Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Trump is ordering a blockade of sanctioned tankers and says they are going to sieze more of them.

President Donald Trump ramped up pressure on Venezuela on Tuesday by announcing that he is ordering a blockade of all “sanctioned oil tankers” entering and leaving the South American country.

“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna249616

Trump is obviously doing this to distract from the Democrats Epstein releases, so I am calling on the Democrats to keep releasing more Epstein material on a daily basis until Maduro is deposed.

[John F. Carr]

While stateless vessels are fair game, foreign-flagged sanctioned vessels still have a right of passage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm not sure that is an absolute, John.

Ships carrying contraband are not entitled to a right of passage, and then there are protocols regarding blockades.

Kennedy's blockade of of Cuba in 1962 is an example and the Soviet ships turned rather than challenge it, but as I remember my International Law, it comes down to the flagging power's navy being willing to defend ships flying its flag. And that's why ships used to be registered in the UK and US and not Panama.

A ship is considered the territory of the flag she flies -- Reagan invaded Panama...

[John F. Carr]

Traditionally a blockade is part of a war. Some call it an act of war in itself. Otherwise, a blockade comes into effect only when there is a war.

For a blockade to be legally effective the blockading power must effectively and uniformly deny access to the blockaded coast. If the blockading power does not have enough forces to deny access or if it selectively enforces the blockade, the blockade is not binding on neutral ships. Absent a legal blockade owners seized neutral ships have a right to compensation.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/blockade-warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law

[Brett Bellmore]

As long as it's just stateless vessels, it can't be an act of war, because, who would it be an act of war against? You can only commit acts of war against states.

Mind you, I'm sure they're going to make a mistake eventually, assuming they haven't already.

[John F. Carr]

Following tradition, a blockade of Venezuela would be part of a war against Venezuela although none of the seized vessels flew Venezuelan flags.

But this isn't a traditional blockade because it does not deny all access to Venezuelan ports. It is increased enforcement of sanctions.

Is it still an act of war?

I don't expect Venezuela to declare war and give Trump an excuse to invade. Remember Operation Just Cause? And the flag states of sanctioned ships tend to have no meaningful military power.

[Brett Bellmore]

At least allegedly, all the "sanctioned" vessels are either unflagged or flying false flags. As such, they don't really HAVE "flag states".

[Sarcastr0]

At least allegedly

Such trust.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're weird, you know that? No, saying "at least allegedly" is a denial of trust.

[Sarcastr0]

Except in your comment you treat the allegation as true - you use it to argue this isn't an act of war.

You've also embraced just about every other bit of unsupported nonsense this admin puts out. About Antifa. About whichever migrants the DoJ is going after.

It's been quite a change for you! And you converted so quickly!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I state that IF the allegation is true, it's not an act of war, because there's no state for the act to be against.

And further up I express my confidence that they're going to screw up and do a ship that's legitimately flagged, too.

Seriously, you're so devoted to that cardboard cutout in your head you can't even read what I'm writing.

[Mr. Bumble]

@ Brett Bellmore:
Thus Il Douche.

[Bwaaah]

Il Douche told me enough times that he is not my "posting nemesis" that I finally took a moment to ask myself, "What's a posting nemesis?"

Hey Brett...you have a posting nemesis, and its name is Il Douche.

Serious BDS.

[Kazinski]

Flagged not flagged, doesn't matter.

See my post below about the Marshall Islands and Russian flagged tankers previously and legally seized carrying sanctioned oil.

This is about the tenth sanctioned oil tanker seized by the US since 2000.

[Absaroka]

"At least allegedly, all the "sanctioned" vessels are either unflagged or flying false flags. As such, they don't really HAVE "flag states"."

FWIW, not my understanding. I'm no expert: my source here a youtube channel (''What's going on with shipping') by a guy called Sal Mercogliano.

The tl;dr is that the sanctions evaders (AKA Russia) greased the right palms in several countries (e.g. landlocked African countries) to establish no questions asked registries. When a ship gets added to the sanctions list(s), it gets reflagged to Eritrea or wherever.

The recently seized tanked ('Skipper') had indeed let its registration lapse, and so seizing it was fully in accord with UNCLOS. But while everyone knows that an aged tanker registered in ??Eritrea?? is up to no good, The US seizing it without permission from Eritrea is on the same legal footing as Iran seizing a US flagged vessel.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, I suppose we should be wary of ending up in a war with Eritrea.

[Absaroka]

I'm not sure if you are just making a might makes right argument. The US has historically made a big deal out of freedom of navigation.

I'm surely open to the argument that the high seas are a commons that needs international regulation - no one wants a decrepit flag-of-convenience tanker spilling oil all over their shores. But as of today, Eritrean (hah!) ships have all the rights of American ones. We don't say it's OK for Iran or Somalians or the Houthis to just seize ships because they can.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's actually more of a "If they don't take running a ship registry seriously, why should WE take their running a ship registry seriously?" argument.

Ship registries have responsibilities under the law of the sea.

[Absaroka]

"Ship registries have responsibilities under the law of the sea."

Can you outline a synopsis of those? IANAMaritimeL, and my googling didn't find much. The sources I found seem to pretty much let each country with a registry set up its own rules.

Again, one could argue we *ought* to have an international scheme of minimum standards, and an international scheme to sanction, and so on, but AFAICT we don't.

The sanctions on Russia and Venezuela, for example, aren't originated by some international body (and given that China and Russia have vetoes, won't be). They were the US and some European companies leaning on the big maritime insurance companies to withhold coverage.

Sort of like the NY AG leaning on insurance companies to not do business with the NRA 🙂 (except, IMHO, a lot better justified).

[not guilty]

Regardless of whether this blockade is an act of war, it is a use of military forces beyond the sixty day window of 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b) without Congressional authorization.

Why does President Trump not ask Congress to declare war on Venezuela?

[Bob from Ohio]

Because he doesn't want to.

[Commenter_XY]

Isn't blockade an act of war = ...foreign-flagged sanctioned vessels still have a right of passage

[John F. Carr]

A traditional blockade is an act of war or a part of a war. What Trump has announced is not a traditional blockade. He used the word blockade informally.

Say the US Coast Guard stops and seizes sanctioned Comoros-flagged MV Evil Tanker after it leaves Venezuela. Does the whole world have a casus belli? Only Comoros? Also Venezuela? I don't know how this works.

During the "Tanker War" there was a regular war going on and traditional rules could be applied.

[Kazinski]

What about the seizure of the Russian-flagged oil tanker Volgoneft-147, in 2000, by the Clinton Administration?

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/04/world/us-seizes-russia-tanker-said-to-carry-oil-from-iraq.html

Or the seizure of the Suez Rajan by the Biden Administration in 2023? From Wikipedia:

" In April 2023 the Greek-managed Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker Suez Rajan was seized by US authorities, for breaching US sanctions against Iranian oil, which fell under US jurisdiction due to the use of US financial services. The US then confiscated and sold the carried Iranian oil.

Suez Rajan Ltd., the owner of the ship, pleaded guilty and was fined $2.5 million. The US claimed ownership of the confiscated oil.[4] As the original payment to Iran for the Iranian oil was done using US dollar transaction wire transfers, without a license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Department of the Treasury, the US could claim jurisdiction under US law."

And just to head off the inevitable charge of whataboutism, I am citing these cases because these two previous administrations were also in conformance of the law, and it has long been considered legal by multiple US Administrations to seize foreign flagged oil tankers full of sanctioned oil.

Nor do I.remember a firestorm of criticism in 2023 when the Suez Rajan was seized from Republicans, Democrats, or the press.

And here was the legal resolution:

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/hsi-washington-dc-investigation-leads-first-criminal-resolution-involving-illicit

Seems kosher to me.

[Absaroka]

The wiki article nicely shows the problem:

"On 11 January 2024, four to five members of the Iranian Navy boarded and took control of the Marshall Islands-flagged, Greek-operated civilian oil tanker Suez Rajan (since renamed St Nikolas).[17][18][19][20] The course of the oil tanker was altered towards the coast of Iran after the capture.[18] The oil tanker at the time was reported to have been carrying 145,000 short tons (132,000 t) of crude oil from Iraq to Turkey.[18][21] St Nikolas had a crew of 18 Filipinos and one Greek national.[17]

An Iranian court had ordered the seizure of the ship to recover the losses suffered by Iran when the US confiscated Iranian oil in 2023.[22] Iran has described the ship as an 'American oil tanker'."

We grab ships we want when we can, the Iranians grab the ships they want when they can. This seems suboptimal to me.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Piracy systematized remains piracy.

Trump is transparently attempting to initiate war with Venezuela. Do you think he is Constitutionally empowered to do that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

[Michael P]

Tell us that you don't know how laws of the sea (even before LoST) work in your usual turgid way.

[MarkJawz]

No less constitutionally empowered than any of the other uses of military force since December 8, 1941.

[Sarcastr0]

Until they return the oil and land they stole from us? What?

[Kazinski]

Completely clueless about the issues.

From a recent court case from October;

"In 2010, Venezuela expropriated
assets of the Venezuelan subsidiary of a United States energy
company. The assets are now operated by a state-owned
Venezuelan energy company. The American company sued in
the United States and invoked the expropriation exception to
foreign sovereign immunity. The Venezuelan company moved
to dismiss based on immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction,
and the act-of-state doctrine. The district court rejected all of
these defenses and denied the motion to dismiss. We affirm
across the board."

There are dozens of such cases including Conoco and Kellogg's.

https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/10/24-7161-2138597.pdf

[Krayt]

Trump is obviously doing this to distract from the Democrats Epstein releases, so I am calling on the Democrats to keep releasing more Epstein material on a daily basis until Maduro is deposed.

If life gives you lemons...

[Riva]

What Epstein matter? Emails and photos that exonerate, not incriminate the President? The evidence to date is far more embarrassing to democrats, no matter how amateurishly democrats try to doctor leaked photos and emails with unnecessary redactions .

But what we have here with your comment is called projection. It’s at the core of most leftist rants. Democrats conspicuously avoided Epstein for years, for a reason. They are famously associated with him. Now the only new Epstein news is the effort of the Clintons to avoid testifying before Congress about their Epstein connections. Likely the motivation for your projection, although admittedly one is spoiled for choice regarding things that embarrass democrats, or events they would like ignored because damaging to their narratives.

[Riva]

Ok, color me embarrassed. My apologies Kazinski. Quite effective sarcasm.

[Riva]

Maybe too effective. A little too convincing if one hasn't had coffee. I'm sure more than one troll here has made similar "arguments."

[bloocow2]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--why-can-t-kash-patel-shut-up

I've been on this kick before, but... Patel should be fired. Or should step down. I don't care what your politics are, or if you agree or disagree with the general direction this administration has taken the FBI in. None of that should matter.

What should matter is that this guy is a clown who can't do his job properly. Twice now he's gone ahead of what investigations have actually uncovered, publicly claiming breakthroughs when none existed. He cares more about getting likes on social media, or getting interviewed on friendly podcasts about his relationship with his freaking girlfriend. (which was probably recorded before the Brown shooting tbf, but still, it's not a great look)

His FBI is paralysed through fear, and he's fired competent people for the sin of doing their jobs under the previous administration. He has no qualifications, and every time a photo gets taken of him he looks like he just got caught cheating on a test.

Just fire the guy. Even MAGA people should want their FBI to be competent. Right?

(And yes, local police appear to have screwed up elements relating to the Brown shooting too. They should face consequences also)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why not just abolish the FBI???

[John F. Carr]

Some federal crimes do not duplicate state crimes. To enforce those we need a federal law enforcement agency.

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash 2, worry about your own country. We're doing fine.

[Michael P]

If I recall correctly, it's an Australian cow.

[Sarcastr0]

The idea that only Americans can comment on America is ridiculous.

Trying to bully people on the Internet with shitty nicknames is also ridiculous.

You've become ridiculous.

[Michael P]

Everyone, even foreigners who want to meddle, should refrain from commenting if relying on nutcases like Olivia Manes and Benjamin Wittes.

Has Wittes done anything useful in his life, or just acted as a tool for James Comey to illegally leak documents and information? He has an agenda here that makes him even less reliable than usual.

[Sarcastr0]

Well ad hominem may suck but it’s better than Commenter’s ugly American schtick.

Way to go.

[David Nieporent]

Benjamin Wittes is intelligent and informed; I can see why that would be to MAGA like garlic to vampires.

[DDHarriman]

... he says as he bullies someone with a shitty insult...

lmao

[Michael P]

He's something like a comment vampire: totally unable to see himself in any kind of mirror, so he doesn't realize how shallowly hypocritical he is being.

[bloocow2]

You're all free to comment on Australian politics if you like!

(assuming you know anything about them haha)

But seriously, my elderly mother probably knows more about American politics than anyone here knows about Australian politics. American politics just has this... infectious effect on countries outside of America.

Anyway, if people want their government agencies to be staffed by complete idiots... cool! It's your country! Doesn't really affect me if it's a complete laughing stock.

[Michael P]

Australian politics are hardly worth commenting on, except to figure out why you guys are importing terrorists. To coin a phrase, is it really so important to shoot up Hanukkah celebrations that Australians won't shoot up?

[Sarcastr0]

Ugly.

[Michael P]

They are. So are you -- but do you give Islamist terrorists a run for their money in "ugly", or are you all bluster and prattle?

[Sarcastr0]

You got me there - huuuuge fan of Islamist terrorists here.
I don't call them ugly on account of my love for them. Certainly not because it goes without saying.

Anyhow, you shit on Australia as unimportant and also a terrorist problem for America.
As an American, I find that to be embarrassing. If you really had confidence in America's exceptionalism, you wouldn't need to indulge in such empty Internet dick-swinging.

[bloocow2]

Tbf his only exposure to Australia is probably that episode of the Simpsons.

(which was actually hilarious)

"Bullfrogs?! That's a funny name! I'd have called them chuzzwozzers!"

[Michael P]

I go to Canberra each year for work, and to Wellington usually six months later. One of these years I'll talk about what I'm building for your country (and NZ). I've had to learn more than I ever cared to know about Australian and NZ takes on ESH, WorkSafe, the Wiring Standards, and a load of more specific regulations that actually relate to what the project is about.

I have not seen that Simpsons episode, but that line could have been inspired by "bush chooks". (Speaking of which, my Australian counterpart seemed bemused that Australia lost the Great Emu War.)

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, so given all your involvement with government regs, it sure sounds like "Australian politics are hardly worth commenting on" doesn't really apply to you at all!

[Michael P]

You assume again!

I've been working this program basically since Morrison became PM, and the government change didn't affect much of my day-to-day or year-to-year work. Sure, they have pronouns in email signatures now, and they've gone from land acknowledgments expressing respect for elders past and present, to past present and emerging, and back -- but those surface changes are IMO in the "hardly worth commenting on" category. We all know each others' positions on pronouns in email signatures.

In the vein of the Allison Schrager interview I linked to below, AU and NZ both seem proud of their very European "safety culture", but that seems to be country-wide without significant political or partisan valence. So it's maybe worth commenting on, but I don't think it is politics per se.

[Sarcastr0]

So you track Australian politics.

You were just being a dick to a commenter.

[Michael P]

Yes, I track Australian politics. That's why I said they are (with rare exception) hardly worth commenting on.

Which aspects of their politics do you think are worth you or me commenting about? Maybe the award of AUKUS to replace a French submarine contract? Reasons that there are about 3x as many NZ-to-AU immigrants as vice versa, even though AU has 5x the population? National security trade-offs (for AU and NZ, not the US) in dealing with southeast Asia and the South Pacific vis-a-vis China?

[Armchair]

Nah.

