionately getting the benefits of a soaring stock market.

Your average guy with a $150,000 401k sees it go to $200,000. Big deal. That gain is wiped out with a year or two of long-term medical care.

[Jmaie]

Saying that rich folks benefit more from increasing stock prices is not quite the same as saying it's just the rich getting richer. Appears you've moved the goal posts a bit ;<)

The S&P500 is up 60% since Biden was sworn in. So that average guy who started with $150K will now have an additional $90K and I'm guessing he'll be pretty damn happy about it.

Not sure what you're arguing in your last remark, how is the cost of long term care related to 401K balances?

[DixieTune]

Yes, but the cost of living for that average guy is also up. If he owns a house and is locked into a 3% mortgage, then yes he's probably okay. But the cost of housing, health care, education, child care, personal services, insurance and everything else we "need" versus "want" is up. So he's probably not any really better off.

That's why Trump won. Most Americans felt worse off than they were 4 years ago. The statements at the exit polls bore this out. The rich are better off, because their $10 million portfolio is now worth $16 million, so that $6 million increase is more than enough to offset their cost of living increase.

That was my point.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The marks falling for the con is not exactly news.

[Mr. Bumble]

Glad for you that you've been insulated from "transitory" inflation.
Most of us haven't and the price increases in almost everything won't go down.

[Commenter_XY]

Jmaie...Less than 50% of Americans have access to a company sponsored 401K plan.

[DixieTune]

And those that do don't have a ton of money in it. If the argument is that government policy should be to inflate asset bubbles on the grounds that it's good for America's prosperity, people should call it out as being untrue.

[Frank Drackman]

Nice thing about being Self Employed, you can contribute to your own 401K as both Employer/Employee, deduct your contributions from your Gross Income, for 2024 as the "Employee" you can contribute $23,000 if you're under 50, and $30,500 if you're an Old Fuck like me, Employer contribution is more complicated, 25% of your Gross Income minus 1/2 the Self Employment Tax (Got that? that's why I have Manny do my forms) max total contributions for 2024 was $69,000/$76,500.
Problem is you have to be Self Employed, if you're a Wage Serf you're at the mercy of the Lord of the Manor.
Love being my own boss, he's such a great guy

Frank "I'm not jerking off, I'm doing my daily "Performance Evaluation"

[Jmaie]

So if 150 million Americans have access to a 401K plan, and stock prices go up, that's seems to be a good thing for a lot of people...

[David Nieporent]

We do not in fact need deflation, which is an insanely terrible idea. It's fine for real prices to drop (i.e., wages grow faster than prices), but not nominal ones.

[DixieTune]

Deflation is only a terrible idea for the Wall Street sycophants or people/entities with a lot of debt. Which are you?

[David Nieporent]

Neither; I'm just someone who didn't flunk economics.

[DixieTune]

Did you learn economics from the Ben Bernanke or Paul Krugman school of left-wing bullshit?

[David Nieporent]

No. Did you learn it from TikTok?

[Jmaie]

Yah, I hurried my earlier comment. What I meant was, a reduction in prices to the pre-pandemic levels and no further...to avoid a deflationary spiral. Hence the "careful what you ask for" remark.

[DixieTune]

Again, deflation is only bad for debtors.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Again, you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the first thing about inflation and economics.

[DixieTune]

Again, you're an idiot who believes whatever the New York Times tells you.

[Jmaie]

Deflation has very bad consequences for the economy as a whole. It dampens both consumer spending (which comprises 2/3 of GDP) and business investment. Why buy today if you know if will be cheaper down the road? This leads to a slowing of all sorts of economic activity, increased unemployment, etc.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Govie Job Watch
3 days: time until govies like Sacastr0 will be looking for work.
0 jobs: number of new jobs found

This has been the first tri-weekly edition of the Govie Job Watch. In homage to the late Reverend Buttwipe.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I would be very surprised to see any significant government layoffs. At most, we may eliminate some positions by attrition.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe it's time for an amendment limiting the pardon and commutation power of a lame duck president.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/01/todays-biden-jailbreak.php

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

They are stupid despicable actions. the perpetrator is what should be commuted. America, stop electing lazy stupid poorly spoken assholes like Kamala and Joe.

[John F. Carr]

Mass pardons shouldn't be allowed or should be subject to Congressional ratification. When we rewrite the Constitution let's put that in.

[Commenter_XY]

I would rather live with this, and preserve the ability of the POTUS to pardon....than take away that power for all future POTUS'.

[DixieTune]

I'd rather take it away from Democrats permanently, and leave it for Republicans.

[Commenter_XY]

No thank you. That would be much worse.

Knowing the shoe will be on the other foot is a wonderful mediating influence.

[Zarniwoop]

This!

One of the most important-yet-basic lessons I recall from Con Law I: "you might like the impact of a rule in this case, but what if the identical rule is wielded against a different cause you support?"

I think Scalia's take on standing is good when applied to Sierra Club and Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf where the 5th Cir got it bass-ackwards - and were reversed 9-0 - because the judges wanted a result, not a coherent rule.

[Commenter_XY]

I am a big believer in the 'shoe is on the other foot' test. It works.

Especially in marriage. 🙂

[SRG2]

There is no doubt that the pardon power is capable of abuse. But it is necessary, given that the US justice system is incompetent where not malign.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is where I dissent against Jeff Jacoby.

https://jeffjacoby.com/28337/abolish-the-presidential-pardon-power

But why go through the ordeal of amending the Constitution only to tinker around the edges of the pardon power? Better to abolish it outright. As Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, has observed, presidential clemency made more sense two centuries ago than it does now, when "federal jurisprudence has yielded a revolution in the due-process rights of criminal defendants and in Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments." A gross miscarriage of justice is far less likely in today's legal system, when every defendant is guaranteed a lawyer and convictions are routinely challenged on appeal. And when a rectification is needed, McCarthy wrote in 2021, federal courts are much more likely than a president to proceed fairly.

The flaw here is obvious.

Under Jacoby's proposal, there would be no way to eliminate a wrongful conviction outside of the judiciary.

Perhaps a case can be made that the pardon power should be transferred to another official or body outside then judiciary. There are states that have done this.

But someone or someones outside the judiciary must be able to exercise the pardon power unilaterally, sua sponte, and irrevocably.

[Zarniwoop]

I accept that a check on the judicial system is OK.

Query: why "irrevocably"?

Let's say that 90% of Congress thinks Biden's pardon of his son is wrong. Sell me a rationale for not being able to reverse the pardon.

[Michael Ejercito]

A pardon is functionally the same as an acquittal, which is also irrevocable.

It would take more than 90% of Congress to undo a pardon; it would also take three-fourths of the states. Pardons and acquittals can only be overturned by amendment to the United States Constitution.

[ducksalad]

Pardoned a long list of non-violent drug offenders?

Good for Biden. He finally did something useful and selfless on the 1458th day of his 1461 days in office.

And screw the people who would heartily approve this if Trump did it but are just attacking it because a Democrat did it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Now do Jan. 6.

[ducksalad]

Biden should have pardoned everyone involved on January 6th, including Trump himself, with the exclusion of significant physical assault.

But it's particularly stupid logic to say any good act one performs is invalid unless one performs every conceivable good act. You need to get past this fallacy.

[David Nieporent]

Biden should've executed everyone involved on January 6th, including Trump himself, and then claimed presidential immunity for that official act.

[not guilty]

Biden still has 69 hours to do that. Perhaps he can exercise his "Second Amendment remedies" on the platform Monday morning and become a hero to the anti-authoritarian firearm fetishists.

[/sarc]

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think summary executions are considered an official act. At least not yet (well except maybe for the FBI, ATF and a few other alphabet agencies).

[not guilty]

If Joe Biden were indicted, litigating the immunity issue would likely take the remainder of his lifetime. And if it came to a jury trial in the District of Columbia for executing Donald Trump, who can say whether the jury could reach a unanimous verdict?

[/semi-sarc]

[Noscitur a sociis]

Why not?

[Zarniwoop]

I don't think summary executions are considered an official act. At least not yet

Well, let's go there!

So, at 11:55am on Jan 20, a Secret Service agent, acting on a direct order from Biden, shoots Trump in the head.

at 11:57am on Jan 20, Biden says into the many cameras "Acting as POTUS, I ordered this in the scope of my presidential authority, to protect the US and democracy. I also hereby pardon the Secret Service agent and myself for all crimes committed today. I will, of course, step down as president 3 minutes from now, because I am man enough to admit I lost an election."

Does the S.Ct.'s recent presidential immunity decision render prosecution of Biden impossible? Why or why not?

Should the Secret Service Agent's pardon be irrevocable?

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes.

[DixieTune]

A lot of these "non-violent drug offenders" were not prosecuted for violent crimes because the AUSAs figured the 20 year mandatory minimum for the drug offense was enough.

You can't just look at what they were actually convicted of to determine if they were violent, but to look at the record as a whole.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but to look at the record as a whole" is just another way of saying, "Lets punish them for things we didn't convict them of."

I want a system where prosecutors prosecute for the offense they genuinely think was committed, and if they fail to get a conviction, on any count, that counts as "they didn't do it", and the legal system can't take the supposed conduct into account.

[DixieTune]

But we're not talking about a situation where a person is punished for something they weren't convicted of. We're talking about a situation where a person was given a lawful sentence, in accordance with the statutes, for actions they were in fact convicted of.

[ducksalad]

Yes, exactly. And Biden made an observation that, in his opinion, the statutes have disproportionate mandatory minimum penalties for the act actually proven, and that he'd issue a pardon.

Of course he himself had a lot to do with enacting those mandatory minimums. It's fair to point out that he was either wrong then, or wrong now. It's also fair to point out he could have done this in his first week of office rather than his last.