If you want to have fun with Australians, ask them how the Aboriginal Australians are doing. Or ask them how they treat illegal immigrants and refugees who come through non-official channels (ie, illegally by sea)

See, in the US, if you illegally cross the border, then claim refugee status, you got let into the US to do what you wanted for a few years. Work, play, whatever.

Australia did something differently. If they caught you on a boat illegally immigrating then tried to claim asylum status, they shipped you off to Nauru (a previously rich, now poor island-country) for "processing" while your claims were evaluated. No free being let into the Australian economy. It would be like if every illegal immigrant who was caught and claimed asylum was put into Guantanimo Bay until their claim kept up.

As a result...the illegal immigrant boats just stopped coming to Australia.

[bloocow2]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were directly comparing how good our countries are! Ok, let's see...

Yeah, Aboriginal Australians are doing poorly! You did well to notice that! It doesn't reflect well on our country! (See? I can criticise my country!)

I can also criticise them for the horrible, inhumane policies against "boat people" that you mention. As I've said before in these parts, I am an absolute bleeding heart on these issues, and believe that a person who risks their life coming here should at least be given their day in an Australian court -- not shipped off to Nauru.

But hey, it's been a popular policy! Even your president seemed to like it!

...sorry, what was your point again? Something about having fun pwning Australians? Please, do go on.

[loki13]

Sorry, bloocow2.

You know us Americans. We all love to travel to other countries, but then we only want to meet other Americans and talk about how hard it is to get a decent cheeseburger.

FYI, I have a child who will be spending a semester next year studying in Perth*. I am so excited! And yes, I am totally going to visit and embarrass him.

*Why Perth? Well, because it's awesome! Also ... languages weren't his thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, to be fair, if you've ever had a cheeseburger in the Philippines, you might grouse about that, too. Buns closer to biscuits, (Why? They make really good bread in the Philippines!) and cheese that makes Velveeta look artisanal.

[loki13]

I think we have two things we can agree on Brett!

1. Don't order the cheeseburger in Manilla. (When traveling out of the US, it's almost always best to have what they have. There's a reason they have it!)

2. Filipino food is amazing. We have a family friend that makes amazing lumpia and sinigang (sp?).

[Brett Bellmore]

Except the bulad and balut. Pass those up. (Actually, the squid bulad isn't half bad, that I'll eat.)

[jb]

People from the US probably shouldn't be lecturing Australia about anti-Semitic murderers, considering how many home grown ones we have here.

[Riva]

No “blooclown#whatever,” what really matters is the gross corruption that characterized the FBI before Director Patel. The raid of Mar a Lago without any probable cause should concern anyone, not trolls here of course, whether volunteers or rent a trolls. I’m referring to real citizens concerned about the rule of law.

And, since you mention Brown, which is starting to look like another targeted assassination of a conservative voice, the FBI should take over the investigation.

[jb]

The raid of Mar a Lago without any probable cause

LOL, even Aileen Canon didn't buy an argument this dumb. Riva out there trying to just reinvent history. I guess it worked with getting all the MAGAs to believe the 2020 election was stolen, so why not keep it up with Trump's illegal acts as well.

And, since you mention Brown, which is starting to look like another targeted assassination of a conservative voice,

I thought it was starting to look like the targeted assassination of a Muslim student who had the audacity to step foot into a Jewish teacher's class, while we're just making shit up.

[David Nieporent]

LOL, even Aileen Canon didn't buy an argument this dumb.

Yes. MAGA is nothing if not good at parroting talking points fed to them by people even more dishonest than they are.

1) The opinion of some guy at the FBI that there wasn't probable cause does not determine whether there was probable cause.
2) The opinion of the entire FBI that there wasn't probable cause wouldn't determine whether there was probable cause.
3) Probable cause in the first instance is determined by the prosecutor, not the FBI.
4) Probable cause is a legal question, not a factual one.
5) As such, the existence vel non is finally determined by the judge, who decides whether to issue a warrant. The judge determined that there was. He did not do so by polling the various people involved in the investigation, because their opinions don't matter.
6) The document in which someone at the FBI expressed lack of belief in probable cause was written before the government developed further evidence that Trump was concealing additional documents at M-A-L and moving them around to keep the government from finding them.

By the way, the claim that some at the FBI disagreed with DOJ, thought the search warrant shouldn't be executed, and that instead DOJ should just keep talking to Trump's lawyers, is not — contrary to Patel's spin — a new piece of information. It was reported a year or two ago. It's just not legally relevant, or relevant to anything at all.

[loki13]

"Yes. MAGA is nothing if not good at parroting talking points fed to them by people even more dishonest than they are."

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me all time, and I'm going to come here and repeat what you say because neither of us has any shame.

[Riva]

Interesting that you feel compelled to defend the lawfare employed by the past administration to target political opponents. But if you want to champion those abuses, that's your choice.

And as for Brown, the victim was a prominent conservative on a liberal campus. She was the vice president of the school's Republican club. There has been a national pattern of violence against conservatives. I am not "just making shit up," that is what you are doing.

[jb]

There wasn't "the victim" at Brown. Two people were killed. You described one of the two. The other was a nice Muslim boy. We have no particular reason to think that either of them were targeted, and certainly no basis to think it was more likely the white Republican than the Muslim.

[Riva]

No, there is a basis to speculate that she was targeted. It is admittedly just speculation at this point. Speculation based on the facts available.

[jb]

Right, and it's just as plausible as the alternative version that I made up. Both fit the very limited set of facts that we have at the moment. I'm sticking with the anti-Muslim angle, though, since Trump is out there Truthing to his MAGAs that it's okay to murder people who disagree with him.

[Joe_dallas]

jb 3 hours ago
" since Trump is out there Truthing to his MAGAs that it's okay to murder people who disagree with him."

That is a flat out lie
Though that is consistent with your other deranged comments

[jb]

Oh, my bad. He's only saying that his supporters did kill Rob Reiner because he disagreed with Trump. He didn't actually endorse it and acknowledged that it was "sad".

That's a little better, I guess. Not so good for the case that political violence is a left wing phenomenon, though.

[Riva]

I realized you were politically ignorant, perhaps a rent-a-troll, but I did not realize you were this delusional. Go away.

[David Nieporent]

There wasn't "the victim" at Brown. Two people were killed.

And nine others shot, eight of whom are still reportedly in critical condition!

We have no particular reason to think that either of them were targeted,

If you look at MAGA twitter, they will say that it's obvious because he walked right up to her and shot her in the face, unlike the other victims. The only problem is that this claim is entirely fictional. It's being tweeted as if undeniably true, even though there's not a single bit of support for it.

[Riva]

Uh huh. Fortunately, you're not the arbitrator of the "MAGA" mindset, and one doesn't have to be "MAGA" to have questions, notwithstanding your gaslighting bullshit. Speculation is based on multiple factors. Admittedly not enough facts exist to confirm that the nature of the crime is different than other mass shooting events, but it seems usually deranged school shooters end up as a suicide or killed by police on site. Yes, others were shot, but, and just speculation again, it may be that they were not intended targets. Only one to my knowledge, was a prominent vocal conservative on a very liberal campus. But it could also be that there were other motivations. And, of course, leftist violence has been escalating on college campuses, not to mention a recent assassination of a vocal conservative.

[Sarcastr0]

"Speculation"
"not enough facts exist"
"just speculation again"
"it could also be"

Great work.

leftist violence has been escalating on college campuses,
Vibes!

not to mention a recent assassination of a vocal conservative.
Charlie Kirk's killer was more gamer memelord than leftist.

[Riva]

Was the assassination a game? Do you think there’s something funny about it?

[not guilty]

"[G]aslighting bullshit," Riva??

What has David said that has led you to question your own sanity, memory or powers of reasoning? (Of course, as Gandhi said of Western Civilization, I think that would be a very good idea.)

If anyone is of such limited perspicacity as to be impervious to gaslighting, it's you, Riva.

[jb]

I think Riva's context window is pretty short, so David doesn't need to do much to get to the limits of memory or power of reasoning.

[Riva]

Quite a troll storm here today. Must be something I wrote.

[not guilty]

What "raid of Mar a Lago without any probable cause", Riva?

Do you mean the execution at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022 of a search warrant issued by a United States Magistrate based on an affidavit establishing probable cause to his satisfaction?
https://legalclarity.org/the-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-statutes-and-seized-property/

[Joe_dallas]

Reports are out that there was manufactured probable cause. Something you as a defense attorney would jump on - But not in this case because you are suffering for that whiplash of being consistent with your double standards.

[David Nieporent]

There are no such "reports." A magistrate found probable cause. And even Aileen Cannon laughed at these arguments.

[not guilty]

"Reports are out that there was manufactured probable cause."

Suppose you link to any such reports, Joe_dallas? Or in the alternative, admit that you can't do so.

[Randal]

He's talking about reports like this one: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/12/17/open-thread-52/?comments=true#comment-11319044

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Joe_dallas.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The FBI didn't think they had probable cause. And these magistrates will rubber stamp anything.

[not guilty]

"The FBI didn't think they had probable cause. And these magistrates will rubber stamp anything."

Magistrate Judge Reinhart found there was probable cause. What does it matter what FBI agents thought?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Magistrate Judge Reinhart signed whatever was on his desk. But I guess none of it matters now.

[David Nieporent]

I realize you're just trolling here — there's nothing even remotely hinting at that — so even dignifying it with a response is pointless.

Speaking in the abstract, sometimes judges do that with warrants, of course. But it's inconceivable that one would do so with respect to a search of the former president's residence.

[Joe_dallas]

Emails from the fbi show otherwise - Though we can count on DN to deny

series of emails on july 13 2022 emails from and to brett reynolds, Thakur, julie Edlstei, Bratt jay, karen gilbert, to name of few fbi agents expressing doubt about the validity of PC.

[David Nieporent]

Not only do you not understand the law, or the facts here, but you can't read. I didn't say anything about the opinion of any FBI agents, whose opinions are irrelevant in any case.

What I said was that even if a judge might rubber stamp a search warrant application in some situations, it was inconceivable that he would do so in the case of a search warrant application for a former POTUS's home. That some FBI agents thought at some point in time that there wasn't PC is utterly irrelevant to that point.

[Joe_dallas]

You are flat out lying - as usual

David Nieporent 2 hours ago
"There are no such "reports." A magistrate found probable cause. And even Aileen Cannon laughed at these arguments"

[David Nieporent]

You are flat out lying - as usual

bookkeeper_joe still on that "can't read" kick.

My statement "There are no such 'reports'" was in response to your claim, "Reports are out that there was manufactured probable cause."

There are no such reports of that. I didn't deny that there were reports that some people at the FBI thought that probable cause was lacking. That has literally nothing to do with the claim that "there was manufactured probable cause." (I'm not even sure what 'manufactured probable cause' would mean, but it sounds sinister.)

[Joe_dallas]

playing word games doesnt hide your lying today.

What is it today - 5 lies or was it six. quite frankly in all the excitement, I lost count. Do you feel lucky today?

[David Nieporent]

Words have actual meaning. Using those actual meanings is not "word games." Intelligent people understand that.

The things you say aren't true. You lie about what happen, you lie about what I say, and you lie about what you said. And you lie about your own knowledge and expertise. And then you try to cover it up by never actually saying anything specific at all.

[MoreCurious]

Please do not confuse Riva with facts. They make his brain hurt.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm an American, born and raised, so for those for whom that matters, I agree.

OTOH, "Even MAGA people should want their FBI to be competent"

That is a flexible term. I'm not sure exactly what "competent" means in this case. After all, many noted he wasn't that competent when he was confirmed by a thin (two dissents on the Republican side) partisan vote. He apparently had certain skills that made him a good choice in Trump's eyes.

Yes, his incompetence is more apparent now. He has some experience that suggests he might do a better job than this. To be optimistic.

Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if he's fired at some point. He's surely not untouchable.

[loki13]

I think it should be pointed out that not only is Patel particularly incompetent, which is bad enough, but there are two additional factors-

1. He loves to open his mouth. And he usually does it to change feet. Seriously, though, you don't do law enforcement by PR. As has been pointed out, he has already damaged cases (leading to people escaping arrest and cases falling apart) because he can't stop himself. And his premature announcements that turn out to be wrong erode credibility. Well, assuming there was credibility.

2. People forget this, but the Deputy Director of the FBI is almost always a long-term "company man" with tons of day-to-day experience with the FBI. It's a really important position! But this administration chose ... Dan "Conspiracy Theory Podcaster" Bongino. For real. So we not only have Ka$h Patel, we don't even have someone to hold his hand.

...now, they finally realized what a clustereff this was an brought in Andrew Bailey in the fall to help manage day-to-day. Except ... Bailey was the Missouri AG most famous for abusing his office and conflicts of interest, and has no relevant federal or law enforcement experience.

You can't make this stuff up.

[David Nieporent]

I think it should be pointed out that not only is Patel particularly incompetent, which is bad enough, but there are two additional factors-

That having been said, I don't think Patel's questionable competence was the reason his nomination received such lukewarm support and engendered significant opposition. (It certainly wasn't the foundation of my hope his nomination would be derailed.) It was more of his his questionable ethics (anti-vax snake oil!) and his questionable fealty to the rule of law that were at issue. (He published a book listing all of Trump's enemies he wanted to go after!)

[Joe_dallas]

loki13 1 hour ago
"I think it should be pointed out that not only is Patel particularly incompetent,"

Lets pretend that Comey, lynch (doj) , holder (doj) etal were not corrupt

[David Nieporent]

Let's pretend that bookkeeper_joe had presented any evidence of corruption involving any of those people.

Nah; Stranger Things is more realistic than that notion.

[Joe_dallas]

holder - fast and furious - to name just one
of course DN is already up to speed on the various corruption, but as expected, he denies.

[David Nieporent]

OF&F was not corruption. Do you know the meaning of basic English words? OF&F was apparently handled incompetently. But nobody has ever contended — at least until this moment, anyway — that Eric Holder somehow profited from the failed operation.

[Joe_dallas]

yes it was - lying as usual

You are on a roll today.

[David Nieporent]

Are you this incompetent in your professional life, too? Like, when the IRS points out that you incompetently filed a tax return for someone, do you just say, "You're lying"?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Bongino reportedly is retiring soon. Podcasting is less stressful.

[Bob from Ohio]

"every time a photo gets taken of him he looks like he just got caught cheating on a test"

He has some sort of eye problem that makes them "bug out".

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is Brown University scrubbing this man from its website?
----
Mustapha Kharbouch '27 is a first-year student considering concentrating in International & Public Affairs and Anthropology with a focus on the Middle East. They are a third-generation Palestinian refugee born and raised in Lebanon. Attaining a scholarship to attend UWC Maastricht, they have led and continue to help with community-building initiatives and social change roles. They are fond of bringing their lived experiences into academic spaces and participating in engaged scholarship. They are highly moved by questions of indigeneity, justice, and inclusion, and particularly interested in the intersection of queer studies with Palestinian studies. Mustapha is also currently the Cultural Programming Coordinator for the Global Brown Center and on the e-board of the Arab Society.

https://web.archive.org/web/20251216151717/https://cmes.brown.edu/news/2023-10-16/mustapha-kharbouch

=====
Facts:
1: All of the Brown websites mentioning this man are now unavailable.

2: The RI AG stated that he knew who the man was. How does the AG know who he is?

3: The shooter shouted *something* and people unfamilar with Arabic are not going to instantly recognized shouted Arabic, if -- in fact -- that was the language the expression was shouted in.

4: The man bears a physical resemblance to the shooter.

It really is starting to smell down there...

[DDHarriman]

It's the Democrat authorities covering up another heinous act by one of their protected & sacred classes. It undermines The Narrative so it must be erased.

[dwb68]

WSJ: "A military blockade is considered an act of war but..."

There is no but.

A military blockade is an act of war.

[Commenter_XY]

Agreed, a blockade is an act of war.

Where is Congress?

[Longtobefree]

But not an embargo - - - - - - -

(see democrat president and Cuba/Russia)

[Stephen Lathrop]

An MIT professor—one highly influential among the parts of the physics community attempting to invent practical fusion power reactors—was assassinated yesterday at his home in Brookline, MA.

Excepts from the Brookline.News:

"Nuno Loureiro, a 47-year-old MIT professor, was shot and killed at his home on Gibbs Street on Monday night, according to Brookline police and the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office. . . . .

Brookline chief of police Jennifer Paster said in a statement issued Tuesday evening that “in order to protect the integrity of the investigation, we are limited in the information we can share at this time and ask for the community’s understanding and patience.”

A Portuguese physicist, Loureiro was the director of Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT. Portugal’s foreign minister announced his death at a meeting of parliament on Tuesday, according to CNN Portugal."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and that supposedly is unrelated to the Brown shooting.

Right....

[David Nieporent]

Clearly, because random people being killed 50 miles apart are typically related to each other.

[Frank Drackman]

I know when I kill random people I allow for at least a 100 miles of separation (Gotta keep em separated! (HT D. Holland)
I'm kidding, I was 7 when the "Zodiac" Murders began.
Or am I?? (I am)

Frank

[MarkJawz]

This sounds more like a family dispute. I'd be checking into any exes.

[Ridgeway]

That is most likely the answer.

When I heard "Nuclear Physics Professor", my first thought was espionage, but that is probably just because I read too many spy novels.

[MarkJawz]

Yes. Maybe I was just subconsciously thinking of the slain law professor Dan Markel, but statistically, most non-robbery/gang related murders are domestic in nature.

[Mr. Hook]

And you'll own up to your baseless speculation when it's confirmed there is no connection? Or will it morph into a future false story that "people need to remember"?

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, it remains to be seen whether this was a targeted assassination of a Jewish professor.

[SRG2]

Has Kash Patel announced that the FBI has caught the shooter yet?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What's not being said about the Brown shooting is why so few students died.

Brown has a Level 1 Trauma Center on campus.

Brown Rhode Island Hospital is the Level 1 Trauma Center for all of Southeast New England (including part of Massachusetts):
https://www.brownhealth.org/centers-services/trauma-center-rhode-island-hospital

What I noticed was that several of the victims were STILL in "critical" condition four days later -- usually you either upgrade or die, "critical" is where vital signs are unstable and outside normal limits, indicating a life-threatening situation that requires immediate medical attention. Patients in critical condition may be unconscious and need intensive care to stabilize their health.

Before talking gun control, lets talk trauma care because it also includes all other forms of life-threatening trauma.

A Level 1 Trauma Center saved my life six years ago.

[Frank Drackman]

Only practical difference between a Level 1 and a Level 2 is the Level 1's have to do research and have more specialists to manage more unusual injuries (knowing you, Dr. Ed, your injury had to be unusual)
Level 1's also have Psychologists and Grief Counselors, so you can "Rap" about how your injuries affected your Id, or so your fambily can mourn if you don't make it.
Used to love when Patient's Fambily's would ask if their loved one was on the "Critical List" as there was no such list, I think it was a Status thing back in the Hood,
"Ja-marcus still be on dee Critical List!!"
My first "Surgical Procedure" was removing a .357 slug from under the skin of a "Perp" who the Mobile Po-Po had shot multiple times back when that didn't start nationwide Riots, he'd recovered months later, but still had that memento over his Deltoid. Got the Resident to give the OK, a little lidocaine, little dissection, and "Voila" a 125 grain Federal Jacketed Hollowpoint in the pan.
Of course the Perp wanted it as a keepsake, told him he couldn't have it, had to "go to Pathology"
I still have it of course, along with my Urine cup full of Kuwait City Sand, and a small Lucite Ball, removed from the chest of a Patient who'd been treated with "Plombage" back in the 1930's (Google it yourself)
She didn't need it anymore, it was from her Autopsy.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

Plombage x-ray.

[David Nieporent]

Brown has a Level 1 Trauma Center on campus.

It does not. I see that Dr. Ed's track record of never being right will not be broken today. Rhode Island Hospital is affiliated with Brown University; it is not on Brown University's campus.

[Frank Drackman]

Nit picked, now explain how the incidents described by Alanis Morrissette as "Ironic" (Ironically) aren't.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

And David NoMind believes that the The Warren Alpert Medical School is actually in White River Junction, Vermont.

Or is that White Sands, New Mexico?

When you have an urban campus, the city *is* your campus.

[John 4]

Pathetic

[David Nieporent]

When you have an urban campus, the city *is* your campus.

That is certainly a use of the English language that does not match the actually existing English language.

[Estragon]

White River Junction is an odd example. I thought you were going to start talking about Dr Seuss for a moment. Anyways, there ain’t much there it turns out. I wonder if cactus jack’s still exists.

[Ridgeway]

Harry's is gone too. Looks like they have something called "The Fort" now in the same location, but no more Flatbed Specials AFAICT.

Technically that is Lebanon, not WRJ, but I am not being picky.

[Estragon]

I am wearing my Dan & Whit’s sweatshirt as I type this

[Ridgeway]

Norwich? Now that is a bridge too far. I can count on one finger the number of times I went there as a destination (as opposed to driving through, on, or on the way to, I-91).

[gVOR08]

Let's build and staff Level 1 Trauma Centers all over the so I can keep my guns. OK, it's Doctor Ed, anyone else, I might assume they forgot a "/s". This is on top of the usual let's fortify the schools so I can keep my guns and let's somehow maintain everyone's mental health so I can keep my guns and a recent obsession here, let's let released felons have guns so I can keep my guns. Maybe, Dr. Ed, there's a simpler solution.

[hobie]

Dear Excellency Trump,

I wanted to take this opportunity to commiserate on how unfairly Rob Reiner has treated both you and I over the years. His radical left antisemitic tranny terrorism has left both of us scarred. Besides, including murder, we two seem to have a lot in common. Besties for life, I say.

For your consideration,

Nick Reiner

[Frank Drackman]

It's all of those Damn Assault-Knives!!!!!!

[DDHarriman]

Deranged Liberals raise deranged liberal kids.

*shrug*

[Dr. Ed 2]

On a serious note, think that Nick Reiner's parents might have done some drugs in the 18 months before his birth?

[Zarniwoop]

Nick should consider adding “Also, I was treated very unfairly by Biden.” to such a letter.

[Michael P]

Recommended by Arnold Kling:

We’re scratching our heads at why Europe isn’t growing; I lived in Europe for years. They’re not risk-takers. Their government is very aggressive in removing risk from their lives and that’s why they’ve had low growth. It’s like how macroeconomics and finance are very similar. I said this sort of central truth from financial markets is you don’t get a higher return unless you risk loss. True. This is the foundation of all finance, but it’s also true for the macroeconomy and that if you don’t have a certain amount of risk, you just don’t have the same amount of growth.

https://thefutureofliberty.org/episode/allison-schrager-on-free-markets-public-pensions-and-americas-appetite-for-risk/

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's just that. Take Germany, for instance: Their government spends approximately half of their entire GDP. And every cent the government taxes away from the private sector is a cent the private sector can't invest in growth.

Then you get into the flat out destructive things their governments do, like destroying functional and already paid for powerplants.

[MarkJawz]

The United States is not much better these days. The only difference is that the U.S. has more borrowing capacity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, our growth rate is nothing to write home about these days, either. We're coasting at this point.

I've a theory that at some point a nation's political class start to feel wealthy enough that they start prioritizing relative status over increasing their wealth, and stall growth by adopting policies to reduce the chance of being displaced from the top of the heap.

[MarkJawz]

Yes, well said. The problem with that philosophy though is eventually you have civil unrest and you end up with a situation where no one is wealthy anymore.

[hobie]

Very much reminds me of this rather important article a decade ago in the NY Times. Here's the free version for you to read:

A Fearless Culture Fuels U.S. Tech Giants

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/business/the-american-way-of-tech-and-europes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9U8.8KzH.3ILWoYtMOIpW&smid=url-share

In it they ask: "Why hasn’t Europe fostered the kind of innovation that has spawned hugely successful technology companies?"

The answer, they contend, is cultural. It's not just risk taking, but rather Silicon Valley's “Fail fast, fail often” mantra. Failure, and even bankruptcy, are to be expected here in order to innovate.

But failure and bankruptcy are so abhorrent and shameful to Europeans (often resulting in suicides) that they just cannot innovate like we do.

[Michael P]

"It's not just risk taking, but rather" being willing to do lots of things that have a relatively high likelihood of failing. A smarter writer might realize we call that "taking risks" for short -- but we are talking about the flailing New York Slimes here.

[hobie]

Sigh. So much for trying to strike up a civil conversation with you.

[Michael P]

Oh, I thought you were quoting the NYT there. I should thus revise my statement: ... but you are the guy who needs to run to AI for analysis and insights. (See also the cautionary tale below.)

[MarkJawz]

The tech companies are a bad example. Now, their growth comes from a lack of antitrust enforcement.

[Bwaaah]

You do understand that no investor has a "mantra" that's anything like, "Fail fast, fail often?” They're trying to succeed. But success is difficult, and in many cases, unlikely.

"Fail fast, fail often" is the mantra of sideline storytellers (and especially "consultants") who play to an audience penchant for safety and aversion to risk. They're like Homer Simpson who said, "Trying is the first step toward failure."

My point is that failure is an unavoidable risk of trying to succeed. But stupid can avoid the risk of failure by not trying at all. And stupid can conclude that nothing is therefore lost, as if opportunity was of no value; as if the choice to stand still won't almost certainly lead to you slowly falling behind.

The universe isn't a static environment. Destruction happens without effort. Creation takes effort.

[Michael P]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/12/openai-refuses-to-say-where-chatgpt-logs-go-when-users-die/

The transcripts there should be a warning to anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to ask AI for guidance or analysis, especially if one doesn't know what kind of history the AI keeps from session to session.

[Frank Drackman]

I get it! you're showing the irony of the risks of using AI by using AI!!!!

[hobie]

I listen to a lot of AM Talk. Both political talk and the religious kooks. I have found that before a kooky conspiracy percolates its way to AM talk like Glen Beck, it appears to germinate in the cesspool of AM religious programming. I mean, them Christians are afraid of EVERYTHING!

So lately, the flock has been saying that the godless AI - trained on the liberal sensibilities of the wider world - is slowly and imperceptibly pushing them and their kids to be more woke. So I'm expecting more talk like that from you in the future, Michael.

[Bwaaah]

There could be some likelihood in your prediction, but only if you don't take into account the things Michael P actually says.

Your faulty premise is: "Those MAGAs are all the same."

That's no more true than that any group (Democrats? Liberals? The left?) should be held responsible for the likes of you, hobie. I'm pretty sure you actually agree that they shouldn't. You're doing you, not them.

[Randal]

Those MAGAts are all the same. If you deviate an iota, you get tarred as a RINO and kicked out of the cult. (Note that we don't have any sort of DINO concept, we're happy with viewpoint diversity.)

Watch, it's about to happen to poor Susie.

[bloocow2]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-17/bondi-beach-shooting-terrorist-attack-islamic-state-live-blog/106151426

The Bondi shooter has been charged. I'm actually glad one of them survived, so that the psycho can have his day in court.

I'm a little worried about the effect the whole thing is having (and is going to have) on the discourse, though. There's concerns about the plague of antisemitism, of course, and rightfully so. But some of the proposed solutions come pretty close to the government policing speech, which I'm emphatically not in favour of. We don't have a 1st amendment in Australia!

[Mr. Bumble]

"We don't have a 1st amendment in Australia!"
Nor a second amendment.

[bloocow2]

I'm actually glad about that part. Given the damage that even a few guns can do, we'd rather not have more guns.

[Michael P]

How did these murderers get so many guns?

[Frank Drackman]

"So Many?"
I have 55-60, depends on whether you consider a Raven 25 Auto without a slide or Firing Pin a "Gun" or an M1A receiver a "Rifle" (The BATFE sure does) and I've never shot anyone, although a richochet did put a hole in the door of my 1978 LTD.
I believe there is this Invention called "Money" and with this Invention you can purchase other Inventions, such as "Guns"

Frank

[hobie]

A lot of the MAGA here are outraged that you Aussies won't take this opportunity to load up on guns. Instead, you're actually calling for more restrictions. I mean, can't you woke trannies see from all our massacres that more guns is the answer?!

[bloocow2]

You're allowed to have guns here! But it's pretty strict; you're only meant to have them if you have a specific reason, like you're a farmer who needs them to shoot kangaroos and rabbits and other pests. Or if you're a hunter; my brother-in-law has a gun to go duck hunting. I believe the Bondi shooters were part of a shooting club, though I could be wrong about that.

But yeah, you need to have a specific reason. And police check up on you all the time, to make sure the guns are stored properly, and there are background and physiological tests and all that. It's not perfect (and is probably about to become even stricter), but it's what we have.

And if you want to know why we have strict laws about this sort of thing, look up the Port Arthur Massacre.

[ThePublius]

"And if you want to know why we have strict laws...."

And how's that working out for you?

A few good guys with guns could have stopped these two before they killed so many. But I imagine that Australia's gun laws are such that you can never carry for self protection. [1]

Then again, the risk is that the inept, cowardly police there will shoot you if you intervene, after they emerge from their hiding spaces.

[1] "In Australia, it is generally illegal for private citizens to carry a gun in public. Firearms are strictly regulated, and licenses only permit possession for specific, approved purposes, none of which include self-defence or general public carry."

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, it started life as a penal colony.

[jb]

"And how's that working out for you?"

It's working great. In Australia, they get a mass shooting every few years--mostly farmers killing their families it seems like. The US has something like 60x more gun homicides per capita than Australia does.

(As usual, MAGAs are bozos who can't understand the difference between anecdotes and data.)

[ThePublius]

"The US has something like 60x more gun homicides per capita than Australia does."

Where does that statistic come from?

[jb]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2025/12/14/the-gun-murder-rate-in-australia-where-15-were-slain-at-bondi-beach-is-6000-lower-than-in-us/

[ThePublius]

Thanks, but paywalled.

[jb]

I mean, feel free to do your own research and see if you come up with a different result. I see some sources with the US only having a gun homicide rate 25x higher than Australia, so for the sake of argument we can go with that number instead.

[ThePublius]

Sure, that's. reasonable. I think the reasons are more complex than gun control laws and gun availability, though. It's more cultural. We have various cultural constituencies here which are particularly prone to gun violence that are not present down under.

[grb]

ThePublius : "We have various cultural constituencies here which are particularly prone to gun violence that are not present down under."

Yep. And that "culture" is particularly prevalent in red states:

"In October, Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis proclaimed crime in New York City was “out of control” and blamed it on George Soros. Another Sunshine State politico, former president Donald Trump, offered his native city up as a Democrat-run dystopia, one of those places “where the middle class used to flock to live the American dream are now war zones, literal war zones.” In May 2022, hours after 19 children were murdered at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott swatted back suggestions that the state could save lives by implementing tougher gun laws by proclaiming “Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”

In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.

If you grew up in the coal mining region of eastern Pennsylvania your chance of dying of a gunshot is about half that if you grew up in the coalfields of West Virginia, three hundred miles to the southwest. Someone living in the most rural counties of South Carolina is more than three times as likely to be killed by gunshot than someone living in the equally rural counties of New York’s Adirondacks or the impoverished rural counties facing Mexico across the lower reaches of the Rio Grande."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising-geography-of-gun-violence-00092413

[ThePublius]

"Yep. And that "culture" is particularly prevalent in red states:"

Yea, so what? Does that negate my assertion?