My interpretation is that not only was he wrong then, but he knew he was wrong all along. Recent events have made him aware that his life is limited and he's belatedly trying to relieve his own conscience.

[bernard11]

It's fair to point out that he was either wrong then, or wrong now.

True. And I agree with you that he was wrong then. But let's give him credit for realizing that and taking steps, albeit belatedly, to undo some small part of the damage.

OTOH, I'm not convinced he knew he was wrong when he helped create the problem. Lots of people thought harsh sentencing was the key to the kingdom.

He probably did realize it some years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we're talking about a system where offenses have a wide range of penalties, so that you can go to the high end when the jury obstinately refuses to convict on some of the charges, and claim that they're just being punished for what they were convicted on.

They're not even pretending, when they admit to using "real offense sentencing".

[DixieTune]

Perhaps, but that's a consequence of the statutes giving such wide latitude to the judges. Get rid of that, and that problem goes away.

But none of that affects my larger point, which is that in many cases, AUSAs may have had a slam-dunk case for say, Hobbs Act robbery, but didn't pursue it because it would require more trial resources than the drug possession, which was incontrovertible, especially if the latter had a longer mandatory minimum.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yeah, we're talking about a system where offenses have a wide range of penalties, so that you can go to the high end when the jury obstinately refuses to convict on some of the charges, and claim that they're just being punished for what they were convicted on.

I’m having trouble finding the actual text of the commutation, but as I read the president’s statement that is not, in fact, what we’re talking about. We’re talking about people who received the lowest sentence that was allowed for the crimes they were convicted of.

[Noscitur a sociis]

"but to look at the record as a whole" is just another way of saying, "Lets punish them for things we didn't convict them of."

A big part of the reason that Congress imposed these mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes was a recognition that trafficking drugs at that level inherently causes violence, and thus is at least equivalent to a violent crime in most circumstances. (You’ll note that federal law generally treats drug trafficking crimes similarly to crimes of violence in other contexts as well.)

[ducksalad]

"You can't just look at what they were actually convicted of to determine if they were violent"

If I were Mr. Bumble, I'd say "Now do Jan. 6". But I'm not so I won't say something irrelevant like that.

But I will say that I'm not in favor of punishing people for crimes they weren't convicted for, nor a legal system where we substitute easy-to-prove crimes for hard-to-prove ones and jack the penalty ranges for the first because we're really punishing the second.

[DixieTune]

But that doesn't change the fact that the other crimes may not have been hard to prove.

[ducksalad]

If it's a fact that US attorneys aren't going after crimes that are both easy to prove and violent, and instead substituting some bullshit that doesn't explain to the public why these people need long sentences, then they - the US attorneys - are failing to run a system centered on meaningful public trials.

They need a bit of a wake up call, and mass pardons might help them get the message. I hope Biden's handlers do a few thousand more each day over the weekend. Maybe sign the last batch Monday while he's on the Capitol steps, have an aide run up with the papers.

[DixieTune]

They might not even need a trial. If someone is pleading guilty to a drug charge and getting a 20 year sentence, why does it matter if he's dropped the "violent" ones?

[Bob from Ohio]

"non-violent drug offenders"

Drug dealers are never "non-violent".

[ducksalad]

I'll go by the verdicts of courts and juries, and the definitions in the law.

[Zarniwoop]

Category fail!

You've never met a pot dealer, obvs.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I still haven’t an explanation of the exact criteria used for these commutations, but I would be very surprised to learn that any of the recipients were pot dealers.

[Jmaie]

Seems unlikely there's all that many local pot dealers in federal custody for drug crimes, though...

[Bob from Ohio]

"pot dealer "

"6 killings in likely cannabis dispute spotlight violence in California’s illegal pot market"
Nation Feb 1, 2024 4:18 PM EST PBS News

"U.S. Attorney blames Tallahassee gun violence on 'street level, small-time' pot dealers"
Jeffrey Schweers. Tallahassee Democrat

"Police say illegal marijuana sales fueling much of the violence in Rochester"
by Carla RognerWed, October 5th 2022 at 11:35 PM
Updated Thu, October 6th 2022 at 3:46 AM

[gVOR08]

"And screw the people who would heartily approve this if Trump did it but are just attacking it because a Democrat did it."

"Would"? This is hardly hypothetical. Trump did a long list of pardons, many highly questionable. Who here objected in 2021?

[John F. Carr]

Tens of thousands of people lost their houses in Los Angeles or can't return to their houses. There is a lot of demand for rental housing. Due to the state of emergency rent control is in effect. Market rents are forbidden. A maximum increase of 10% over pre-fire rents is allowed. Online platforms are enforcing this rule. If you try to list on Zillow or Airbnb at a higher price the system is supposed to block you.

[Absaroka]

Related question for folks up to speed on California tenant laws: suppose I'm a retiree/widow/widower with spare room now that the kids are grown up, and I decide to let a burned out family stay for a while.

Time passes, and eventually I think it's time for them to move on. Can I force them to leave? Or is there an 'after X weeks/months they have established a right to stay' thing?

[Don Nico]

"Can I force them to leave? "
Even with a contract you will have trouble if they insist on staying.

[Absaroka]

If so (and I'd guess you're right), I bet the folks who came up with those rules weren't thinking 'Gee, what can we do to disincentivize charity towards people who lose their house in wildfires (or Ukrainian refugees, or a down-n-out pal, or...)'. Beware unintended consequences.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, my brother in Ventura was actually thinking about this, he's got a spare bedroom. But the risk is too high.

[John F. Carr]

It's not the contract that matters. Typically American law distinguishes guests from residents. Guests can be given a no trespassing order and kicked out. Residents have to be formally evicted, even if they stay past the end of their lease. When your kid turns 18 you may need a court order to make him move out. When your girlfriend dumps you she has to get a court order to evict you from the shared apartment rented in her name. If you rent a hotel room for 29 days they can toss you out on a whim but if you rent a hotel room for 31 days you are protected the same as a renter. With some state to state variation.

I don't know the rules or customs in California. An emergency might come with an eviction moratorium. The judge might refuse to order residents evicted if they have nowhere else to go.

[Don Nico]

John,
You make a good point. Don't offer such charity until you consult with a knowledgeable attorney.

[hobie]

I have a lot of extremely rich MAGA friends who have donated heavily this time around. They like sending reams of MAGA propaganda. Until the election they were apoplectic with fear and anger. Now, they are in bliss and at peace. I realized looking at these people that they really, truly suffer when Democrats are in power. The fear is real. The anger is real. Like most liberals, I don't fear the wider the wider world and the people in it, but you guys do. Therefore I think it is better for the psyche of the nation that we have MAGA in control for now. I can handle it. But were it otherwise we'd have half a population in the throes of mental illness. Better to have people like me take the sidelines for awhile because we can handle it

[KenveeB]

I have a lot of liberal friends who have been truly suffering from real fear and anger about Trump, Republicans, and the world in general unless we do whatever they're worried about today to fix it. They absolutely fear the wider world and the people in it. Don't try to make Republicans into some kind of fragile psyche and Democrats as valiant stalwarts who can weather any storm. There are crazies and fragile folks on both sides, and people who can handle whatever comes to them on both sides too.

[DixieTune]

we suffer when Democrats are in power because Democrats go out of their way to antagonize conservatives and make their lives miserable.

Republicans, when in power, don't do to that liberals.

[ThePublius]

Yea, remember the comfort rooms in universities with cookies and milk and coloring books, and the mass demonstrations of women in pussy hats, and the late night show hosts crying on the air when Biden won?

Neither do I.

hobie, that's the kookiest, most deranged thing I've read in a long, long time. It's hard to believe that you sincerely believe it and are not just trolling.

[DixieTune]

Liberals are mentally ill. This is nothing new.

[not guilty]

Do you really want to go there? Labeling political adversaries as mentally ill has a pretty sordid history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

[ThePublius]

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions

[not guilty]

See what I mean? Michael Weiner is not a Leonid Brezhnev, a Mao Tse-Tung or a Samuel A. Cartwright,* but he is hardly someone to opine on other folks' mental healthiness.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Cartwright

[RedheadedPharoh]

You literally believe that all humanity is facing extinction and the only solution is to tax people and send trillions through the UN's bureaucracy.

[VinniUSMC]

Thanks hobie, for that delightful insight, into the effect that Jonathon Haidt correctly pointed out, that Leftists haven't got a fucking clue about the other side.

What's "extremely rich" hobie? Doesn't have $100,000 in student loan debt to pay for their Gender Studies degree? Has a job? Isn't a homeless bum? Or, you're just straight up lying and made it up.

[Bob from Ohio]

"lot of extremely rich MAGA friends "

LOL Sure.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Hobie also claims lives in "'da Hood" and as been accepted by the Coloreds as one of the tribe when he comments on black issues.

So of course he has "extremely rich MAGA friends" when he wants to criticize Whites. I suspect something Talmudish going on.

[Super Scary]

" Therefore I think it is better for the psyche of the nation that we have MAGA in control for now. I can handle it. "

Lol, what a crazy thing to claim. Here's the realty of the situation - https://19thnews.org/2024/11/election-lgbtq-youth-crisis-calls/

[Paladin_44]

In reply to Hobie

Or as Tex Antoine once said....

[Mr. Bumble]

Funny, but over the heads of most commentors.

[ThePublius]

How do you know that?

[Mr. Bumble]

It was long ago and far away for most commentors.

[SimonP]

It's not too hard to figure out what the edgelord MAGA fascists are saying to each other, in your safe spaces. You're nowhere near as clever as you think.