[grb]

ThePublius : "Does that negate my assertion?"

It would depend on what your assertion was meant to imply.
(And I have a pretty good guess on that)

[Life of Brian]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/23/surprising-geography-of-gun-violence-00092413

I've looked at Colin Woodard's take before. I've always found it fascinating that he seems to get a pass on the usually third-rail territory of different immigrant groups having different inherent propensities for violence. Guessing that's because he generally does it to the detriment of various Causasian subgroups, and as if by magic comes up with regional boundaries for those subgroups that generally track those of the highest-density black population.

[hobie]

jb - I think Publius is miffed that missed his 'cultural' assertion: which is the culture of the neegro, and not so much the general politics of a state

[jb]

I'm not going to spend energy on implied racism these days when so many folks, including ThePublius, are willing to engage in outright racism.

[MarkJawz]

If you need a reason, it's not a right.

The government can always decide your "reason" is insufficient.

Basically, the Aussies are spineless cowards who would rather sacrifice liberty for safety. I recall a story from my aunt where she and my uncle were unable to buy a bottle of wine at a store in Sydney because she didn't have her ID with her. She was 52 at the time.

My Australian acquaintances defended the clerk's action!

[loki13]

"Basically, the Aussies are spineless cowards who would rather sacrifice liberty for safety."

Go for drinks in an Aussie mining town and say that.

I love American Keyboard Kommandos. All bluster, not realizing that most of the world thinks we are bunch of fat slobs that can't be bothered to get out of our Mart Carts in Wal-Mart.

[grb]

loki13 : "... not realizing that most of the world thinks we are bunch of fat slobs ..."

Of course these days the world spends all its time laughing uproariously at our banana republic-grade buffoonish president. Go to any of the major foreign newspapers and you're bound to find an account of Trump's latest dementia babble or imbecilic act.

For MAGA, it's slap-your-knee yuks at best & boys-will-be-boys at worse. This presidency is just cartoon entertainment to them. They don't care the United States is now an international laughingstock. They aren't bothered our country has abandoned its position as leader of the free world. As long as they can pop a brewski and get pro-wrestling-style viewing pleasure from Trump, they're happy.

Somehow they never consider how they'd look at another country if it was led by a braying halfwit clown.

[Brett Bellmore]

Reality Bites: US Homicide Rates Fell as Much As Australia’s, But Without the Radical Gun Confiscation

"Conclusion
As stated at the outset, Australia is a very safe country. But the case for its gun laws being the reason for that safety is flimsy at best. Australia is smaller, less dense, and less diverse country than the United States. Its murder rate was low long before it adopted its current strict gun policies, and mass shootings have always been a very uncommon occurrence. When looking at the data in totality, it looks like Australians surrendered their right to arms without seeing much of a statistical gain in overall safety, especially considering the US has seen similar rates of decline in homicide without making the same compromises on our rights."

Oh, and Australia's suicide rate is actually higher than the US, once you add back in the assisted suicides.

[Sarcastr0]

You said this a couple of days ago: "If you look in a detailed way at crime rates, including murder, the more you zoom in the more variation you see. Two states might have crime rates that differ by a few percent, in the same state two counties might be within 50% of each other, one city be several times worse than its suburbs, but by the time you get down to the street level you're looking at, often, several orders of magnitude difference in crime rates."

I agree with this.

Now you're claiming you can compare across countries?

Be consistent; otherwise it looks like you're just believing whatever agrees with your preferred outcomes, without any consideration or critical thinking at all.

[hobie]

Brett's quoting shootingnewsweekly.com on this one.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, so? Does the source make the data wrong? Are you claiming that Shooting New Weekly has their numbers wrong?

[Brett Bellmore]

See, this is a particular problem in debates with left-wingers. They only want to look at data from sources that would never pass on data contradicting their preferred narrative. Not from sources that would be happy to pass it on.

I'll admit that admissions against interest tend to be extra-trustworthy, but you're going to be pretty short on information contradicting your views, if that's the only sort of contradictory information you're willing to look at.

[hobie]

The article was well written and it included proper citations from both, neutral, MAGA and Lib sources. It definitely ain't the wild shit MichaelP relies on. But, yeah, I'm concerned about bias.

[loki13]

You should be. When they include "liberal sources" (like the MJ database) it's not for the reason you think; it's because it is using a very restrictive definition in order to make the numbers look good.

But even with that, they still have to lie. It's ... ridiculous.

[loki13]

I bothered to look at the article. Here are my running notes-

1. It starts by talking about guns and uses 1996 as the date of more restrictive laws.
2. It then switches to comparing the overall homicide rate today (not from guns).
3. It also adds in the comparative suicide rate today (not from guns).
4. It then talks about "mass shootings," and specifically uses a definition that by its very nature will exclude the vast majority of mass shootings that gun control laws will exclude (such as domestic violence ... which means any mass shooting where there is a motive involving domestic relations, and "gang" violence which has been coded EXPANSIVELY) in order to filter for what are basically "motivated terrorist shootings."
But wait, it gets worse. For example, it says that Denmark has had two "mass shootings" since 2000 that fit the MJ criteria. If you follow the link, you see that the actual number is zero, since the criteria require that the perpetrator kill four or more people (not including himself).

I can't even, Brett. I've just started reading this, and it's shit.

I bothered looking at the Australia and U.S. Homicide Rates graph ... and seriously, WTF? That is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen!!!

Do you see what they did? It uses TWO MEASURES for the Y axis. The Australia line is in .1 increments, and from 1.3 to 2.0, while the U.S. line is .... it isn't even in increments, but goes from 5.4 to 9.9.

Seriously, that is one of the most misleading graphics I have ever seen.

This is pure propaganda, and it's not even the good stuff.

[hobie]

He ain't wrong, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're not getting my point, or the point of the article I linked to.

1. My point, (Which you agree with.) is that it's impossible as a statistical matter to determine what effect differences in gun laws have on crime rates by comparing different jurisdictions with different gun laws, because you typically see absolutely enormous local differences in crime rates under the same gun laws, so there's some confounding variable(s) out there that are enormously powerful. And which cannot, as a practical matter, be accounted for to sufficient accuracy to allow the unconfounded correlation to be discovered.

2. The linked article's point is that, even setting that aside, the international comparison data would not support the gun control thesis, because while Australia saw a decline in shootings after increasing their gun control, at the same time the US saw a similar decline in shootings while rolling back gun control and increasing the number of guns.

So, both me and the linked article are not asserting that gun control doesn't work, (Though I think it doesn't.) so much as asserting that there's no evidence based reason to think that it DOES work.

The link doesn't contradict my point, it agrees with it.

[Sarcastr0]

The article doesn’t say the thesis is unsupported. It says the opposite thesis is supported - “ When looking at the data in totality, it looks like Australians surrendered their right to arms without seeing much of a statistical gain in overall safety,”

[loki13]

I think if you actually read what you just wrote critically, you'd realize that what you wrote also necessarily means ...
"that there's no evidence based reason to think that it DOES NOT work."

In other words, because you selectively say statistics are meaningless because ... variation ... but also meaningful (when you want them to be, even when, um, it's not exactly real statistics), your actual argument isn't what you think it is- it's just an argument that ... and this is shocking ... you accept the stats you like and reject the ones you don't.

The issue with detailed "gun control" statistics and studies isn't simply that they are almost all biased (really, Shooting News Weekly?) and are just exercises in massaging statistics to prove what they already want to be true; it's that they rarely even attempt to neutrally measure like things, and people don't try to understand them.

Not all "gun control" laws, for example, are the same. Let's try an easy imaginary hypothetical- imagine a small island country that can easily monitor imports and exports (say, somewhere in the Pacific) so gun smuggling or illegal guns crossing the border isn't a thing. Then, imagine the country banned and confiscated all guns, and made possession of any firearm a mandatory lifetime sentence. This would likely result in a dramatic reduction, probably to zero, in deaths to firearms.

Is that successful?
Okay- what if the overall rate of homicides remained unchanged?
What if it went down 50%, but the overall rate of violent crime (because certain robberies, batteries, etc. are violent crimes and they went up) was unchanged?

What if violent crime went down and homicides went down? Imagine this scenario, and ask- is this still sufficient for Brett to consider this a success given what Brett believes is a "loss of freedom?"

What is inarguable is that the United States is a severe outlier in terms of homicide rates per capita using firearms internationally- for two reasons.

First, while it isn't the top, it's with a list of countries that are all wracked by insurgencies and/or organized drug killings. You know- the types of countries that our President wants to invade because of their lawless narco-terrorism. We are well well well ahead of the closest comparators (but for our different relationship with guns), New Zealand and Canada, with ~4x the rate.

Second, and this should be mentioned as a counterpoint... we rank (comparatively) better internationally on overall homicide rates. Not .. that great. But much better. I think you can probably draw the correct conclusion.

A lot of this ... just isn't easy. I don't think it's accurate for someone to say that the loosening of gun control regulations have no impact. I think it's notable that the post-crack epidemic slowdown in gun violence reversed after 2010 (that date is important) and as the cases percolated and the laws began to be repealed, we saw a notable uptick in 2015.

But but, we also need to remember that this (the slowdown in the '90s) was also all occurring with a backdrop involving a revolution in the treatment of gunshot wounds in the Emergency Rooms around the nation. Gunshot wounds that would have been fatal in the past were no longer resulting in deaths.

It's all complicated, and not reducible to easy answers. Personally, I don't think that the issue is, or ever should be, "gun control." It's a problem involving gun culture in the United States. But that's something that isn't about the words or text of the Constitution. A hunter or farmer in Montana has a very different relationship to firearms than an average person on the Upper West Side of Manhattan- and this is something that used to be tolerated and accepted in America.

Oh well.

[MarkJawz]

So differences for gun laws should be tolerated as between Montana and the UWS, but differences for other laws like gay marriage, should not be?

[loki13]

*shrug* I specifically said it wasn't about the words of the text of the Constitution. Back in the day (before 2008/10) I used to use the text of the Second Amendment as a good example of indeterminate Constitutional language ... a thought provoking way to look at how to examine the Constitution.

I'm not expressing an opinion on what the law is or what others think it should be. I am simply stating that my personal belief is that if I were to look at the situation from scratch, I would design a system that prioritized federalism and allowed for local variation.

I'd also argue that this is the de facto system we had for most of our history.

My father was a hunter from West Virginia. I guess I was brought up with a different view of the utility and desire for guns than, "Mebbe I need to shoot the gummint." YMMV.

[MarkJawz]

I support prioritizing federalism, but subject to the explicit protections of the federal Constitution.

Otherwise, we don't have one nation. We have 50 nations with a shared currency and military.

[loki13]

Again, I'd argue that despite the change in how it was construed, the Federal Constitution does not protect that in the way you think. And that the needs of localities and the variations of states was well-established in history. Every thing from some Western towns that had requirements to check guns, to laws against concealed weapons (or open carry), to licenses and restrictions banning completely (but, um, targeting specific groups), to restrictions on firearms in certain designated spaces.

If you look at the broad swath of United States history, what you'll see is a consistent history of local and state regulation of firearms, whereas federal regulation is a product of the 20th century.

But I am not the lawmaker. As I said, I don't think the problem is guns. Switzerland, for example, has a lot of guns. Not nearly as many as we do, but a lot.

The problem is our gun culture. That's why comparisons are difficult; you can't say, "Switzerland has lots of guns, so the number of guns isn't the problems!" Because Switzerland also has a lot of regulation, compulsory military service, and a very different gun culture.

[hobie]

People like MarkJaws are still butthurt that Jim Crow got taken away. His seditious, disunion talk gives to him the illusion of a path for its return

[Brett Bellmore]

No, loki, the problem is not "our gun culture". That implies we have only one.

It would be more accurate to say that the problem is a specific gun culture, but that's wrong, too. If it were just gun culture, the areas of the country with elevated firearm murder rates would not have elevated non-firearm murder rates... But they do.

It's not gun culture, it's violence culture.

Gun controllers like to treat guns like some kind of haunted toy, such as you might buy at that store in the TV series "Friday the 13th". Give one to a peaceful person, and maybe some day they'll snap and shoot someone, where they wouldn't otherwise have, and that's why we have so many shootings.

I won't say NO shootings originate that way, but the criminological statistics say that the vast majority of shootings are traceable to a tiny fraction of the population, who typically have criminal records as long as your arm. Here, from Sweden: The 1 % of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions

It's the same all over: A tiny fraction of the population are responsible for almost all violent crime, while the great majority of the population are not contributing to it at all.

[MarkJawz]

Brett Bellmore, yes, and as long as Western countries don't prioritize punishing that 1% and keeping them away from the rest of us, it'll continue.

As an example, Japan has a much less violent culture than we do to begin with.

But if someone does commit a violent crime, they are punished extremely harshly. No catch and release in Japan.

[loki13]

Japan not only has incredibly low rates of violence ... it also has some of the strictest gun regulations in the entire world.

That's right, Japan bans almost all firearms. Completely. Feel free to look it up.

In addition, there are incredibly strong cultural norms in Japan about guns that we don't have here- it's almost ... a gun culture thing.

[MarkJawz]

Loki, if you want an apples to apples comparison, what are the violence rates of Americans of Japanese descent?

[loki13]

Um, I don't really do racial essentialism.

The country of Japan, right now, is one that eschews violence. There are numerous reasons for this- including gun control laws and culture.

On the the other hand, I don't think you'd get much traction telling GIs in WW2 (or the Chinese) that the Japanese culturally eschew violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think if you actually read what you just wrote critically, you'd realize that what you wrote also necessarily means ...
"that there's no evidence based reason to think that it DOES NOT work.""

Well, yeah. My perspective is that you let people do whatever the hell they want unless you've actually got reason to think the restriction is justified, not just a hunch. You need a good reason to tell people they can't do what they want. So the absence of actual evidence is pretty important from my perspective.

If your perspective is that gun ownership shouldn't be treated as a right, but instead as a disfavored privilege, obviously you're going to approach this differently. But I think that's an unlawful perspective for the government to adopt, in America.

"Let's try an easy imaginary hypothetical- imagine a small island country that can easily monitor imports and exports (say, somewhere in the Pacific) so gun smuggling or illegal guns crossing the border isn't a thing. "

I assume this country has no problem with things like illegal drugs, then? Hypothetical country that is locked down better than a Supermax prison? Don't think I'd want to live there. Maybe visit.

"But but, we also need to remember that this (the slowdown in the '90s) was also all occurring with a backdrop involving a revolution in the treatment of gunshot wounds in the Emergency Rooms around the nation. Gunshot wounds that would have been fatal in the past were no longer resulting in deaths."

That's true, and that's a good part of why rural areas where access to emergency medical care is very delayed, look worse than otherwise in homicide numbers.

"Personally, I don't think that the issue is, or ever should be, "gun control." It's a problem involving gun culture in the United States. "

Yeah, I'd sort of agree, though I think saying gun culture is too specific.

That's kind of what I've been getting at in saying that the focus on law instead of the factors driving those enormous local differences in crime rates is mistaken. Outside of your hypothetical island nation, denying the means to murder is a total non-starter.

You need to focus on WHY people kill, not the means they use. You're never going to successfully create a world where homicidal people can't kill, but in a world where people don't WANT to kill, you could have machine gun dispensers on street corners and you'd be fine.

Why do some places in the county have enormously higher violent (And other!) crime rates than the rest of the country?

Culture. Not gun culture, except tangentially. Kill culture.