[ThePublius]

You are unhinged. "Safe spaces" is a liberal, progressive thing. Fascism is a phenomenon of the left. Calling conservatives fascists is both projection, and another leftist tactic to brand these terrible movements as conservative: Southern Democrats, fascism, Nazism, and so forth.

[Sarcastr0]

You are unhinged. "Safe spaces" is a liberal, progressive thing

Check our Free Republic sometime, and what they do to liberal posters there.

Calling conservatives fascists is both projection, and another leftist tactic to brand these terrible movements as conservative
A terrible tactic you yourself just used by calling it projection?

[SimonP]

I'm not the one taunting other citizens with threats of targeted, politically-motivated criminal prosecutions, like it brings me some joy.

[Sarcastr0]

TP is angry at how a lot of liberals went to bluesky.

I could be wrong, but that could be the safespace thing that's lately set him off.

[Life of Brian]

The anti-mindreader once again mindreads a doozy, pulling BlueSky out of the clear... you know.

Maybe -- work with me here -- "the safespace thing" was SimonP's explicit reference to them in the comment ThePublius replied to?

[Commenter_XY]

Not a mystery at all, SimonP. The shoe is now on the other foot, and it is payback time. They have the list of people, only need to find the crime now. 😉

[not guilty]

XY, do you regard it as a good thing if the incoming Trump administration emulates Lavrentiy Beria?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, the standard was set, this is no (D)ifferent.

[Sarcastr0]

We are talking about YOUR standards, dude.

[not guilty]

No, the standard has not been set, and what Donald Trump and his followers are proposing to do is (Rep)rehensible.

"But he started it!" is a whiny playground excuse. Do you or do you not admire those who emulate Lavrentiy Beria? It won't break your keyboard to give a yes or no answer.

[bernard11]

What standard was set?

Are you really such a fool as to believe Trump did nothing to justify any of the legal actions taken against him?

Do yourself a favor and read some non-MAGA, non-RW, accounts of the various cases, not to mention his entire career as an incompetent grifter.

[not guilty]

XY, what action(s) do you claim that investigators and/or prosecutors took against Donald Trump and his confederates, which were not amply supported by evidence? Please be specific.

(Most of) Trump's apologists were careful not to defend his bad conduct on the merits. Instead, they kvetched long and loudly about what was or was not done regarding other political figures.

Tu quoque is called a fallacy for good reason.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, XY. Do you or do you not admire those who emulate Lavrentiy Beria?

If so you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I repeat: The standard was already set. Now live with it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

He asked for specifics and you don’t have any.

[Sarcastr0]

You get to set your standards. No one else forces you.

You favor deploying Beria-style tactics against Democrats.

Y or N?

[not guilty]

"NG, I repeat: The standard was already set. Now live with it."

IOW, you are running away like Usain Bolt from giving a straight answer to my questions.

Do you or do you not admire those who emulate Lavrentiy Beria?

What action(s) do you claim that investigators and/or prosecutors took against Donald Trump and his confederates, which were not amply supported by evidence?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I do not admire those who emulate Beria. DC is full of incipient Beria's.

I will simply tell you, again. The standard was already set. Now live with it. Nothing you or I can say (or wish) is going to change what is about to happen. Team R is going to take retribution. There are people who are going to prison, after an expensive legal process. Depend on it.

The shoe is on the other foot, and it will hurt, a lot.

Perhaps when the dust has settled, the one-upmanship can stop. But I do not think that it will.

[Sarcastr0]

You: "The shoe is now on the other foot, and it is payback time. They have the list of people, only need to find the crime now. ;-)"

Also you: "I do not admire those who emulate Beria."

I do not find these two statements reconcilable. I mean, a fucking winking smiley?!

You're now taking a tone like you're explaining, not endorsing.

That flies in the face of the tone your previous comments took.

So which Commenter is the real one -
the one rooting for show trials out of revenge, or the one who showed up just now lamenting how there will be show trials out of revenge?

[not guilty]

Once more, XY. What action(s) do you claim that investigators and/or prosecutors took against Donald Trump and his confederates, which were not amply supported by evidence? Absent that, no standard has been set other than "follow the evidence where it leads."

I agree that nothing that you or I can say will change that Trump and his crowd are fundamentally crooked. But an honest person doesn't deny that Trump is a crook.

[Mr. Bumble]

So why are the only convictions in the cesspit of the NY legal system?

[not guilty]

Because Merrick Garland dragged ass in appointing a Special Counsel, Aileen Cannon issued a lawless order of dismissal, SCOTUS slowed down the D.C. prosecution and Trump ran out the clock.

But I suspect you knew that.

Trump's conduct is indefensible on the merits.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, XY. What action(s) do you claim that investigators and/or prosecutors took against Donald Trump and his confederates, which were not amply supported by evidence?

If you don't know, man up and say so.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Pathetic.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

More cowardice from C_Bitch. Shocking.

[Mr. Bumble]

ng:
"Do you or do you not ..."
So which should cause him to feel "ashamed"?

[not guilty]

I said "If so," indicating that admiration of Beria is shameful.

[SimonP]

You're exactly as deplorable as liberals always knew people like you to be.

[Commenter_XY]

Cry harder Simple Simon.

[John F. Carr]

LA Department of Water and Power is being sued for not having enough water on hand to fight fires. Everybody is being sued – it's a great time to be a tort lawyer – and LADWP is being sued too. LADWP replies "To commission the support and resources to implement repairs to Santa Ynez, LADWP is subject to the city charter’s competitive bidding process which requires time."

I don't know California law on this subject.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/15/lawsuit-utility-water-failures-palisades-fire/77703536007/

The electric company is also being sued because there was a video of a fire near the base of a utility pole. Some people on video running away from the fire are getting a lot of hate and threats. Why would you run from a fire unless you started the fire? They don't have deep enough pockets to be worth suing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In MA, power lines are 8,700 volts to ground -- I'd run...

[John F. Carr]

Sometimes an internet mob is wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, SC says Tik Tok ban OK.

[ThePublius]

So, I guess a sale won't occur before they are required to turn it off in the U.S. by Sunday. I also imagine people in the U.S. who really want to will be able to access it anyway, via VPNs, no?

I also don't know how a U.S. purchaser would go through all of that code and remove all of the backdoors and other mechanisms that I am sure Bytedance installed.

[John F. Carr]

I like Gorsuch's concurrence including his remarks on the unnecessary formalism of fitting the case into a particular standard of review.

[DixieTune]

Of course they did. They're utterly unwilling to stand up to the Democrats.

[Jmaie]

Should congressional aids have a 32 hour work week?

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/5089686-progressive-hill-staffers-shorter-workweek/

[tylertusta]

Biden is throwing in with the "Equal Rights Amendment is a ratified amendment" crowd.

Maybe he'll declare himself a sovereign citizen next.

[DixieTune]

He's going out of his way to antagonize conservatives. He's an absolute piece of garbage.

[tylertusta]

It's probably been sent with his permission, but it's possible that this is someone or a group of someones in the White House just doing whatever they want.

If you were some young leftist staffer at the White House, you're probably thinking to yourself that you're out of a job on Monday anyways, so you've got nothing to lose. Might as well go out in a blaze of progressive glory.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think of Biden as having agency. I remember watching an old lady with dementia sign a document presented to her by somebody she trusted.

"Might as well go out in a blaze of progressive glory."

Like the guy who suspended Trump's Twitter account on his last day on the job.

[DixieTune]

If true, it just reinforces the idea that Biden hasn't done anything in years, and has merely been a puppet for left-wing staffers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I assume he's actually responsible for stuff happening on the few issues he really cares about, but that most of the Oval office has been running on automatic for the last 4 years. He hasn't been active and awake enough of the time to handle a normal full Presidential workload, but he's hardly comatose even now.

[DixieTune]

But if that's the case, why has this supposed "moderate" been acting like a far leftist?

[F.D. Wolf]

Biden isn't doing anything, unless by "Biden", you're using shorthand to mean the unknown figures who have actually been running the government under that name the last few years. This really has been the Weekend at Bernie's presidency.

[Mr. Bumble]

An inconvenient truth.
+1

[Sarcastr0]

Schrodinger's Biden. He's fully senile and controlled by a puppet cabal, but also responsible for all the things you want him to be responsible for.

Oh, and also skating ahead of the law as the head of an International crime family.

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche. All executive power resides with the President.
Whether he did it or not (policies) it is/was done in his name.
Buck stops with him.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Il dummy. Did you happen to hear his point as it whizzed over your head?

[F.D. Wolf]

It depends whether you mean "responsible" in the legal sense or the colloquial sense. If you put a man with dementia behind the wheel of a car, and he runs someone over, he may not be responsible in a legal sense because he was non compos mentis, but, nevertheless, the disastrous consequences of his actions remain.

Biden has never been the brightest bulb, but I will concede the obvious point that he would have been a better President had he not been handicapped by the accelerating deterioration of his cognitive faculties, for which, of course, he can hardly be blamed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh. Better in some regards, worse in others. He might have more effectively pursued some bad policies he's fond of.

For instance, he's VERY bad on the 2nd amendment, but his efforts there have been unfocused and sporadic; I think if he were his old self, violating the 2nd amendment would have been a higher and more consistent goal of the administration.

[Sarcastr0]

I think if he were his old self, violating the 2nd amendment would have been a higher and more consistent goal of the administration.

Just full of stories, Brett is.

[DixieTune]

Yes, that is true. That also goes for the 37 death sentences he commuted.

[Roger S]

Maybe we will someday learn who has been running the White House, and who would have managed Kamala Harris, if she had been elected.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And when that doesn't happen during the incoming Administration, will you still believe it?