Most of America does not have a murder problem. But we have pockets of ultra-violent culture, and we're not doing squat to fix that.

[loki13]

Brett,

While there is a lot to unpack there, I just want to concentrate on our philosophical disagreement on your last point. I don't think that we will reach agreement and consensus on the issues, and discussing facts won't lead to any illumination, so instead I will try and engage with you on what I consider the actual disagreement.

First, I do disagree about your distinction between guns and other forms of violence. To use an analogy (something brilliantly brought up in a recent episode of Pluribus) ... why not just let every American have a nuclear weapon? We are all responsible, and the real problem is the desire to kill, not the instrumentality, right? Well, the reason why is because that would be (all-caps) INSANE. People have "bad days," or "get drunk," or have "poor impulse control," or "make a mistake," or have a "heat of the moment," and ... yeah. I know you get it. You don't want that sudden impulse to turn into a giant friggin' tragedy.

For me, it's the same with guns. Yes, of course you can kill people with a kitchen knife. Or a sword. Or whatever. But guns? They make it particularly easy to translate the fleeting impulse into action. So I reject the idea that guns are "just the same" as everything else.

That said, because of my family and my history, I also think that guns are an important part of our culture. Hunting in West Virginia. A rancher in Montana. A retired military officer doing target practice in Alabama. A skeet shooter in Maine. Who am I (or the government) to deny them?

But this is where we differ; the flooding of America with guns just leads to more guns and more violence (IMO). If a person sees other people with guns on a regular basis, then they start to believe that they need a gun as well. If LEOs know that most people are packin', that makes every traffic stop that much more fraught (and, um, they really are starting to be that way). If private property owners are prohibited from preventing guns on their property (like retail stores and supermarkets), then they will begin to feel the need to have their own armed guards. More guns, more people, more chances for "impules," and more mistakes (at best).

I think people should have the right to have guns for recognized activities that actually require guns. Hunting. Sporting. In the wilderness (bears and wolves and coyotes are still part of the landscape). But I also think that different localities should be able to regulate the carrying of weapons to suit those places. If Boise wants open carry in all places, more power to them. If NYC wants to prohibit that because it's different, that's cool too.

That's the gun culture that I want to avoid. And personally, I think it mirrors the change in the NRA- from a group that was about sport to a group obsessed with the idea that we all needed guns to protect us from the government.

Guns are fine. But the obsession with guns? Not a big fan. I'd point out that there was a time when America was more in accord with what I wanted, but that time has passed. I suppose that's one part of Make America Great Again (and the return to some halcyon past) that people tend to overlook.

Again, this isn't a matter of law, or statistics (although I think that the stats aren't good for us on this, despite what you say). I think it's a matter of respect. I want people to both be able to hunt and target shoot without government interference, but also let places be more restrictive about regulation of guns- if that's what the people in that place want (without restricting the rights of others who are using their guns for their intended use).

Unfortunately, it's all or nothing, innit?

[Absaroka]

"Unfortunately, it's all or nothing, innit?"

It seems so at this point, but how did we get here? Imagine that 100 years ago when Big Tim Sullivan wanted to crack down on guns he adopted a law that was ... reasonable. As in you could have the permit if you were that nurse who rode the subway home at 0300 or your violent ex was being paroled or whatever. As opposed to only getting a permit if you were rich enough to make a big enough campaign contribution.

My take is that the median folks would have put up with quite a bit of regulation that had some reasonable connection to actually stopping crime. But, generally speaking, regulations have become bimodal - people either want no regulation or regulations designed more to harass than prevent crime. Opinions on both sides have hardened into articles of faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

" why not just let every American have a nuclear weapon?"

Well, for starters, you can't AIM them, or use them responsibly unless your nuke range is the size of Wyoming. Same reason I wouldn't let every American own biological weapons: If you can't aim it, and not hit the stuff you're not aiming at, responsible use is impossible.

I've got a 9mm Calico, and I've put hundreds of rounds through it and never hurt anybody. Because I don't INTEND to harm anybody, and it's controllable enough that intent can be effectuated. This is the case for most guns: You can trust the vast majority of people with them because it's possible to use them without hurting anybody you didn't intend to.

"People have "bad days," or "get drunk," or have "poor impulse control," or "make a mistake," or have a "heat of the moment," and ... yeah. I know you get it."

Seel, there's that Friday the 13th thinking. And yet, the statistics again say that a tiny fraction of the population, an aberrant fraction who cause all sorts of problems, are actually responsible for almost all wrongful gun use. A substantial majority of violent crime is committed by a tiny, tiny fraction of the population who have substantial criminal records. Probably most of the balance is committed by a comparably tiny fraction who've just been fortunate not to have been caught yet, or had their juvenile records sealed.

The vast majority of the population are no more going to have a "bad day" with a gun, than they're going to have a bad day with their car or kitchen knife. But for a tiny fraction of the population, EVERY day is a "bad" day.

That's WHY the crime rate varies by several orders of magnitude in the space of a few miles: Because it's driven by a tiny fraction of the population, and they're not uniformly distributed.

I say leave the vast majority the hell alone, and go after the career criminals. And try to figure out why they ended up as career criminals, too.

[loki13]

Brett says this-

"'why not just let every American have a nuclear weapon?'

Well, for starters, you can't AIM them, or use them responsibly unless your nuke range is the size of Wyoming. Same reason I wouldn't let every American own biological weapons: If you can't aim it, and not hit the stuff you're not aiming at, responsible use is impossible."

Brett... I am going to put this as nicely as possible. I'm laughing as I type this, because I honestly feel like Carol in Pluribus right now ... but if this is your response, you have so missed the point that I think you are the one who can't responsibly aim.

Seriously, you need to think a little more before trying to find a reflexive point to argue in order to win something. If your objection to every single person having a nuclear weapon is ... difficulty in AIMING ... then you really need to think about what, exactly, you really are arguing with.

Note- I offered an analogy that is extreme to make a point. And yet ... apparently not extreme enough! "Good news, everybody! Apparently, we CAN aim nuclear weapons pretty well*, so I guess we get them!"

Look, if that's the only possible reason you can think of not to give everyone nukes, then ... cool?

*We can. Ignoring ICBMs (which are still pretty pretty accurate) we can put nukes on cruise missiles. Those ... those are pretty accurate. But you know that.

[Brett Bellmore]

What's your point here? That for some unstated reason you don't NEED to actually have a reason for saying people can't have nukes?

I mean, I can understand people who say, "Here's my reason people shouldn't have X.", or even, "You've missed a reason people shouldn't have X, here it is." but when somebody says, "You've missed the point by giving reasons people shouldn't have X."

"We can. Ignoring ICBMs (which are still pretty pretty accurate) we can put nukes on cruise missiles. Those ... those are pretty accurate. But you know that."

And, as I explained several times to Dr. Ed, before muting him, if I shoot you, the guy next to you got missed. If I nuke you, everybody within a several mile radius dies, and a significant number of people outside that radius.

THAT is what I mean by not being able to aim them. Not that you can't position the bomb with millimetric precision, that, position it however accurately you want, collateral damage on a massive scale is inevitable.

[loki13]

"What's your point here? That for some unstated reason you don't NEED to actually have a reason for saying people can't have nukes?"

The point was ... that this was something that was so obvious to the vast majority of people that you don't actually have to explain it. Saying that everyone has a right to their own individual nuclear weapons is such an absurd proposition (for ... you know ... most people that don't want to argue against it) that I don't need, or want, to explain it.

It is, in fact, so obvious that is was a comedic plot point in the show I just mentioned.

But you are so hellbent on arguing with the absurd example I gave in order to just argue ... that you miss the point. If it's just collateral damage, then ... what, when it comes to guns, we can simply ban any and all firearms with shot dispersal (e.g., shotguns)? Or since it's aim, we can (like JAPAN!) insist people pass a marksmanship test with a 95% rate to ensure correct aiming?

That wasn't the point, and any rational person knows it. I'm not going to spell it out for you, because if you don't understand it, that's funny. And if you do understand it but insist it's some weird unstated reason in order to make a bizarre argument ... that's even funnier. 🙂

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Culture. Not gun culture, except tangentially. Kill culture."

I'm not going to deny the truth in that, but gun culture too. And that leads to my observation on this country's sicko gun culture, which I call my Weedeater Standard:

I live in the city and have no landscape or yard to manage. Therefore, I don't need a weedeater. Sure, some emergency might arise when I desperately need a weedeater, but the odds of that are microscopically small. Somebody might appeal to my insecurities or vanity, talking how the hardy pioneers of yore had trusted weedeaters by their side, but who's gonna to fall for silliness like that? I just have no need for the tool that's even remotely likely.

The same is true for a gun. I regularly walk home a mile at all hours of the night in a city notorious for crime, but what of it? As typically the case, that crime is concentrated in areas wracked by poverty. The odds I'll ever need a gun are down there at the subatomic level. I just have no need for the tool that's even remotely likely.

If people bought guns like they buy weedeaters, three things would happen : (1) There'd be millions upon millions fewer guns in this country. (2) Gun violence would decrease. (3) The United States would be a much better place.

But that's a cultural problem.....

[Brett Bellmore]

And as I keep pointing out, THE DAMNED STATISTICS SAY THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!

Almost all the gun crime is committed by career criminals. Career criminals DO buy guns the way you buy a weedwacker: As a tool they expect to use! They buy them legally if they don't have a criminal record yet, they buy them illegally in the black market if they do.

If everybody who, in your opinion didn't need a gun, who wasn't a career criminal, refrained from owning a gun, the gun crime rate would hardly budge!

[loki13]

Brett,

Given the sources you use (and just used above), I'd be really hesitant if I were you to yell at anyone with all-caps about statistics.

My god, man, I'd be the first person (and I was) to discuss how difficult this area is to study, but you put up an absolute turd sandwich.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "... THE DAMNED STATISTICS ..."

Back on Planet Earth, the numbers run as follows : The United States (being mentally ill with Gun Nut Fever) has 120.5 civilian guns per 100 people. Setting aside Yemen and New Caledonia, the next closest countries are Serbia and Montenegro (origin country of Nero Wolfe, but I digress). They are both at 39.1, with Canada following at 34.7.

So lets use Canada. If the U.S. wasn't so completely sick in the head about guns to just the Canadian degree, there'd be somewhere approaching 300 million fewer guns in circulation in this country. I leave it to everyone to decide whether Brett is right about that being irrelevant to gun violence.

[Brett Bellmore]

I keep making this point, and you keep ignoring the implications of it.

Crime is driven by a tiny aberrant subset of the population.

Crime varies enormously by location, several orders of magnitude.

Anything you do to "fight crime" that falls on everybody and everywhere is 98% wasted on screwing with people who were never going to commit the crime!

Now, that's fine if your real objective is to screw with the 98%. But if your objective is to save lives, you'll leave the 98% freaking alone, and direct your attention to the 2%.

[Sarcastr0]

Crime is driven by a tiny aberrant subset of the population.
You say the stats are all over the map, and then you come out with corker like this.

Between the criminals and the rich people who won the genetic lottery, your worldview seems weirdly Calvinist.

I dunno, man.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can't muster up much cheer over one of the bad guys surviving, but I'm glad one of the heroes of the story survived. He disarmed one of the bad guys, then the police shot HIM while he was standing with his hands up.

"But some of the proposed solutions come pretty close to the government policing speech, which I'm emphatically not in favour of."

How about trying harder to not import foreign antisemites to make up the shortage of home grown ones?

[Absaroka]

"then the police shot HIM while he was standing with his hands up"

Can you share the source for that? I must have read two dozen articles that say he was shot, but none of them specified who.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bondi Beach hero helped disarm terrorist before police mistakenly shot him: report

Reports differ about who shot him. I expect we'll have more certainty soon.

[Absaroka]

Thanks! Didn't realize there was a second civilian who intervened.

[Brett Bellmore]

And a third! And a fourth!

[Krayt]

We don't have a 1st amendment in Australia!

There's no reason you can't. Demand it, and make it supermajority, such that a parliament can't reverse it easily.

[bloocow2]

Unfortunately the trend seems to be going in the other direction, with various anti racial vilification laws that have been passed in many states.

(Not that I'm pro racial vilification, of course, but out of principle I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't say. I'm very much on board with the American project in this regard)

[Bob from Ohio]

"have his day in court"

So he can get released in 18 years?

[Mr. Bumble]

From Instapundit:
THE E.V. BUBBLE CONTINUES TO DEFLATE: WSJ:. Ford Learns a Brutal EV Lesson: The car maker takes a $19.5 billion write-down on its electric-vehicle business. “Ford has lost $13 billion on its EV business since 2023, with bigger losses expected in years to come. Last year Ford lost about $50,000 for each EV sold. The truth is that the business case for EVs has always rested largely on government subsidies and mandates. Now that this combination of government favoritism and coercion is mostly going away, most car makers have much less reason to make EVs.”

[hobie]

Clearly it is not a model that works well in the USA. But China just asked us to hold its beer on this one for the rest of the world markets. Let's see how they do!

[Brett Bellmore]

Obviously, a major difference is that China is a command economy, so if the government says, "EV's will succeed!", EVs WILL succeed, even if people would rather buy IC cars.

Plug in hybrids seem to be a better option for the market than full scale electric cars. Maybe add an option so that they can also function as emergency home generators; That would be pretty popular as 'renewable' energy drags down grid reliablity.

[hobie]

Like with wind, solar and vaccines, half the nation shuns EVs largely out of political spite. We discussed above how aversion to risk hinders European innovation. Well, political risk/fear/hatred is now hindering the US as well.

[ThePublius]

We've had endless discussions of EVs on this forum, but I still think it's worth pointing out that EVs are simply not a viable alternative for a huge segment of the population: those living in cities in apartment buildings with no garages.

Have you been to NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles? You park on the street. Where are you going to plug in? And, if there was even the infrastructure to do so, do you think your cord (copper) would be there in the morning?

EVs require a highly distributed infrastructure to support - to charge. ICE cars rely on highly concentrated infrastructure - gas stations. For the former you must plug in to use the vehicle next time. For the latter you gas up and you're good for a week, maybe longer, and you can park wherever there's a space. Plus, with ICEs, you can 'recharge' for 400 or so miles of range in about 90 seconds.

The cost to build out the infrastructure for charging EVs in cities - think the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. - would be cripplingly expensive. And pointless.

[jb]

EVs require a highly distributed infrastructure to support - to charge. ICE cars rely on highly concentrated infrastructure - gas stations. For the former you must plug in to use the vehicle next time.

You seem to wildly misunderstand EV range. The median EV has a range of >200 miles these days, and by far the most popular model out there has a >300 mile range. That's not quite as good as a typical car, but hardly in the territory that you need to charge your car every time you drive, especially if we're talking about people who live in relatively dense urban environments.

I do think the case of apartment dwellers without parking facilities is an interesting one. It looks like about 1/3 of housing units don't have a garage or carport associated with them--like you say mostly in urban areas. There's increasingly charging facilities in public areas, though, so there's good progress on this problem. FWIW, this is an area where the market is doing a much better job than government, considering how few of the proposed charging projects under the Biden administration actually got built.

[Jmaie]

The problem with using public charging facilities as standard comes from the time required. It’s not bad if an L3 charger is available, but if L2 is the only option, most people won’t want to sit around away from their house for a couple hours.

As a sidenote, Nissan leafs have a recall due to potential fire danger from using the L3 chargers. But they don’t have a solution, so our only option is to just not use them. This covers several years models.

As to the range, temperatures below the mid 30s will cause a fairly substantial loss.

[jb]

It's true that L2 chargers are quite slow. Fortunately, in urban areas you're generally not very far from L3 chargers and if you are actually dropping into a store or grabbing lunch you'll be in pretty good shape by the time you've finished your errand.

[ThePublius]

"half the nation shuns EVs largely out of political spite"

No. They shun EVs out of necessity or practicality. If you live in an apartment in the Bronx, for example, where are you going to plug in?

"About 24% of New York’s population call an apartment home. That’s more than 4.6 million New York state residents."[1]

The politicians and activists answer is to push people into shitty, inconvenient, and dangerous public transportation, and reserve cars for those who can afford private homes or parking spaces served by the electrical grid.

[1] https://getflex.com/blog/apartment-statistics#:~:text=About%2024%25%20of%20New%20York's,million%20New%20York%20state%20residents.

[hobie]

Take my hood for example. There's EV's around. And the local hood shopping center two blocks away has a large bank of Tesla chargers and also other chargers. Usually most are in use. So the neegroes get charging done, it's just not in their driveways.

[Mr. Bumble]

No self respecting homie is driving an EV.
Shit, they won't even steal them.

[ThePublius]

I don't buy it. You're telling us often of how you drive the old ladies to the food bank, and now you're saying that folks in your hood have EVs?

[hobie]

The 'gangsters' have a few EV's

[Randal]

Wait, do you think people with Bronx apartments even have cars? Have you never been to your nation's greatest city?

[MarkJawz]

Bullshit. If EVs were cost-effective for those people, they'd buy them. The idea that 50% would spend more money out of spite is idiotic.

Most people I've spoken to who don't want EVs say they don't because they do enough road trips that it would be annoying. EVs are great commuter cars, but only if you have another car to use for road trips.

Many Americans don't have the money for two cars, so they don't want EVs. It's simple.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, that and it's a BIG country. Get away from the cities and you might have to drive some distance to do what might be in walking distance in a city or suburban area.
Long ago in a galaxy far away a buddy and I drove from Ft. Hood, Texas to NJ in his Ford Gran Torino. About 1700 miles in 28 hours. Do that with an EV.

[MarkJawz]

Exactly. It's a chicken and egg thing. If there were tons of fast charging stations all over, people might feel differently. But in much of the country, there's not. And there won't be until enough people have the cars that it's worth it for people to install them.

And if you have small children, imagine having to wait for an hour for a spot and then another 30 minutes to charge.

It's just not practical, so people get a family car that works, which for most, is not an EV.

[David Nieporent]

Like with wind, solar and vaccines, half the nation shuns EVs largely out of political spite.

One of the most mindboggling things about the politics of the last few years is that a guy who owes the bulk of his fortune to EVs decided to hitch his wagon to a movement that hates EVs.

[loki13]

I think he made up for it in value with government contracts and kickbacks.

[Mr. Bumble]

@ Notsoimportant:
Sorry your mind is boggled.
Wait until he becomes the world's first trilionaire to get the full effect.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Probably as well as they did in real estate development.

Does Hobie remember Evergrande?

And that's not the worst of it...

[Krayt]

And China's actual EV costs I'm sure are about as open and well-documented as those giant empty cities.

Also, 'member when Democrats dissed China and its low-paid workers as a worldwide "race to the bottom"?

[Sarcastr0]

No one is saying we should emulate China’s treatment of its people.

Except maybe Trump talking about his admiration of their authoritarianism.

But off the backs of their people, they are a threat.
At least until the demographic collapse comes.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Except maybe Trump talking about his admiration of their authoritarianism."
Think you're confusing him with Thomas Friedman.

At least until the demographic collapse comes.
It's already happening.

[Malika la Maize]

For centuries, the prevailing explanation of how the Black Death entered medieval Europe was a simple narrative of biological warfare. During a siege of Caffa, a Genoa-controlled port city on the Crimean Peninsula, a Mongol army catapulted plague-infested bodies over the city walls, according to a historical account. It was a simple narrative, with a clear villain.

But a new study published Thursday adds to a body of evidence that upends that grisly origin story, suggesting that a perfect storm of volcanic eruptions, crop failure, famine and medieval globalization converged in the mid-1300s to unleash the Black Death across Europe…

In broad strokes, they found a volcanic eruption, or a series of them around the year 1345, spewed sulfur into the atmosphere. This triggered a climate downturn, with cool summers and rainy growing seasons afflicting large parts of the Mediterranean and Western Europe. Crop failures followed, along with a famine across large swaths of medieval Europe. The Italian maritime republics of Genoa and Venice had been in a war with the Mongols of the Golden Horde but agreed to lift the embargo to import grain to feed starving people.

Around the autumn of 1347, grain imports began to resume. On the ships that brought much-needed food were stowaways: the plague pathogen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025/12/04/black-death-volcanic-eruptions-plague/

[Frank Drackman]

Its really more the Fleas on the Rats, control the Fleas and Rats you don't get the Yersinia.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"On the ships that brought much-needed food were stowaways: the plague pathogen."
Rats or more correctly fleas living on rats.
Wonder how future researchers will write about COVID 19?
(Didn't see Frank's comment when I posted)

[Malika la Maize]

The invasion of the spotted lanternfly was impossible to miss this past summer in the Washington region. The scarlet-winged leafhoppers wreaked havoc on trees, threatened Virginia’s multibillion-dollar wine industry and ushered in a spectacle of state-sponsored squashing. This fall, the insect’s impact on the area has shown up in a less obvious way: It’s changing the honey.

Honeybees, it turns out, are attracted to the sticky, sugary substance that spotted lanternflies leave behind after slurping tree sap in late summer and fall months, during the adult phase of their life cycle. The proper term for this substance is honeydew, but that’s really just another word for poop. Bees suck it up and bring it back to their hives, where they treat it like nectar — spitting it into honeycombs and furiously fanning it down with their wings to reduce the water content.

And voilà: honey. Maybe not what you’d find in a bear-shaped container on a grocery store shelf. But honey nonetheless, a darker, mysterious new kind that’s shaking up the beekeeping world. The phenomenon first happened several years ago in Pennsylvania, where the spotted lanternfly was discoveredin the United States around 2014 after apparently hitching a ride from China aboard a shipment of stone.

Since then, the unusual honey it helps make has traveled to Copenhagen for sampling at an international apiculture conference and popped up as a niche product in lanternfly-addled corners of the country (The name given by Philadelphia Bee Co., which sometimes sells out of it? “Doom Bloom”). And there’s this: Universities are studying it for potential health benefits, with promising results so far.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/12/07/lanternfly-honey-bees-dc/

[Brett Bellmore]

The big invasive species around here is the Joro spider. At one point we had a half dozen of them in our yard, throwing up webs from the shrubbery to the house, between plants in the garden, and, annoyingly, across the front porch supports for me to walk into in the morning as I leave.

Big honking spiders, but happily not terribly aggressive.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s official: House Speaker Mike Johnson says he won’t call a vote to extend enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, effectively guaranteeing they will expire at the end of this month.

That means higher insurance premiums will go into effect for millions of Americans who get coverage through Obamacare next year.

The speaker made the announcement Tuesday after a closed-door Republican caucus meeting, saying that leadership failed to reach a deal with centrist members to bring up an ACA amendment on a health care bill set for a vote on Wednesday…

The centrist Republicans who have been pushing for an ACA funding extension include Reps. Jen Kiggans of Virginia, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Lawler of New York — all of whom represent competitive districts that could make or break the Republican majority in the 2026 midterms.

“I am pissed for the American people. This is absolute bulls---, and it’s absurd,” Lawler said Tuesday. “Everybody has a responsibility to serve their district, to serve their constituents. You know what’s funny? Three-quarters of people on Obamacare are in states Donald Trump won. So maybe, just maybe, everybody should look at this and say, ‘How do we actually fix the health care system?’”

Some Republicans who want to extend the subsidies have not ruled out signing onto a “discharge petition” by Democrats to end-run Johnson and force a vote on a clean three-year extension of ACA subsidies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-ditch-vote-obamacare-funding-premiums-rise-2026-rcna249521

[Brett Bellmore]

So, why exactly should we still be renewing emergency Covid spending, when we're running deficits on the order of $2T?

Obamacare Subsidies Can't Fix a Broken System. Rand Paul's Bill Could.

"Just as importantly, Paul's legislation would expand Association Health Plans to allow as he puts it "any membership organization" to sponsor employer-style health coverage "creating new coverage options through groups such as rideshare services, online retailers, wholesale clubs, credit unions, churches, and other associations that bring people together." You could get medical coverage from any group you cared to join and keep it even as you switched jobs. And such health plans could be purchased across state lines, freeing consumers from the limited options available in some states, as well as the constricting requirements imposed by many governments that drive up costs."

Reforms I've previously advocated here.

[jb]

While we're cutting health care spending for younger people, can we dial back on Medicare benefits? I see no reason why Boomers should keep getting relatively generous government healthcare while the rest of the country suffers. That should help with the budget a lot.

Also, what is the advantage of Association Health Plans over more generalized risk pooling like the Obamacare marketplaces?

[ThePublius]

"While we're cutting health care spending for younger people, can we dial back on Medicare benefits? I see no reason why Boomers should keep getting relatively generous government healthcare while the rest of the country suffers."

Are you daft? Do you have any idea of who pays for Medicare? We do! I have been paying FICA for 55 years - since I started working at age 13. And, in addition to my Medicare benefits, I pay premiums for my part B, and so on.

Why don't we dial back on SNAP and all of the other welfare programs before we start talking about dialing back on Medicare for 'boomers.'

[jb]

Are you daft? Do you have any idea of who pays for Medicare? We do! I have been paying FICA for 55 years - since I started working at age 13. And, in addition to my Medicare benefits, I pay premiums for my part B, and so on.

The taxpayers pay for Medicare, and with the Boomers all retiring, that means that it will mostly be everyone else paying for it.

Why don't we dial back on SNAP and all of the other welfare programs before we start talking about dialing back on Medicare for 'boomers.'

I'm okay with getting rid of SNAP for Boomers too, if that's what you mean. Anything to make them the ones actually accountable for their complete disregard for the government's fiscal discipline over the years, although ideally we'd do it in less painful ways than actually having people starve to death.

More generally, though, Medicare is about an order of magnitude more expensive than SNAP, so it's like deciding to cut back on your daily latte when the real problem is that you're living in a house twice as expensive as you can afford.

[ThePublius]

"The taxpayers pay for Medicare, and with the Boomers all retiring, that means that it will mostly be everyone else paying for it."

Yes, and Medicare recipients are largely taxpayers, and have been for 40 or 50 or more years.

"I'm okay with getting rid of SNAP for Boomers too, if that's what you mean."

No, that's not what I mean! What's your beef with boomers? We built this country, paid our taxes for decades, and now want to retire comfortably. Many SNAP recipients, including, despite denials, illegal immigrants, have contributed nearly zero.

I should do the math, but I'm sure I've paid much more into FICA than I've received so far, or will receive, considering what that would be worth had it been invested.

[jb]

Yes, and Medicare recipients are largely taxpayers, and have been for 40 or 50 or more years.

Dunno if you noticed this, but the US debt exploded bigly during your taxpaying years. So you might have been paying taxes, but not enough to pay for the services you wanted from the government. And it shouldn't be completely up to your children and grandchildren to clean up your mess.

No, that's not what I mean! What's your beef with boomers? We built this country, paid our taxes for decades, and now want to retire comfortably.

My beef with Boomers is that during the long period they controlled most institutions (including the government), they systematically enriched themselves at the expense of future generations, and they continue to try to do so today. There's a reason Millenials are the first generation in modern history to be worse off than their parents, and it's not because they're going to Starbucks too often. So I think if we're going to collectively have to make some sacrifices by cutting spending, that the Boomers shouldn't get to opt out of that pain by shielding programs targeted at old people.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sorry, Rep. Lawler. You signed up for this.

If you didn't want this sort of thing, you belong to the wrong caucus.

The term "Obamacare" remains a source of concern. Why would the Republican Party support "Obamacare"? OTOH, perhaps, you would support "affordable [health] care," tweaking the details.

We have numerous major pieces of legislation, such as Social Security, among others. They are not given the name of the president who signed the legislation, especially when Congress had the central role in drawing the details.

Given the Obama Administration's druthers, the ACA would have been smaller. Pelosi and Reid crafted a larger bill.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They are not given the name of the president who signed the legislation"

Because, unlike the "Affordable" care act, they were popular from passage onward.

[David Nieporent]

Some Republicans who want to extend the subsidies have not ruled out signing onto a “discharge petition” by Democrats to end-run Johnson and force a vote on a clean three-year extension of ACA subsidies.

Your post is already out of date; this happened.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/centrist-republicans-revolt-signing-petition-force-vote-obamacare-fund-rcna249693

[Bob from Ohio]

"Affordable" Care Act

Apparently not.

[Estragon]

Can one of the enthusiasts around here help me out? What “land” is being referred to here? I am honestly puzzled:

“It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before — Until such time as they return to the United States of America all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.”

[ThePublius]

Per google:

"Yes, Venezuela has nationalized numerous U.S. (and other foreign) assets, particularly under President Hugo Chávez, including major oil and gas operations, telecommunications, and electricity assets, forcing companies like ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Verizon to accept state control or sell their stakes, though some, like Chevron, have reached agreements to continue operating under different terms. These actions, starting with the oil industry in 1976 and escalating in the 2000s, aimed to assert greater state control over strategic resources and revenues, leading to complex legal disputes and significant shifts in foreign investment."

"Yes, Venezuela, under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, has nationalized numerous foreign-owned assets, including agricultural lands, companies, and properties, often citing "unproductive" use or state control goals, leading to many international disputes and arbitration cases, impacting U.S. businesses and investors alongside other foreign entities. While large-scale nationalizations focused on oil and major industries, smaller properties and land were also seized under broader laws targeting private ownership and redistribution."

So, if you consider nationalizing assets theft, yes, they stole land, oil, refineries, etc., from the U.S. (specifically, U.S. companies).

[Estragon]

I see. So, not war to reclaim territory per se, but war to vindicate the interests of certain US corporations?

Did you know that the CITGO owned refineries in the US are finally being sold after a long legal process?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, our government shouldn't have a bone to pick if another government up and confiscates the property of Americans?

I mean, you do realize that American companies typically have American stockholders, so their property IS the property of Americans.

The interests of US corporations ARE the interests of US citizens.

[Estragon]

You cannot be seriously suggesting that our national security interests and the interests of Chevron shareholders are identical and coextensive to the extent that we should be employing the military (ie getting kids killed) on their behalf. Would you be comfortable seeing your son drafted to defend the corporate interest of any American company overseas? This is nightmarish.

[Estragon]

By the way, in 2019 approximately 40% of US equities were foreign-owned. I seriously doubt that number has gone down significantly in the last 6 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said nothing about national security interests. I'm just pointing out that the interests of actual US citizens are implicated by a foreign country stealing the assets of an American company.

I'd wage a LOT less war than typically gets waged, frankly, and I'm more than a little disappointed in Trump for deciding throwing our military around would be fun in his second term.

[Sarcastr0]

More of defend Trump's actions and then at the very end say you're not a fan of what he did.

You can't have it both ways.

[Estragon]

This is so pathetic it’s hard to respond to.

In the context of speculation about US military action abroad, you asserted that the interests of United States citizens are equal and coextensive with the interests of US corporations. That is self evidently and obviously coextensive with a national security interest— we are talking about US military action. You know— the troops.

To turn around and say, oh well, I don’t really approve even though I just defended it is the height of gormlessness. The revelation that there are members of the public like you, who apparently have enough time and money to spend literally hours a day around here is perhaps a window into to how someone like Donald Trump was elected twice in this god-blessed country.