Of course you will...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Biden is throwing in with the "Equal Rights Amendment is a ratified amendment" crowd.

Yes, like the American Bar Organization.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/initiatives_awards/era/

His statement is advisory. It is up to Congress and the courts, according to the Office of Legal Counsel.

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2022-11/2022-01-26-era.pdf

[DixieTune]

The American Bar Association is a left-wing advocacy group. I never joined it for that reason.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'm quite sure you never joined Mensa 'for that reason' also.

Nobody will have you, so you just pretend you refused to join. LOL

[DixieTune]

You're a fucking moron. I qualified for Mensa on my LSAT alone, but did not join, as it's an organization of self-fellating losers, and I did not join the ABA because I don't share its values. Any attorney can join, you dont' need to be "had."

[Frank Drackman]

AMA's the same way, majority of its members are foreign docs who either think membership is required (and the AMA does nothing to correct that misconception) or it gets them some kind of advantage, they even have an "American Medical Student Association" which is even more worthless if you can believe it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sure thing, genius!

Every organization everywhere has exceptions to keep out dipshits like you, voluntary or otherwise.

You're as welcome as gonorrhea.

[Frank Drackman]

If the AMA's trying to keep me out, they have a funny way of showing it, you could paper the Foo-Bawl field at MBS with all the offers they've been sending me for the last 30 years, and probably fund a few "Diversity Scholarships" with the postage.
Sorry about your Gonorrhea, have him wear a Rubber next time.

Frank

[tylertusta]

Believing that the ERA is ratified is akin to believing that the world is flat. If the ABO also thinks that it is, then it's run by cranks and loons.

And no, Biden didn't say anything about he acknowledging that this was merely advisory.

"President Biden Declares The Equal Rights Amendment Is Now The Law Of the Land"

https://x.com/POTUS/status/1880271367569895830

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The link is just to his advisory statement that it has been ratified.

He doesn't have the authority on his say-so to finalize it. It's up to the National Archivist. Who he has not instructed.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/joe-biden-equal-right-amendment/index.html

You can name-call if you wish. Some actual legal and historical experts agree with his position. I don't and it's basically academic. The archivist has reaffirmed her formal position.

His "statement" on what he "believes" is not a formal act:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/17/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-the-equal-rights-amendment

[John F. Carr]

If necessary Trump can order the National Archivist to unratify it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I do think it’s shocking (or should be) for the president to advocate this kind of naked lawlessness. I don’t think the fact that it’s not going to have any impact is much of a defense, any more than it was for the various (pre-January 6) stop-the-steal senators.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There is no "naked lawlessness."

What is the point of such silly hyperbole? He made a statement. It's backed up by multiple serious experts. And, whatever people want to label the ABA.

If he tried to command the archivist to declare it an amendment it would be closer to a true statement. He did not.

The comparison to Stop the Steal senators is ridiculous "both sides" b.s. At some point, a tad bit of perspective is useful.

[DixieTune]

I agree, it wasn't as nakedly unlawful as the CDC eviction ban, the masks on plane rule, or the student loan "relief" actions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's backed up by multiple serious experts. And, whatever people want to label the ABA.

The arguments are as serious as the claim that the fourteenth amendment wasn’t ratified because Ohio isn’t a state or whatever. And if Trump announced that he believes that, I think you’d have no trouble calling him out.

[bernard11]

Biden expressed his opinion.

I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

I affirm what I believe.

He did not claim he was making it a part of the Constitution, or even that he has the power to do so.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes he did.

Specifically, he said:

PRESIDENT BIDEN DECLARES

The Equal Rights Amendment is Now the Law of the Land

Guarantees All Americans Equal Rights and Protections Under the Law Regardless of Their Sex

[tylertusta]

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

In no way did Joe Biden's statement imply it was "advisory."

[Zarniwoop]

He doesn't have the authority on his say-so to finalize it. It's up to the National Archivist. Who he has not instructed.

This argument - that the views of a subordinate Exec Branch official are somehow dispositive on whether a Constitutional amendment is operative - is particularly inane.

The position of National Archivist didn't even exist until 1934. Yet the Bill of Rights amendments are operative ....

That obvious point aside, Article V gives zero role to the Exec branch in making amendments part of the Constitution. It either happens or it doesn't, but Biden's opinion is just. not. relevant.

The questions about 1) the time limit on ratification imposed outside of the amendment text, and 2) the potential for states to claw back a ratification vote are legit, real, and unresolved. But the President (and the Exec branch generally) doesn't get a say in those.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Tik-Tok ruling on first glance appears reasonable. It is limited in scope and avoids using classified information to determine its result. Gorsuch's concurrence is also worthwhile.

It is unclear how much the ruling matters but still appreciated that it provides a careful analysis. It also shows that the Supreme Court can act quickly when it wants.

[Mr. Bumble]

The question becomes "now what"? The law is valid, Biden has not extended the period as allowed, will Trump enforce it?

[Zarniwoop]

Given the timing, I think it would be reasonable for Biden to consult with Trump, and make the allowed extension on Trump's behalf if Trump specifically asks for it (and, given his propensity to lie, blame others, etc. ... puts that request in writing).

The statutory 90 day extension will allow Mr Art of the Deal to work his magic, amirite?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-tiktok-china-security-speech-166f7c794ee587d3385190f893e52777?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us#

Security fencing around SCOTUS???

[tylertusta]

It's probably for the inauguration.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ed sometimes needs a chill pill.

[Commenter_XY]

Does Amy Wax win this case?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/01/prof-amy-wax-sues-upenn-over-race-based-discriminatory-speech-policy/

[Bored Lawyer]

Complaint is here: https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ECF-001-01.16.2025-Wax-v-UPENN-Complaint.pdf

Prior cases like this have been successful. Generally on breach of contract theories. Which is her first claim.

The behavior of Penn law school alleged here is reminiscent of the worst of the Soviet Union. If true, the days of heavy federal subsidies of higher education are numbered.

[Sarcastr0]

The behavior of Penn law school alleged here is reminiscent of the worst of the Soviet Union

Brett-level melodrama right here.

The worst of the Soviet Union was starving millions.

[Commenter_XY]

BL...Would you believe that Professor Wax and I have mutual acquaintances? She is an interesting woman. Very sharp.

[Michael Ejercito]

Another argument in favor of the death penalty.

Lifers inevitably get released in exchange for hostages.

https://jeffjacoby.com/28340/the-terrible-deja-vu-of-an-israel-hamas-hostage

[RedheadedPharoh]

Michelle Obama is throwing another classless snit and trampling our norms by being the first WOC First Lady to skip an inauguration.

What a White-hating POS that dude has always been.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone care? She won't be missed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump's team have already stated that they never expected her to attend in the first place, and are having a good laugh over the announcement.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As compared to the first white male former occupant of the office which would have been John Adams. Trump broke many norms. Suddenly norms matter to Trump supporters?

[Longtobefree]

What position was Norm nominated for?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seat at the end of the bar?

[Moderation4ever]

You might also mention that Michelle Obama was the first WOC former First Lady to attend an inauguration in 2017.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, it's her Birthday, with "CPT" she won't show up for her party until next Thursday, give a Black Girl a break!

[not guilty]

"Hey, it's her Birthday, with "CPT" she won't show up for her party until next Thursday, give a Black Girl a break!"

A question for those who genuflect to Clarence Thomas: is Frank's reference here to CPT "racist"?

[RedheadedPharoh]

If you ever lived in the glorious South, you'd know CPT isn't racist, just a fact of life.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's nothing next to filipina time, I assure you.

[not guilty]

I have lived in the South now for only 69 years.

[RedheadedPharoh]

And you don't know what CPT is?

NOVA isn't "the South".

[not guilty]

Of course I know what CPT is. It is a racial slur. To some commenters here, however, the only thing that they will tag as "racist" is my calling out Clarence Toady for exploiting his blackness for all his despicable life.

And I am not in Northern Virginia; I am in Middle Tennessee.

[Frank Drackman]

Wait till you find out what "MARTA" stands for

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, Biden did it: Declared that the ERA is ratified. That's going to be a fun court battle. Or it would be, if the national Archivist's office hadn't already said they didn't agree.

By the same reasoning, you could say enough states have demanded a constitutional convention. And you'd probably be on stronger ground.

[tylertusta]

Not that he governed as one as President, but he's at the twilight of his political career he's shedding the last vestiges of the veneer that he was ever a moderate.

[Bwaaah]

Or maybe the people calling the shots in the White House have shed any vestige of regard for the nature Presidential authority?

[tylertusta]

While we like to envision that Biden's handlers are controlling policy without his knowledge, the far more likely scenario is that his handlers are dictating to him what his policy is and he just goes along with it.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's some mix of independent action, persuasion, and Biden just not giving a damn anymore if the public knows who he really is, because, what can they do to him now?

All I can say at this point is, tighten your seatbelt, he's got a bit under 72 hours left to lash out and try to break stuff.

[Bwaaah]

My mainly non-political wife asked me, "Can he do that?" It seemed wrong to her (despite her left-leaning sympathies).

My answer was that, as I have come to understand, it depends on whether or not people object, and in how many numbers. The "rule of law" is often subjugated to popular opinion, and most people don't really care about that.

That NPR article shows they're on the fence and open to it, which is a pretty good read of how liberal America will react. Like all the lawless shit from the left, I expect typically unhelpful silence (with slight smiles) from half the country. NPR's analysis actually puts forth and legitimizes an absurd path forward:

"The amendment would need to be formally published or certified to come into effect by the National Archivist, Colleen Shogan — and when or if that will happen is unclear."

So you see, America, the decision of what our constitution says is up to Colleen Shogan. So says NPR. And so is like the left.

[Roger S]

At the same time Biden argues for democracy, he goes against what those democratic procedures have determined.

[Frank Drackman]

I think the "Jungle Screw-els" comment will at least keep one of his unstable feet from crossing the "Progressive" (USAA has better rates and Service but I'd almost consider switching just to meet Flo) line

[Bob from Ohio]

"Biden is not going to order the archivist to certify and publish the ERA, the White House told reporters on a conference call."

Just verbal diarrhea as usual from ole senile Joe then.

[not guilty]

"That's going to be a fun court battle. Or it would be, if the national Archivist's office hadn't already said they didn't agree."

Who, do you surmise, would have standing to sue?

[Bored Lawyer]

Whoever believes they are protected by the amendment. Someone will challenge a federal or state law, claiming it constitutes sex discrimination, and invoke the ERA.

Here's an easy one. The Selective Service law requires "every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States" between 18 to 26 to register. Seems like a facial violation of the ERA.

[John F. Carr]

Expect more challenges to abortion restrictions too.

We already have an ERA by construction of the 14th Amendment. Sex-based classifications get a close look from the courts. What changes with more words saying the same thing? The ERA doesn't say strict scrutiny applies. The courts can treat it like the Second Amendment, absolute in theory and much weaker in practice.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That seems like one of the few issues where someone might not have standing to sue.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure if you are referring to my post or Carr's.

But why would a male who has to register for the Selective Service not have standing?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because he'd still have to register either way, I assume.

[Kazinski]

How is he damaged if his sister doesn't have to?

How does making his sister register provide any relief for his burden to register.

Seems like speculative damage that possibly in the future a draft that doesn't exist will need enough bodies that not having his sister register would increase his chances of being selected.

That's enough for standing?

[Bob from Ohio]

Would the sister have standing?

[Kazinski]

If they are making her register yes, if they are saying she can't then I don't think so, she can just enlist if she wants to.

[Bored Lawyer]

Wrong. The male is damaged because he is being denied equal protection. He is being required to do something that women aren't.

Suppose a state were to impose a special "black tax" that only African Americans had to pay. You seriously think a black person would not have standing to challenge that, just because the same state could impose the same tax on all people regardless of race?

[not guilty]

Assuming arguendo there is an injury in fact, what remedy would redress the harm?

[Bored Lawyer]

Enjoining the registration requirement as enacted. If and when Congress enacts something different, then that can be subject to new review.

[Kazinski]

I do believe the Trump DOJ would have standing, the Congress of the United States would have standing, either each house separately or by joint resolution.

[bernard11]

No. He said it was his opinion it is ratified. No more.

That's a far cry from declaring it ratified.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Assuming his Xitter tweet was "official", that is exactly what it said.

Joe's been making some stupid moves as of late, which suggests that he is indeed losing it. Sad to see.

However, Democrats have themselves to blame for not acting when they had the chance to stop him from running again. That was always the wrong move, and it has come back to haunt them.

(As the same move will come back to haunt Republicans, naturally.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

CNN loses defamation suit...

https://www.mediaite.com/news/breaking-florida-jury-finds-cnn-defamed-navy-veteran-awards-him-millions-in-damages/

[Kazinski]

5 million in actual damages, punitive damages next.

Then more CNN layoffs.

[Reallynotbob]

What's the over/under on number of days Trump plays golf in 2025?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably umm, 15, or less than the number of times Hunter shoots up a "Belushi" in 2025, lost in the excitement of Sleepy Joe's last 2 weeks was the death of a (Lefty of course, they're always Lefties) former MLB Pitcher from an Overdose (Hmm, Tylenol? no, Albuterol? no, it's the other drug that rhymes with "All"). Wondering if "First Son's" get Secret Service "Protection"? probably not or they'd probably have noticed the Crack Pipes and misplaced Revolver, not happy about it, because I'd love to have a drink with the guy, but Hunter will be RIP within the year, from his own actions,

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

I'll take a stab at it.

2 rounds weekly for 36 weeks
1 round weekly for 16 weeks
3 rounds/wk for 2 weeks

72 + 16 + 6 = 94 rounds for 2025

That doesn't include simulator time...Pres Trump had a simulator installed in 2017 (at his personal expense).

[Frank Drackman]

Simulators are Bullshit, I've landed an FA-18 100 times on a Full Motion Simulator, you feel comfortable with me in the Cockpit of anything? Like "Sully" said to the NTSB Goons,
"Everybody's an Ace in the Simulator"
or was it "Nobody dies in a Simulator"?
2 Rounds a week? I highly doubt it, not many actual retirees play that much, but how would I know, I've only been kicked off Driving Ranges for getting drunk and slicing (Slice?? I never Slice!) into the other guy's areas (not even sure what you call them, "Fairways"? "Lanes"? ) and for some reason the only Left Handed Clubs they have (if they even have them) look like they were last used by Bob Charles* (Nice thing about Tennis, which I play a few times a month, the Rackets don't discriminate against Southpaws)

Frank

* I can name a gaggle of Lefty Tennis Greats from memory, Connors, McEnroe, Tanner, Laver, Tony Roche, Vilas, Orantes, but try to find any Southpaw Golfers other than Mikelson, Charles won some tournaments in the 60's, and probably died insane and penniless, like most Lefties

[Kazinski]

I think tradition is important.

"Sixteen of the last 19 United States presidents played golf. Former President Donald Trump, of course, is well-known as an avid golfer and current President Joe Biden plays the game, too.

The list goes back to William Howard Taft, who was president from 1909 to 1913. According to the Washington Post, Taft was admittedly "addicted to golf," playing so much during the 1908 presidential campaign that his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, urged him to quit playing altogether."

Promotes Democracy too, which I've been told is important:

"I know that there is nothing more democratic than golf," Taft once wrote. "There is nothing which furnishes a greater test of character and self-restraint, nothing which puts one more on an equality with one’s fellows, or, I may say, puts one lower than one’s fellows, than the game of golf."

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2023/01/20/u-s-presidents-play-golf-donald-trump-joe-biden/76531915007/

[Jason Cavanaugh]

""I know that there is nothing more democratic than golf," Taft once wrote. "There is nothing which furnishes a greater test of character and self-restraint, nothing which puts one more on an equality with one’s fellows, or, I may say, puts one lower than one’s fellows, than the game of golf.""

And yet we know Trump is a blatant cheater at the game. Another self-own by the cult of idiots.

[Frank Drackman]

And Biden stole the 2020 Erection, pretty blatantly. It's like calling your own lines in Tennis, depends on your opponent, if he's cheating, you've got to cheat back, and even the great Nolan Ryan, on big pitches, would take his normal stretch position, but a 1/2 foot in front of the Rubber, Umpires rarely noticed it, almost never called a Balk, and gave his fastball an extra 1-2 MPH, like he needed it, and even with all of his Grand Slam titles (Only player to win US Open on Grass, Clay, and Hardcourt) to me Jimmy Connors greatest moment was against Corrado Barrazuti, 77' US Open, the Eurotrash was arguing a line call, Jimbo runs to the other side of the court, rubs out the ball mark.

Frank

[Reallynotbob]

Tradition is fine.

Shirking work while increasing the taxpayer's security costs each time he plays... we could do with less.

[Jmaie]

Increasing security costs is probably the least-expensive thing a president can do...

[Armchair]

Less than the number of days Joe took on vacation.

[Frank Drackman]

In today's Dementia Update
Parkinsonian Joe states that the "Equal Rights Amendment" (which like the Holy Roman Empire, wasn't Equal, Right, or an Amendment) is the law of the land,
The "Inconvenient Truth" is that the deadline for ratification was June 30, 1982, when Parkinsonian Joe was only 39, and just "Stupid Joe", (and Hunter was the "Smartest 12 year old" Stupid Joe knew)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Going out like the flaming dumpster fire he is and has bee.
Jimmy can rest in peace knowing that Biden has a lock on worst "President" ever!

[Kazinski]

Those that said it will be a cold day in hell before Trump becomes President again turned out to be right.

"President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration will be moved indoors, he announced Friday, due to dangerously cold temperatures projected in the nation’s capital."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/inauguration-moving-indoors-cold-weather/index.html

[Frank Drackman]

That Global Warming's going to be the death of us!

[Michael P]

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/01/joseph-robinette-biden-jrs-obituary.html

I keep rereading this sentence: "A cabal intent on preserving its own power would never have blundered in such tragically self-defeating fashion." It gets funnier every time.

To answer the poll of "cabal" or "bumblers": por qué no los dos?

[Sarcastr0]

I like this, but it also confirms my priors a bit too much for me to fully trust it.
I'd be interested in who feel seen by it.

https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

Who Goes Nazi?
by Dorothy Thompson
[excerpted]

"He is a snob, loathing his own snobbery. He despises the men about him—he despises, for instance, Mr. B—because he knows that what he has had to achieve by relentless work men like B have won by knowing the right people. But his contempt is inextricably mingled with envy. Even more than he hates the class into which he has insecurely risen, does he hate the people from whom he came. He hates his mother and his father for being his parents. He loathes everything that reminds him of his origins and his humiliations. He is bitterly anti-Semitic because the social insecurity of the Jews reminds him of his own psychological insecurity.

Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. "

"There he sits: he talks awkwardly rather than glibly; he is courteous. He commands a distant and cold respect. But he is a very dangerous man. Were he primitive and brutal he would be a criminal—a murderer. But he is subtle and cruel. He would rise high in a Nazi regime. It would need men just like him—intellectual and ruthless.
But Mr. C is not a born Nazi. He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism. He would laugh to see heads roll."

"Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi."

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Thompson also says:

"Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected."