[Malika la Maize]

One of the differences between President Donald Trump’s second term and his first has been a full-blown attack on the expert class. Vice President JD Vance urges that we trust our common sense over the ideas of “the experts.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is overruling the views of the medical establishment on issues like vaccines. Attorney General Pam Bondi forces out Justice Department officials who prize professionalism over personal loyalty. Stephen Miller has declared war on nongovernmental organizations. It is part of an American Cultural Revolution, designed to discredit the credentialed elites who, in their view, run America.

It is true that over the past few decades, America has spawned a meritocracy — armed with Ivy League degrees and specific skills and training — that has come to dominate business, government, media and culture. And it is also true that a meritocracy can morph into a group of smug technocrats who lose touch with the society they come from.

But before we join the pile-on, let’s keep in mind that the rise of a merit-based elite is a historic shift in the right direction. What did we have before? An old-boys network in which the right family name, religion, prep school and club assured your passage to the top. Meritocracy — however imperfect — opened doors. It promoted people on the basis of their aptitude and academic excellence, bringing Catholics, Jews, Asians and African Americans into the establishment. It placed a premium on competence over lineage, on work over patrimony.

The problems of meritocracy are best addressed by creating better access to high-quality education, fewer non-merit mechanisms like legacy admissions and racial quotas, more rigorous grading and a renewed respect for nonprofessional work skills. In other words, more emphasis on genuine merit and real efforts to make sure everyone has access to opportunity.

But as the populist right trashes meritocracy, it is replacing it with something older, cruder and more corrosive: a naked plutocracy — rule by the very rich.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/05/trump-plutocrat-meritocracy-experts/

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is true that over the past few decades, America has spawned a meritocracy — armed with Ivy League degrees and specific skills and training — that has come to dominate business, government, media and culture."

Arguably it's more of a credentialocrasy than a meritocracy. Subject to Goodhart's law.

[Mr. Bumble]

"But as the populist right trashes meritocracy, it is replacing it with something older, cruder and more corrosive: a naked plutocracy — rule by the very rich."
This doesn't seem right. If the "right" was trashing anything it was diversity and inclusion hiring rather than merit hiring.

[Malika la Maize]

Pete Hegseth, meritocracy?

[Mr. Bumble]

After Darth Lloyd Austin? Maybe.

[grb]

No.

[MarkJawz]

If the "expert class" includes all of the financial masters of the universe who have basically fucked up the American economy for their own benefit for 30 years now, it's not a surprise that middle America shuns them.

[Malika la Maize]

How has the American economy been fucked up? It’s one of the best in the world.

[MarkJawz]

LOL okay.

[David Nieporent]

How has the American economy been fucked up? It’s one of the best in the world.

Other than a few banking microstates, it's the best in the world, or it was pre-Trump. (Some petrostates have higher per-capita GDPs, but that's not really a strong economy; that's just being situated on a pile of money.)

[Sarcastr0]

I've been told on this website that rich people deserve their money and power because the Market has Chosen Them.

This is the tension in MAGA - rail against the "financial masters of the universe" but also don't raise their taxes ever because they're smart producers.

[MarkJawz]

I don't think you're going to find many middle American conservatives who support free enterprise and like business owners to be supporting the Wall Street graft game.

[Kazinski]

No, they deserve their money and power because they make all of our lives better.

For instance retail prices everywhere are 3.6% lower because of competition from Wal-Mart.

https://www.marketplace.org/story/2009/11/23/does-wal-mart-really-save-you-money

And I haven't checked lately until at least recently the Walton family fortune was still the largest combined fortune, higher than Musk or Bezos.

But also look at Elon, he got rich by making EV practical, and building out the national charging system government couldn't.

Bezos got rich by making life easier and cheaper for all of us too. I can get just about anything delivered next day with 2 minutes work on my kindle, and even if I could find it locally I'd have to spend an hour in my car fighting traffic to go get it.

Gates made his money by enabling massive productivity improvements for businesses and everyone. Imagine writing a term paper without a word processor.

Zuckerberg...., well go ahead and take that fuckwits money, he doesn't produce anything.

[MarkJawz]

Gates did improve America, and the world, but the Azure/Office 365 monopoly is not improving anything other than Microsoft's bottom line.

[Kazinski]

Well then why is it a monopoly?

Competition is available.

I generally use Google docs personally for free, but if you want more you pay more.

Openoffice.org is free, and non profit.

But I like Office 365 more, but I don't want to pay for it, isn't a great argument.

I remember when WordPerfect and Lotus123 at 500$ apiece was all that was available on a 3000$ IBM PC.

What's it cost now 15$ a month, and runs on a 500$ laptop.

How did all that get cheaper? Competition and Michael Dell and Larry Ellison (he donated Open Office to the non profit foundation), and Bill Gates making themselves billionaires.

[Voize of Reazon]

Gates made his money by enabling massive productivity improvements for businesses and everyone. Imagine writing a term paper without a word processor.

Did Bill Gates get rich by inventing the word processor?
In the early '80s the market leading PC word processor was WordPerfect, but Microsoft didn't release information that would enable programming a Windows-optimized version until after the first release of Word. That, combined with aggressive bundling deals and enterprise sales contracts, allowed Word to take the lead a few years later. Microsoft didn't win this battle by superior innovation, it was by playing dirty.

[bernard11]

Did Bill Gates get rich by inventing the word processor?

That's an easy "No," since he didn't invent it.

He got rich because his mother knew the chairman of IBM, and that led to IBM adopting his OS for its personal computers. That quickly made the OS almost a standard.

He also came from a wealthy family and had plenty of opportunity to play with and learn computers even in high school. That's not to denigrate his accomplishments, but to point out that his early success was greatly helped by family money and, especially, connections.

[Kazinski]

Fun story Bernard, but this is what Wikipedia says.

"By the early 1980s an estimated 2000 CP/M applications existed.[42] Many expected that it would be the standard operating system for 16-bit computers.[43] In 1980 IBM approached Digital Research, at Bill Gates' suggestion,[44] to license a forthcoming version of CP/M for its new product, the IBM Personal Computer. Upon the failure to obtain a signed unilateral non-disclosure agreement, the talks failed, and IBM instead contracted with Microsoft to provide an operating system.[45]"

Which rings true to me, my first programming job was as a CP/M programmer shortly after the the IBM PC came out. IBM made all of its software proprietary, and didn't want other vendors to be able to write software for its system without paying a license fee. The fact that CP/M was already the dominant 8080 system architecture operating system and there were lots of vendors writing software for that OS probably was almost certainly the deciding factor for IBM to want its own proprietary OS.

[Absaroka]

"because his mother knew the chairman of IBM"

I think the story is more complicated than that.

"earn computers even in high school"

FWIW I was middle-middle class and went to a small town hick high school at about the same time Gates was in high school, and also started programming in high school. Straight machine language, didn't even have an assembler.

Not a Gates fanboy; Microsoft did play dirty. My source for that is a good friend who worked there at the time.

[Kazinski]

I didn't claim Gates invented the word processor, but neither did WordPerfect, although WordPerfect was the dominant word processor in the early 80's, and Lotus123 the dominant spreadsheet.

Word and Excel became dominant because they sold for about a hundred of dollar less than WP, or Lotus, and broke their near monopoly, at a "budget" price.

It wasn't the bundling it was the price, and they weren't bundled with MS-Dos when the came out you had to pay extra. Even when Windows came they were never bundled with Windows, you had to pay extra.

They did bundle Notepad and their calculator.

[David Nieporent]

I was using WordStar back then. WordPerfect came later.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I've been told on this website that rich people deserve their money and power because the Market has Chosen Them."

In the same sense that the guy who sells a hotdog deserves his money because he gave someone a hotdog. But I suppose you know better than people who buy hotdogs.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying that sometimes the best hotdog isn't the last one left standing.

Because businesses can play dirty, and behavioral economics means people are not optimizing beasts.

Bill Gates as discussed above is a great example. He dominated the market not by some extraordinary insight but by being more ruthless than other possibly better businesses.

I'm not saying the market is always wrong, or that my opinions are better than the market. I'm saying it's not always right.

And it's fucking wild that people are pushing back on that to argue every rich person is just more valuable than us poors.

[John 4]

Don’t talk about my billionaire slumlord president like that!

[Moderation4ever]

JD Vance urges people to trust their common sense. Well I will remind everyone that before Galileo "common sense" was that a 6 pound ball fell faster than a 2 pound ball. Before Einstein "common sense" was that time was constant and the speed of light was variable. The problem is not experts but people who don't know how to use or don't care to use the advice of experts.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't forget the "Luminiferous Ether" which was proposed to be the medium that Light Waves traveled through since how can you have a Wave without something for it to "Wave" in?? Michelson and Morley at Case Western Reserve (it was just Western then) came up with this ingenious contraption to measure the Earth's speed through the Ether, as surely it must vary with the Earth's rotation and orbit around the Sun, when they found no difference, instead of recognizing the Ether was a Myth, they came up with all kinds of theories (lets see, the Earth gets shorter in the direction of the "Ether Wind", umm, the Ether Wind magically changes direction to match the Earth's speed,, they were actually close with the getting shorter, but for the wrong reason"
and in a similar vein, the Human Chromosome number was documented as 48 for about 75 years, most people only saw 46, but thought they were doing something wrong and didn't want to rock the boat, wasn't until the 1950's it was accepted as 46(or 47 in Queenie's case)

Frank "There was Length Contraction! from Relativity!!!!"

[Kazinski]

Nothing new about it at all.

"Exploiting anti-intellectualism by, among other things, caricaturing opponents as pointy-headed academic types from the dreaded Ivory Tower, wins elections. Or at least it did in 1952 and 1956, when Dwight D. Eisenhower succeeded in portraying Princeton-educated Adlai Stevenson as out of touch. And again — to some degree — in 1972, when Richard Nixon invoked the “silent majority” against those snobby college students supporting George McGovern."

George Wallace made his pointy headed intellectual speech in 1968.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2008/09/30/white-anti-intellectuals-run-amok-in-u-s/

[TwelveInchPianist]

"One of the differences between President Donald Trump’s second term and his first has been a full-blown attack on the expert class."

What the heck is the expert class? No one should be engaging in expert worship. There are people with varying degrees of information who can make arguments and give advice, and people can accept or reject the advice based on the strength of the arguments.

[John F. Carr]

A tempest in a teapot in western Colorado after a local left wing group heard about a plan to appoint conservatives to the library board. The group summoned a reporter, who wrote a long article about this awful act.

https://coloradosun.com/2025/12/17/mesa-county-library-board-political-appointments-book-banning/

They also summoned a lot of people - "an audience that skewed toward retirees" - to object in person. To no avail. "People with doctorates in library science were snubbed." One resident threatened to sic the ACLU on the county if the conservatives were placed on the board. Meanwhile, conservative Mesa County voters probably got what they voted for.

Residents in the mood for sexual material instead of "clean romance" will have to ask about interlibrary loan. The book version of ordering an abortion pill online.

[Darwinnie]

Is Susie Wiles now part of and working for the Deep State???!?!?

[John 4]

That’s tomorrow when the audio tapes come out. Right now, we’re blaming the lying media, despite being wrong every time we’ve called it out.

[Bwaaah]

The latest battle cry of the Democrats is the scourge of data centers. As they are now screaming their theory, the electricity demands of data centers will raise the cost of power to consumers.

But why would that be so? Can't utilities just add new generation capacity? No. Only if it's from "renewable" energy. The get-in-the-way-of-progress people demand ONLY renewable. That requirement alone severely drives up the cost of energy.

The fact is that all utilities are highly regulated and states could shield consumers from the costs of new demand by shifting those costs, such as price increases, to the data centers themselves. But then, everybody will see how the Democrat obsession with climate change is pinching EVERYBODY's energy needs, not because those needs can't be economically satisfied, but because the emotional cost of that is too high for Democrats.

Stop the development of data centers. Now that's some real retro shit.

[jb]

The latest battle cry of the Democrats is the scourge of data centers. As they are now screaming their theory, the electricity demands of data centers will raise the cost of power to consumers.

From https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/14/data-center-boom-creates-political-conundrum-gop-00680635:

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis floated new limits on data centers as part of an “AI bill of rights.” Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley have also questioned Trump’s state preemption drive.

Increasingly, congressional lawmakers from states at the center of the data center boom — such as Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia — are feeling the heat and looking to adjust.

“I think people have very legitimate concerns, and that is: Who is going to pay the bill for the additional energy that’s demanded from this?” said Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.). “They go, ‘My power bill’s gone up because somebody down the road is building a data center.’”

AIUI, most of the big tech companies have carbon emission goals of their own, so they are targeting renewable energy for those projects regardless of what your bogeyman Democratic lawmakers want to do.

[Bwaaah]

Di Santis looks to be on the right track to me. See his proposal here.

The Data Centers proposal will protect Consumers from footing the bill for AI Data Centers. The proposal will:

* Protect Ratepayers—Prohibit utilities from charging Florida residents more to support hyperscale data center development, including electric, gas, and water utilities.
* Protect Taxpayers—No taxpayer subsidies for Big Tech.
* Protect Local Control—Allows local government to prohibit data center construction/development.
* Protect Florida’s Water Resources—Ensure that water resources are not utilized to the detriment of the public.
* Protect Natural Florida— Prevent the construction, siting, or operation of a data center by foreign principals or on land classified as agricultural and/or lands under a greenbelt exemption, and require setbacks and vegetative buffers. Requires FDOT to complete noise abatement reviews to protect natural Florida from noise pollution.

[loki13]

"Protect Local Control—Allows local government to prohibit data center construction/development."

Just as an FYI, that is something that you attributed to the Democrats. That was my point- this is not something you can easily attribute to partisanship. It's all about NIMBYism regardless of party, and if the GOP NIMBYs in a state give the money, this is what they will get.

(If you look at state surveys, you will find that while Florida is very pro-development, there is a lot of ability for local government to stop or prohibit development, and lots of entry points for well-heeled NIMBYists to grind the gears. Maybe not California-style, but still.)

[Bwaaah]

I attribute to Democrats their trending voices. I don't believe those concerns are unique or exclusive to Democrats. Indeed, much NIMBYism is broadly distributed. (Don't get me started about our "housing crisis.") But the anti-data-center MOVEMENT is materializing before my eyes, and like many policies I see as being regressive, Democrats look like they're going to run this one up the flagpole and solicit salutes.

Still, I am averse to reducing the authority of local governments to regulate development, even though I find that authority to be destructive in many cases. Democracy is the worst, except for all the alternatives.

Di Santis isn't trying to answer the question, "How do we stop AI?" He's trying to answer the question, "How can we move forward with development while trying to mitigate its risks?" That's what reasonable policy looks like to me.

Just to be clear even though it should be already: I've got a big issue with the recently trending inclinations of Democratic politics, and I have chosen to take a position as being squarely anti-Democrat for that reason.

[jb]

Translated: when something is happening that he doesn't like, Bwaah blames it on the Democrats even if the Republicans are doing the exact same thing.

If you think Democrats are so anti-AI, why are all the AI companies in blue states? Even after loudly decamping for Texas, Musk is back in California for his AI lab:

https://sfist.com/2025/10/10/elon-musk-comes-crawling-back-to-the-bay-area-seeking-new-office-space-for-neuralink-and-xai/

[Magister]

Bwaaah a few hours ago:

Your faulty premise is: "Those MAGAs are all the same."

Bwaaah more recently:

I attribute to Democrats their trending voices.

This sort of thiong is one of the many, many reasons that people think Bwaaah is a fake liberal.

[loki13]

"But the anti-data-center MOVEMENT is materializing before my eyes, and like many policies I see as being regressive, Democrats look like they're going to run this one up the flagpole and solicit salutes."