I quoted the full paragraph, but I'd like to direct Sarcastro's attention specifically to the reference to "forms of education which have released him from inhibitions." So...what kind of education has produced America's Nazis, Sarcastro?

[Paladin_44]

This is the key take-away:
"His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected."
DJT

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Vigorous?

[Kazinski]

Some of us just like the skull decorations.

Ive got two skulls or parts thereof in my front yard I found hiking out in the desert.

One is a coyote skull, the other is the jawbone of an ass.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

You left out the best part about Mr. C: He's a Southerner of "white trash" origins, scheming to rule from behind the scenes.

Lee Atwater?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And here's a fun paragraph, about an anonymous person who is obviously not based on anyone in particular - certainly not in 1941:

"Mr. L has just come in. Mr. L is a lion these days. My hostess was all of a dither when she told me on the telephone, “ . . . and L is coming. You know it’s dreadfully hard to get him.” L is a very powerful labor leader. “My dear, he is a man of the people, but really fascinating.“ L is a man of the people and just exactly as fascinating as my horsy, bank vice-president, on-the-make acquaintance over there, and for the same reasons and in the same way. L makes speeches about the “third of the nation,” and L has made a darned good thing for himself out of championing the oppressed. He has the best car of anyone in this room; salary means nothing to him because he lives on an expense account. He agrees with the very largest and most powerful industrialists in the country that it is the business of the strong to boss the weak, and he has made collective bargaining into a legal compulsion to appoint him or his henchmen as “labor’s” agents, with the power to tax pay envelopes and do what they please with the money. L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in this room. Mr. B [the "horsy" businessman and also a Nazi] regards him with contempt tempered by hatred. Mr. B will use him. L is already parroting B’s speeches. He has the brains of Neanderthal man, but he has an infallible instinct for power. In private conversation he denounces the Jews as “parasites.” No one has ever asked him what are the creative functions of a highly paid agent, who takes a percentage off the labor of millions of men, and distributes it where and as it may add to his own political power."

[Armchair]

How bad a president was Biden? Thought experiment.

Ultimately, the people judge their presidents. They elect...or re-elect their presidents, based on their feelings of how good or bad a president the individual was.

Those Presidents who serve 2 (or more) terms are generally considered better than those who only serve a single term.* They have demonstrated to the people that they deserve to be re-elected, and so the people grant them re-election. *An potential exception can be made for those presidents who died in office, as the people couldn't choose them again.

Biden is a single term president. This clearly drops him down the rankings. However, it gets worse....

Among Presidents who were elected, only a single example didn't even get renominated by his party when he sought it. These presidents were considered so bad, not only could they not convince the population in general to elect them again...they couldn't even get their own party to renominate them.

That single example of a President who was elected, but couldn't get his own party to renominate him stands at one. Franklin Pierce. Until, of course...Joe Biden. Franklin Pierce regularly ranks as one of the lowest ranked US Presidents. Bottom five. History will undoubtedly place Joe Biden in similar company to President Pierce, as that is where the people saw both. Unable to even get renominated by their own party, let alone re-elected in the general election.

[Noscitur a sociis]

But they did renominate him.

[Armchair]

I don't remember seeing Biden's name on the general election ballot in 2024... Nor do I remember seeing Biden be nominated by the DNC in 2024... Regardless of the primary vote, Biden was not ACTUALLY renominated by the Democrats.

Indeed, he was forced out. Wikipedia's article on Franklin Pierce's failed renomination is worth reading.

On the first ballot, Pierce received 122 votes, many of them from the South, to Buchanan's 135, with Douglas and Lewis Cass receiving the remaining votes. By the following morning fourteen ballots had been completed, but none of the three main candidates were able to get two-thirds of the vote. Pierce, whose support had been slowly declining as the ballots passed, directed his supporters to break for Douglas, withdrawing his name in a last-ditch effort to defeat Buchanan. Douglas, only 43 years of age, believed that he could be nominated in 1860 if he let the older Buchanan win this time, and received assurances from Buchanan's managers that this would be the case. After two more deadlocked ballots, Douglas's managers withdrew his name, leaving Buchanan as the clear winner. To soften the blow to Pierce, the convention issued a resolution of "unqualified approbation" in praise of his administration.[5] This loss marked the first (and until 2024, only) time in U.S. history that an elected president who was an active candidate for reelection was not nominated for a second term.[6]

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He withdrew before the nomination, but at that point he already had the nomination locked up--the only way he wouldn't have been nominated was if he withdrew his candidacy.

You're trying to make it as though his party didn't want him, just to fit your narrative. That's clearly disingenuous.

[Armchair]

"You're trying to make it as though his party didn't want him"

The party didn't want him. Who do you think forced him out?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The party had absolutely no power to force him out. Had he waited a week, he would have been their nominee, and there's fuck all they could have done about it.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody "forced" him out. He withdrew.

[Kazinski]

Biden could have been among the greatest presidents of the 21st century had he just done nothing.

If he hadn't passed the 2 trillion stimulus, if he hadn't opened the border and just let CBP do their job, if he hadn't pushed for the Inflation reduction act, if he hadn't pushed a trillion dollar infrastructure bill, if he hadn't cancelled the keystone pipeline, if he hadn't rejoined the Paris accords, if he hadn't told Putin a "minor" incursion in Ukraine was just fine, if he hadn't pushed vaccine mandates, he could have been a contender.

[Mr. Bumble]

Woulda, shoulda, coulda... the story of Biden's career.

[Frank Drackman]

I think you mean the "Inflation Production Act" which accomplished its goals

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What a strange place you head must be.

[Sarcastr0]

Such a need to condemn.

if he hadn't pushed vaccine mandates
Just the dumbest shit.

[Kazinski]

I suppose you forgot Biden promulgated a vaccine mandate through OSHA that didn't allow anyone to go to work without being vaccinated.

US Supreme Court blocks Biden's workplace vaccine mandate
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476

[Sarcastr0]

Losing at the Supreme Court makes you a bad President? Got bad news for you about your boy Trump.

[Absaroka]

Perhaps you could flesh out what you meant here:

Kaz: if he hadn't pushed vaccine mandates
Sarc: Just the dumbest shit.

I took your response as disagreeing that Biden was trying for vaccine mandate. Because 'US Supreme Court blocks Biden's workplace vaccine mandate' does seem to indicate that Biden was pushing a mandate.

Perhaps I misinterpreted, and the 'dumbest shit' was expressing that you thought the proposed mandate was dumb?

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz claimed if Biden hadn't pushed vaccine mandates among other things, he could have been a contender to be been among the greatest presidents of the 21st century.

The other stuff was all dumb right-wing grievances as well, but that was a level of anti-vaccine I found particularly stupid given their now demonstrated efficacy when broadly deployed.

And a single Supreme Court case going against a President seems of marginal relevance to how their Presidency will be judged.

[Kazinski]

"demonstrated efficacy"

How many covid shots has Biden gotten?

How many times has he gotten covid?

I myself have been vaccinated 3 times and gotten it twice.

I am not impressed, with its efficacy.

I know people that have never been vaccinated and they haven't gotten it more times, or more severely than I have.

[Absaroka]

Well, the death rates seem to vary quite a bit by vaccination status. Or rather they were in the winter of 21/22. The unvaccinated rate was still a multiple through the next winter. By spring of 2023 they are all getting pretty low - mutation, perhaps? Dunno. But for a while there it made a pretty big difference.

(I'm not limiting 'efficacy' to 'not catching covid'; not dying from it seems like a nice benefit as well)

[Brett Bellmore]

The death rates vary quite a bit by vaccination status of the elderly and comorbid. (Diabetics and so forth.) Being elderly is a morbidity itself, of course, except officially.

Vaccination rates among healthy non-elderly were not particularly correlated with vaccination status, because the death rate for Covid if you weren't elderly or in some manner sickly was quite low to begin with.

This wasn't the Spanish flu, that killed the young and healthy. Covid was tripping people who already had one foot in the grave. So, if you had one foot in the grave, getting vaccinated was a really good idea. If you were young and healthy?

Largely pointless.

2023 covid deaths by age group Notice this is the total deaths, not the rate.

Population by age and sex

Notice that the number of deaths went up 4.5 times from the 40-49 to the 50-65 groups. There were 42.6M in the former group, and 40.2M in the latter.

[Absaroka]

"If you were young and healthy?
Largely pointless."

So, would you characterize something that saves the lives of a lot of elderly people - say a new prostate cancer treatment where the fatality rate with the treatment is a fraction of the rate without - as "not efficacious"?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'd characterize it as not appropriate for a universal mandate.

By the time the vaccine was available, we had enough data to know that only people who had some preexisting health problem were really at risk from Covid, and that a significant fraction of the population had already contracted it, and had no conceivable need to be vaccinated.

The government could have urged the elderly and comorbid to get vaccinated, and left the vaccine purely voluntary, but instead they applied all the pressure they could to force people to take it who would experience no measurable benefit. People who'd had Covid already were pressured to get the vaccine. Healthy children at no appreciable risk were pressured to get it.

Vaccinating people had transformed from a public health measure to a moral crusade, and a test of submission to government mandates.

The end result is that the American population now has little remaining respect for public health authorities, and vaccine hesitancy has gone through the roof.

[Sarcastr0]

You have decided upon very specific retroactive risk balance.

And distrust of public health authorities is a purely GOP phenomenon.
https://jabberwocking.com/americans-havent-lost-trust-in-medicine-republicans-have/

Covid policies had nothing to do with it; it's part of the GOP general war on institutions.

[Michael Ejercito]

Vaccinating people had transformed from a public health measure to a moral crusade, and a test of submission to government mandates.
I wrote about this on a comment at Ethics Alarms.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/12/29/mid-day-ethics-break-12-29-21-alexa-goes-rogue/#comment-791421

The vaccination campaign jumped the shark when it turned from telling the old where and when to get the vaccine to convincing the young to want to get the vaccine.

Now here is a tweet from Chicago Mayor Lori Lighfoot.

“Inconvenient by design”. Again, there is no previous vaccination campaign nor effort which had the purpose of making things “inconvenient by design” for the unvaccinated when it came to the swine flu vaccine nor any previous vaccine. Only this vaccine.

There have been calls by people for hospitals to deny health care to people who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Again, hospitals do not have a history of doing this with respect to other vaccines. I saw a tweet where one person argued that sex offenders are more worthy of getting hospital care than people who are not vaccinated against COVID-19.

Others have demanded that health insurance companies either charge higher premiums for those unvaccinated from COVID-19, or deny coverage altogether. Again, health insurance companies do not do this with respect to the swine flu vaccine nor any other vaccine.

Why is this vaccine so different?

The only conclusion that I can draw is that this vaccine has become evil, and as such getting this vaccine is now formal cooperation with evil, and, as such, unethical.

[David Nieporent]

that a significant fraction of the population had already contracted it, and had no conceivable need to be vaccinated.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

[David Nieporent]

“Inconvenient by design”. Again, there is no previous vaccination campaign nor effort which had the purpose of making things “inconvenient by design” for the unvaccinated when it came to the swine flu vaccine nor any previous vaccine. Only this vaccine.

There was no previous anti-vaccine campaign or effort inventing insane conspiracies to convince people not to get vaccinated. There were always individual kooks out there who didn't, for one reason or another, but those were localized or individual, not organized political efforts. So there was no need for a counter campaign.

Also, your claim isn't really true: if you don't get your kids vaccinated, you often can't send them to school. Which is pretty inconvenient. (And in some states — like NJ — you can't send them to any school, public or private, or daycare either.)

Why is this vaccine so different?

That is indeed a good question: why did the lunatics organize in force against it?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Notice how Kazinski doesn't (and to my recollection, never has) complain(ed) about the trillions of dollars that Trump policies have added and continue to add to our debt.

Beyond that, absolutely no specifics were offered for any of his complaints. Just a bucket-list of stupidity.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you admit the debt is a problem?

[not guilty]

Between now and Monday morning, President Biden should pardon Waltine Nauda and Carlos DeOliveira and Merrick Garland should publicly release Volume 2 of the Special Counsel report regarding Donald Trump's criminal conduct regarding the documents he secreted at Mar-a-Lago.

As Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the most powerful of disinfectants.

[Paladin_44]

Not a bad idea, methinks...

[RedheadedPharoh]

Maybe they should sunlight all that J6 committee evidence that got evidence tampered with and release all those thousands of hours of video instead of obstructing justice.

[not guilty]

"Maybe they should sunlight all that J6 committee evidence that got evidence tampered with and release all those thousands of hours of video instead of obstructing justice."

Be careful what you ask for, Redhead.

Who in particular do you claim has obstructed justice, and how? Please show your work.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Redhead. Who in particular do you claim has obstructed justice, and how?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sure, why not? It's in nobody's interest to prosecute Trump's lackeys.

[Currentsitguy]

What's on my mind? Honestly right now I'm focused on prepping for the cold inbound.

[Paladin_44]

Fully expect comments like "It was the coldest inauguration ever. Noone else could have had a colder inauguration. I had the coldest followers in history. Nobody had more frozen fingers, cheeks, noses, ears, and feet than my supporters."
Or something like that.

[Currentsitguy]

Don't know about that, but I do expect we'll see cases of exposure and frostbite. Honestly I feel bad for all of the 1st responders and National Guard who have to be out there for hours at a time.

[ThePublius]

Electrically heated vest, socks, and gloves is the answer. Batteries for these have gotten really good.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lithium-ion? Even warmer when they catch fire.

[ThePublius]

Well, you put your phone in your pocket, don't you?

Seriously, the risk is vanishingly small.

[Mr. Bumble]

My weak attempt at Saturday morning humor.

[Currentsitguy]

Yeah, we got my 88 year old father in law a heated coat for Christmas. He loves it

[Stephen Lathrop]

Everyday winter temperatures across the northern tier of U.S. states. Not even especially severe for D.C.

Trump got worried he wouldn't get a giant crowd, so decided to stiff his supporters to hide his embarrassment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you don't believe in weather forecasts.

[ThePublius]

Maybe it was because of threats of assassination attempts by folks from your side.

[Sarcastr0]

It's telling how much MAGA wishes this were true.

[ThePublius]

What do you mean, "wishes it was true?" Are you mind reading again, or something? Or just trolling, as usual?

[Sarcastr0]

It's not true.

Your insistence that it is betrays what you want to be true.

[John F. Carr]

Last January a crowd of football fans attended a game in frigid weather and many needed bits amputated afterwards.

[Frank Drackman]

Gambling Addiction is a horrible thing, funny that "Red" Alabama is the only state without a State Supported Lottery

[Kazinski]

I know what you mean, I am heading up to Seattle in a few days, I'm going to be facing temperatures in the 40's, and overnight lows in the mid 30's.

[Currentsitguy]

-9 here Monday night. Probably more where I'm at. I tend to run 5 to 8 below the local Pittsburgh forecast.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we spent part of yesterday stacking firewood in the garage. Not that we really need it for heating, we've got gas heat. But sitting in front of a fireplace with hot cocoa, or maybe some wine, and nibbling on charcuterie, just doesn't have that zing when it's not cold outside. So we kind of treasure these rare cold spells here in SC, for the opportunity to enjoy the fireplace.

[RedheadedPharoh]

>DEEP STATE GEARING UP: Nearly Half of Federal Employees in the Swamp Plan to Resist Trump, Poll Finds

>When asked if they would most likely be supporting or resisting the Trump administration over the next four years, government managers were almost evenly split with 44% saying they would support the administration and 42% saying they would resist.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/01/13/deep-state-gearing-nearly-half-federal-employees-swamp-plan-resist-trump-poll-finds/

42% of govies are insurrectionist traitors who harm our sacred democracy and deserve justice. Govies are filthy subhuman demons.

[DixieTune]

The real filthy subhuman demons are the Democrat Party leadership.

[SRG2]

If a Trump apparatchik orders you to do something Trump wants, but is unconstitutional, do you do it?

[mulched]

Wasn't even part of the question. They plan to resist either way.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The poll was designed to produce the result it dutifully produced. (That many people may have fallen for this is not especially surprising.)

If I were working in government, I would have answered, "Constitution". Any other answer would have required me to support Trump or resist Trump, regardless of whether he had violated the Constitution or not.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would not your duty be to obey lawful superior orders?

[bernard11]

How can an unconstitutional order be lawful? Looks impossible.

[SRG2]

I would like an answer to my question

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, you're a Homo, come out of the closet already

[SRG2]

As "natural law" pops up from time to time here, and I have not infrequently expressed my opposition to natural law arguments, herewith
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/a-natural-mistake/

Part of the allure of natural law theory is that it gives a patina of objectivity to morality.

Stripped of its window dressing, an argument on the basis of natural law is just another way of saying “this is my view of what’s good and bad to do” – except that the person making this claim is likely to be dogmatic because, you see, they know THE TRUTH.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I've said elsewhere, natural rights only make sense if you treat them as Kantian 'conditional imperatives', with an implicit "If you don't want to live in a dysfunctional society, then" clause.

Physical law is descriptive: It can't be violated, it's just a description of what actually happens, and if you see a violation, it just means you were wrong about what the law was.

Natural law, to the extent it's valid, simply describes the rights you need to recognize to not have your society break down. It's not a description of what happens, it's a recipe for what to do if you want a particular sort of outcome.

[Sarcastr0]

the rights you need to recognize to not have your society break down

That is still going to be ipse dixit dogma based on your idiosyncratic inside track to THE TRUTH. Just dressed up.

[Life of Brian]

Right. I mean, who's really to say what it takes for society not to break down -- or even what "break down" means, for that matter? May as well just do whatevs and see what happens, then redefine success as needed!

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to be ignoring "to the extent that it's valid"; I'm not saying that any particular theory of natural rights is objectively true, that's something that has to be settled empirically, just like physical law.

I'm saying this is the only way that the concept actually makes any sense: As an implicit claim about consequences. Because natural rights theorists are perfectly aware that it's possible to violate natural rights, what else could it coherently be, (Given the is/ought problem.) save an assertion about consequences?

[Frank Drackman]

Certain Rights are given by God/J-Hay/

[Brett Bellmore]

So, we hit the debt ceiling Tuesday. Anyone think that wasn't deliberately orchestrated with malice? I might have a bridge you'd want to buy.

[JasonT20]

Anyone think that wasn't deliberately orchestrated with malice? I might have a bridge you'd want to buy.

Players gonna play, and conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theorize, I guess.

[Martinned2]

If you think it is possible to predict months in advance on which day the US debt will hit an exact level, you should never be allowed near money again.

[Mr. Bumble]

Think it's possible to do everything you can to get close?

[JasonT20]

The debt ceiling had been suspended until January 2 as part of the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act, which Congress approved in June 2023 after months of contentious debate between the GOP-led House and Democrats who controlled the Senate and White House. The cap at the time was $31.4 trillion.

In a technical quirk, the US didn’t actually hit the limit on January 2 because the debt level was projected to dip that day due to the scheduled redemption of certain securities, Yellen told Congress in late December. At the time, she forecast the cap would be reached between January 14 and January 23.

From the article Brett linked.

The debt ceiling is being reached because the deal that the GOP House made with the then-Democrat-controlled Senate and Biden was limited in time. They knew back then, that it would be reached within 1 week of Trump's inauguration. If this was some kind of conspiracy to make Trump look bad, then Johnson was in on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not "prediction" when you have detailed control over the rate at which you're spending, and can speed up or slow down spending as needed to hit the debt ceiling exactly when you want.

The news has been full of stories about the Biden rushing to get appropriations spent before Trump took office. Now we know what the rush was all about.

[Sarcastr0]

Who has detailed control over the spending rate of our government, Brett?
Do you think Joe Biden directs the expenditure rates of every contract and grant across the government?

Do you even know how government funding is executed?

"An appropriation may generally be described as a statutory provision that provides budget authority, thus permitting a federal agency to enter into financial agreements that will obligate the
Treasury to make payments.
The actual payments of these obligations are referred to as outlays, and the rate at which budget authority becomes outlays in a fiscal year is called the spendout rate or the outlay rate. The spendout rate can vary for different activities."

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47106

[bernard11]

Now we know what the rush was all about.

More conspiratorial nonsense.

First, government bond payments are due on a fixed date. They don't pay a couple of days early, "just to get it out of the way," as you might a credit card bill.

Second, yes Biden may well have rushed to get some expenditures made for fear that Trump would sabotage the relevant programs, which he undoubtedly will try anyway. That's much different from the accusation you made.

Third, wasn't Trump trying to get the ceiling raised? Didn't happen, but why would he be embarrassed about breaching it anyway?

Finally, who is going to blame Trump for the breach a day after he takes office?

[Frank Drackman]

Put a Stop Payment on Sleepy Joe's Pension Check, like he'd notice it anyway, he's back in June 1982 when the ERA was still viable

[Commenter_XY]

Of course it was orchestrated.

[bernard11]

Please see my comment above.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, well, well the times they are a changin':
STOCKHOLM, Jan 15 (Reuters) – Sweden is preparing to change the constitution to be able to take away the passports of people who obtained citizenship by fraudulent means, or who are a threat to the state, the government said on Wednesday.

[JasonT20]

How about people that worked in the U.S. while on a student visa, while not enrolling in classes at the university that they were supposed to have gotten the visa to study at?

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-immigration-status-1990s-donald-trump-twitter-2024-election-1978588

If their naturalization applications were false in representing that history, could their citizenship be revoked?

[Commenter_XY]

Tik Tok went dark. My, my.

[John F. Carr]

I went to YouTube this morning and at the very top was an ad for Instagram.

[Mr. Bumble]

Oh the humanity!

[Bored Lawyer]

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

[SRG2]

So as has been pointed out elsewhere, this shows it was a Chinese intelligence op.

[David Nieporent]

It… doesn't.

(To be clear, I am not opining on the underlying claim — just on the notion that their (likely temporary) shutting down "shows" anything about them.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and it's back up.
Guess the law and the SC don't mean anything.
Not sure how Trump can "make a deal".

[David Nieporent]

It's certainly an inauspicious start to the Trump presidency that his opening gambit is to admit he's going to ignore a valid law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like we are moving further and further from regular order with the blatant disregard for the law as written by all branches of government.

[Voize of Reazon]

Is he planning to ignore the law or to use his (soon to be) authority to extend the deadline?

Pub. Law 118-50 Div. H §2(a)(3) (138 Stat. 955-956) provides:

EXTENSION.—With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that—
(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;
(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and
(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.

[Voize of Reazon]

I should have said purport to use that authority, given that the deadline has already passed.

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't see where he has any authority to extend the deadline which was tonight (January 19) at midnight since he is not the President until noon tomorrow (12 hours after the deadline.
Further, none of the qualifications for extending the deadline seem to have been met.

[Voize of Reazon]

Midnight last night, not midnight tonight.

Yes, it's too late. No, none of the conditions are met, but the Act only requires the President to certify to Congress that they have been. Trump apparently isn't one to worry about such details, he told NBC yesterday that he would probably grant the 90-day extension.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, I got the date wrong. It's still a clusterfuck and I can't see how Trump can legally do anything to change it.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Biden was the one who said he wasn't going to enforce the law. It went into effect. Biden went on record and said he wouldn't enforce it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're still alive?

Thank god! A lot of people were starting to wonder why you ran off like a craven bitch (again) from comments you made earlier.

Seems to be a pattern of yours...

[Bwaaah]

Loosen your panties, Jason. You know how you get when they're too tight.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How precious of you to defend his cowardice and spitefulness! Cucks gotta cuck together I guess.

LOL.

[ReaderY]

I encourage the Hamas shills on this board to tead George Orwell’s essay Marrakech on the status of Jews in Arab lands before the State of Issrael, which very closely resembled the status of African-Americans under Jim Crow in the United States. This is the glorious past that they would like us to go back to. As I’ve written before, the story of how great things were before the State of Israel closely resembles the story the ex-Confederates spun about how glorious and peaceful thngs were before the Civil war. Each of the elements - the atrocities and slaughter of civilians committed during the war, the illegal and horribly oppressive military occupation, the horrors and rapaciousness of Negro Rule, the theft of land the constant indivnities, are all close resemblances. The only difference is Hamas hasn’t accused the Jews of systematic rape as the ex-Confederates did.

As the Marrakech essay evidences, the things said about Jews today closely resemble the things said about Jews under Jim Crow.

Exactly as happened with African-Americans and ex-Confederates, when people who are regarded as rightfully serfs get uppity and obtain power, people who regard themselves as rightfully masters scream abuse and tell tales of atrocities right and left. The stories gain a mythological character and live a life of their own, far overshadowing any injustices that actually occurred. And there were some in both cases.

https://www.george-orwell.org/Marrakech/0.html

[ThePublius]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not a Hamas supporter, by any means, but I'm sure I'll find the essay interesting. I just downloaded it.

[Sarcastr0]

Hamas shills

There are plenty of people on this board who are too anti-Israel for my taste.

And there are certainly some loud assholes in and around America who are so pro-Palestinian they have basically become pro-Hamas.

But none on here.

This is some well-poisoning bullshit.

[JasonT20]

There are plenty of people on this board who are too anti-Israel for my taste.

Putting labels on people for their views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not helpful most of the time, because "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" can mean so many different things as applied to different people. It isn't "well-poisoning bullshit", as you put it, to use those particular labels. At least, not in the same way or degree that "Hamas shill" is. But it is still a rhetorical tool that can be abused.

I have not done this in the past, but I have thinking about this and will now try to avoid using labels that people wouldn't apply to themselves. I will try not to call someone "anti-abortion" as opposed to "pro-life" if they show a preference. (In fact, I'll try and avoid using a label for their position if at all possible. Sticking to what they actually say instead of trying to use a descriptor for their position as encompassing everything that they think sounds more intellectually honest, to me.) Even if I think that their choice of self-identification isn't accurate, I'm not going to call them "anti-abortion" as if that is itself a good argument against them.

Preamble finished, I think that "anti-Israel" is not a useful term to use for anyone that expresses views opposing the Israeli government's actions in the present or past conflicts with Palestinians. People that fit in that category have such an enormous range of views and reasons for their views that it will include everyone from the "death to all Jews" zealots, to those non-Israelis that think that the Netanyahu government has been going to far, then to people that don't fit either of those or anything that might be viewed as "in between". There are going to be people whose views go off in an entirely different direction.

To say that someone is "anti-Israel" may not be nearly as pejorative as "Hamas shill", but its vague meaning risks lumping in people together that do not believe or want the same things at all. There isn't a continuous spectrum of how much someone opposes Israel's actions and policies or even its right to exist and defend itself.

To use myself as a prime example of what I mean, I generally take the view Christopher Hitchens had once expressed about Israel. It was a stupid idea to try and create a Jewish state in the Holy Land when it was formulated near the end of the 19th century, and the way it came about is strong evidence that it was a stupid idea with little or no chance of working out to anyone's benefit.

Does that make me anti-Israel? I don't think so, and, like Hitchens, my opinion that it was a stupid idea poorly implemented does not make me think that Israel has no right to defend its people from external threats. On the contrary, defending its citizens from hostile neighbors and internal violence is an essential duty for any government. Nor do I think that Israel needs to or should make concessions that would undermine its ability to defend its people, other than abiding by basic human rights principles and international agreements that it is a party to.

As for the current conflict, my criticisms are on the proportionality of the IDFs tactics and strategy, whether true military goals are being met by their airstrikes and other actions vs. punishing Gazans for what Hamas did, and I have strong criticism for the hard-right in Israel that is not quiet about wanting Gaza and the West Bank to be annexed and become a permanent part of Israel.

How anti-Israel do my views make me?

[Sarcastr0]

How you deal with Israel’s existence, and all that necessitates, in really current terms seems to me sufficiently specific to call it pro- or anti-.

E.g. calling it an apartheid state and the like without considering what alternatives could be.

None of that is specific to the current administration, nor some academic historical critique.

I disagree with plenty of that analysis, my pushback is calling it pro Hamas or Nazi or Jew hating. If you find being called anti Israel stings you, I understand why but like illegals/undocumented I’m going to tune my terminology to the main audience in each place Inpost.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But none on here."

Randall says hello. That Jonathon guy too.

"too anti-Israel for my taste"

Its a war between Israel and Hamas, if you are anti-Israel you are a Hamas supporter. Hamas shills is accurate.

[RedheadedPharoh]

We're celebrating the eve of National Deportation Day in my house by having some tacos and beans. Tomorrow we plan on hitting some pinatas and driving by Home Deport report some illegals.

What are y'all doing to celebrate National Deportation Day/ NDD eve?