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And you somehow look at all issues, and see Democrats leading "regressive" policies.

Which ... is weird. I look at data centers, and I see it pretty much split. Now, while I would say that Trump is trying to promote it (and preempt it!) ... I don't think that's a policy issue- I think that's pure corruption, and pay-for-play; in other words, he couldn't get Congress to stuff it into the Big Beautiful Bill, so he's going to help out his Ballroom Donors through EO. And you look at DeSantis (SPELLING!) and see ... what, something you like ... while I look at it and see exactly what it is- an attempt to completely hamstring building data centers in Florida.

He's been vocal about how this will stop the building of data centers in Florida- and the devil is in the details. It will make it cost-prohibitive to build them there, which is the point.

And you are silent on the other part related to AI.

See what I mean? You started with a post about how this is all the Democrats' fault, but the most vocal attack on it right now is coming from a Republican, in a Republican state, and has empowered the rejection and stalling of plans in the state so that the Legislature can pass the bill. And this is before considering the main part of the legislation that deals with AI much more broadly.

I am unclear how you simultaneously blame all this on the Democrats, and then rejoice at the most obvious example of it happening as being ... sensible ... simply because it doesn't fit your narrative?

Honestly, is it because you don't understand how development and approvals work? No state is going to enact a full ban. Instead, they will do exactly this- just make it so hard, with so many hurdles and pressure points, that the data centers will be built somewhere else. "Oh, you got that approval and that approval. Let's wait for the FDOT to conduct a sound study. Make sure you have the setbacks just right- can't get a variance for that. Don't forget that any citizen can also sue to stop you in your tracks."

[Bwaaah]

First, again and importantly, I am anti-Democrat. Remembering that will help you to understand how I pick my facts, and why I look so one-sided; it's because I'm pushing that one angle more than any other.

To your point, negative sentiments about such issues as AI, fossil fuel use, data centers, nuclear power, climate change, billionaires, "big tech", speech, and other issues exist on both sides of the political spectrum. But I see much more resistant sentiments on the left, seeking increasing legal/bureaucratic/governmental regulation as their preferred solutions to those and other issues.

I know there's a very substantial amount of government overreach coming through DJT, and yes, with the support of the right. But I see that overreach as being his meandering one-man show, and not much reflective of sentiments of any common human. Though people on the right endlessly defend Trump in service to Team R, his policies are quite hit-or-miss with them.

As a matter of fact, it appears to me that the only pervasive unifying force behind the contemporary right is a deep skepticism of government. And on the left, I see deep skepticism of the skepticism of the right, and an almost second nature desire to speak more fluently about our issues through the arms of government.

So when I think of that list of political issues above, I expect the Democratic Party to be the more vociferous voice of NO in many, many regards. I expect to see, through the Democratic populace, solutions that materialize as a resurgence of government, in defense of the rights of peoples to their policies, through their policies, through government.

Oh gosh, here come more policy weenies, more government reach, more of the dehumanization, the depersonalization, the enshitification that comes from BIG POLITICAL THINKING when it rains down, policy-wise, propaganda-wise, regulation-wise on little [normal, real] people and their enterprises. I know that road looks like the most viable road to success for its proponents. But I see it as a culture in retreat, demeaned by history, seeking shelter from its future, through government.

Oh gosh.

[loki13]

"The latest battle cry of the Democrats ..."

Gotta say, Bwaah, you really are trolling hard on this, "I am really a liberal. I just have to spend all my time trolling liberals ..." shtick.

In fairness, I voted GOP up until the end of the 2000 primary (McCain), but I don't spend a lot of time here lecturing others about how I'm a real Republican. 🙂

Now, with that out of the way.... the issue of data centers is, in fact, complicated. While I appreciate (for certain values of the term) your multistep analysis of what Democrats actually believe, and what will happen, the facts on the ground are a little different than what you are saying.

The majority of concern about data centers is driven by local opposition and concern- not just "Democrats." One reason for this is, in fact, surging electricity prices. Especially in places where a multiplicity of them are being built (for example, Virginia). Another is that some places are realizing that concessions that have been given by localities were a mug's game- the data centers are not built and operated by the actual companies (but by other companies that rent out the use), they generate almost no jobs, and generate very little value to the community.

So local opposition isn't a partisan issue, usually. That's why you see fracturing within the GOP, which is divided between pro-growth contingents and politicians more in tune with what their constituents are saying (NIMBY). See, e.g., DeSantis breaking with Trump on the issue. Republican districts (with, um, Republican voters) are pushing back against data centers.

As for power? Yes, some of the data centers are looking to get off-grid power, both to win approval and for cost reasons. That would be great!

Finally, and I hope that this doesn't have to be pointed out- bringing on new power plants OF ANY TYPE doesn't happen immediately, and it is not costless. So just saying, "Build more power plants and solve the problem," doesn't, in fact, solve the problem. Not to mention other costly grid upgrades that are required.

As for the actual total costs of bringing a new power plant online (over the lifetime of a plant), that depends on the location of the plant, financing, and other factors (like Trump's feelz about tariffs that day). Generally, natural gas is the cheapest, but solar and onshore wind can be cheaper or approximately the same ... but it depends.

Unfortunately, with the current tech and regulation, nuclear isn't competitive.

[Bwaaah]

Am I wrong that state regulators could shield consumers from electricity cost pressures by shifting the burden to business consumers in general, and to data centers in particular?

It does take years for utilities to build plants. And we're now many years into accelerating regulatory costs, and permitting uncertainties, that have driven development of new generation capacity down to a trickle.

What can I say, but that I have a strong bias for economic development. (And I've always been an IMBY.) But as long as we paint Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos as the only beneficiaries of high tech development, it looks like it's time to start winding down the store, and making excuses about why there was no another way.

[ThePublius]

"Unfortunately, with the current tech and regulation, nuclear isn't competitive."

That may unfortunately be so at this time, but I still think nuclear is the future. Over time it's more economically stable and less expensive than natural gas.

[Bwaaah]

Nuclear was safe and affordable many decades ago. Generally speaking, technology costs didn't go up. Regulatory costs skyrocketed.

"I don't want them building a nuclear bomb in my backyard."

[loki13]

"Nuclear was safe and affordable many decades ago."

Eh.... I suggest doing a deeper dive into that. Yes, regulatory concerns have always increased the cost, but while permitting issues have been a factor, it's primarily economic issues that have been driving down the issue of nuclear power in the United States. Fossil fuel (and especially the advent of natural gas) plants have benefitted from economies of scale and the progression of technology much more than nuclear- if you look back at the history, I think every plant has been bespoke and resulted in fairly large cost overruns.

Personally, I'm a big fan. Well, other than the still unresolved waste issue (which is largely, but not completely, political). One hopeful side effect of the data center boom has been a surge in private investment in nuclear (both fission and ... weirdly, private fusion) that may make it much more cost competitive.

[Bwaaah]

Climate change proponents, via regulatory regimes, have been somewhat successful in adding the cost of CO2 pollution to energy production. I don't see a similar effort to get the benefit of avoiding CO2 pollution reflected in the cost of nuclear development. They seem to put their love (read: "money") into cleaner cars, but not into MUCH CLEANER generation (excepting expensive unstable renewable sources).

It's all pretty "feels right" policy if economic development isn't particularly important to you. Maybe I should switch my emphasis to raising the minimum wage? That way, we can make people wealthier while winding down economic development. Do real liberals favor that approach? It sounds like a lot of Democrats do.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I read the history, what happened is that they started churning the regulations, and requiring you to go back and retrofit in altered regulations after you'd already start building, and a nuke plant went from something you could just start building and finish in a reasonable time, to something where you never knew when you started how much it would cost, or how long before you'd be finished.

And that's what drove the cost up: Interest costs while building, and that every new plant was a bespoke construction project.

Then, of course, production naturally tapered off as a result, and you didn't even have a bunch of people experienced in building the things, who could move from job to job.

Proposed reforms mostly revolve around stopping this dynamic, so that you can just build the plant as permitted, cookie cutter style. That, and getting rid of totally over the top safety regulations based on bad science. (The "linear no threshold" hypothesis, which has been known to be junk science for quite a while now.)

[Kenneth Almquist]

You are talking about how the process worked in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The current process is that once the NRC approves construction of a reactor, the reactor is grandfathered (in the same way that fully completed and operational reactors are), so that changes to regulations don’t affect construction.

[OpinionsVary]

It's hard to say really. I think we all agree we're in an AI bubble. That doesn't mean it won't be revolutionary. The internet certainly was and there was still a dotcom bubble. But if the data centre building boom goes goes off and then the bubble burst, the US could end up with a lot of surplus infrastructure.

Whether that is good or not... We'll have to see.

In 1840 there was a massive railway bubble in the UK. 9,500 miles of approved track, which is about what the UK has today. And while the bubble burst it only burst after a lot of that track had been laid. A lot of people lost huge amounts of money but that massive infrastructure investment did pay dividends over the follow decades. A lot of rail is a lot of rail, no matter how it was built.

So I think the real test will be, if the bubble burst, can the US find use for all that sudden cheap data centre capacity or will it be left to rot and rust?

[Bwaaah]

"So I think the real test will be, if the bubble burst, can the US find use for all that sudden cheap data centre capacity or will it be left to rot and rust?"

The "US" doesn't need to solve that problem. Private investors who create that capacity need to solve that problem, if it comes.

You posit the mythical wisdom of a central hand, diminishing the true trending value of the chaotic but opportunistic progress of markets.

A life of fear and safety seems a pretty fruitless road to take on the way to our inevitable deaths. Why not take life for a spin before it's over?

[MarkJawz]

Yeah, except for the past 30 years, the U.S. has made it an official policy to bail out bad decisions, at least when they pose "systemic risks."

So the rest of us are right to be wary of the overinvestment.

[jb]

The US is all of us. Businesses, citizens, churches, rock bands, local governments, the federal government, cute dogs, park rangers, NBA players, academics, Hollywood directors and more! I see nothing in the post you're responding to suggesting it has to be the government solving the problem.

[hobie]

Dear AI, what sort of electricity deals do crypto miners get in Texas?

"Crypto miners in Texas get deeply discounted, long-term power contracts (around 2.5-3 cents/kWh), far below residential rates, by acting as large, flexible loads for ERCOT (the grid operator). They agree to curtail (shut down) during peak demand to stabilize the grid, earning money by selling that power back at inflated prices and getting incentives, essentially turning grid stress into profit while using cheap wholesale power. "

So who's paying for all that electricity? Apparently not the datacenters.

[Bwaaah]

I believe state regulators can change those rate formulas to shift a substantial amount of the burden to larger newer commercial consumers. They've been doing things like that for forever.

[loki13]

In fairness, Texas's power grid ... well, that's Texas. You can't generalize it to the rest of the nation.

[Bwaaah]

My first thought as well. But the longer term energy cost trends there seem to be more and more like the rest of the country.

[jb]

Having flexible demand sinks as opposed to flexible capacity bursts seems like an interesting concept, though. We always hear the whining from the fossil fuel Luddites about how renewables don't consistently produce the same level of power, and therefore you need to to have fossil fuel backups which (for...reasons) you can't capture any of the value of that renewable electricity generation. But what if we could easily tweak the demand when there was less available supply as opposed to doing it the other way around?

[hobie]

I hardly fly at all. And I've never flown on a domestic discount carrier. But here FB throws up this ad for Frontier Airlines' GoWild Pass where I can supposed fly unlimited on nearly all Frontier flights for $349/year. I've read about 'golden tickets' from other airlines in the past being quite lucrative for the traveller.

So what's the catch? Does anyone know? I'm looking at one caveat they print:

"4. Purchase options like bags, seats and more at an additional cost (or use Elite Status benefits to get them FREE)"

What the hell does that mean? Am I just getting free airfare and have to 'purchase' the seat? Do I have to pay for my little backpack (always my one and only luggage)? I'm wary of these budget airlines because I flew Ryan Air a couple of times and it was like a waking nightmare.

https://www.flyfrontier.com/deals/gowild-pass/

[jb]

It's not that you're paying for a seat per se, just a seat assignment. If you don't do that, you're subject to whatever random seat they end up assigning you right before the flight, so I'd expect to do a lot of flying in middle seats.

Similarly, by default Frontier allows only a small "personal item" that fits under the seat for free. You'd want to check if your little backpack fits within their allowed dimensions since they're apparently pretty strict about what they allow on for free.

Overall, if you didn't like Ryanair, you're probably not going to like Frontier very much either, although Frontier flies to mostly the same airports as the full service airlines at least.

[hobie]

I certainly don't mind being treated like cattle or stuffed into middle seats. But I am extremely - EXTREMELY - wary of this deal. One flight to Mexico or the Caribbean and I've already recouped my investment! Then I could literally fly to San Francisco to get sushi every damn weekend. Doesn't make sense.

[jb]

You can only book domestic tickets a day in advance if there's availability, so they're basically just letting you use unsold capacity. Most people will end up paying some of their fees, which is where Frontier makes all of their money anyway, so I'd imagine this can probably end up being pretty profitable for them.

If you don't care about where you sit and can travel with your small backpack, it sounds like you've got a lot of sushi in your future.

[jb]

Forgot to add that Frontier is by far the least reliable of domestic carriers, so there's a non-trivial chance you'll get delayed or stranded somewhere if you're relying on them to get you around.

[MarkJawz]

I've had great luck with Ryan. You just have to read their rules, which are very clear. You can't bring a full size carry-on and expect them to let it slide.

But if you pay for the bags ahead of time, they have packages and you often come out way ahead over other airlines.

[hobie]

My backpack is tiny. Well under size restrictions. Always fits under the seat.

[Jmaie]

Your doctor has told you that you have an incurable disease so you book a flight to Switzerland. Just before you plan to leave, your doctor calls and says that they’ve found a miraculous new cure. But you go anyways, cause it’s better than trying to get your money back from Ryan Air….

[Estragon]

Maybe it means choosing your seat is extra?

Edit: JB is on the case

[SRG2]

I find it interesting that in order to find out how much you'll pay for your bag, you have to fill in specific flight details.

[hobie]

UPDATE: Drove over to Cleveland Hopkins Airport to talk to the Frontier staff. There apparently is no catch. I can book any open seat up to ten days in advance. No extra fees. No nothing. And I can fly wherever I want as much as I want.

I don't know, gentlemen. I think I'm gonna buy this thing!

[ThePublius]

That sounds really cool. I hope it works out, and to hearing about your experiences. I might follow suite.

[Estragon]

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/17/g-s1-102569/trump-expands-travel-ban-restrictions

Since the last time around worked well, can I ask the enthusiasts another question:

Any insight into why Antigua and Barbuda might be included on this list? I realize a lot of blah people live there but it seems oddly out of place in this new list. I ask because I have a personal connection to that country and have visited many times.

[hobie]

That is curious. Antigua is no more or less black than any other Caribbean nation. Better ask AI...

Dear AI, why did the Trump administration enact a travel ban on Antigua?

"The administration cited several primary reasons for including Antigua and Barbuda:

Citizenship by Investment (CBI) Concerns: A major factor was the country’s CBI program, which allows foreigners to obtain citizenship without a residency requirement. The administration stated this creates a risk that individuals from countries subject to full U.S. travel bans could obtain Antiguan passports to bypass entry restrictions.

Vetting and Information Sharing: The proclamation alleged that Antigua and Barbuda, along with other listed nations, has "demonstrated, persistent, and severe deficiencies" in screening, vetting, and sharing criminal and identity information with the U.S.

Antiguan officials, including Ambassador Sir Ronald Sanders, have called the decision "puzzling" and are engaging in discussions with U.S. officials to address these concerns and seek a modification of the order. "

Seems pretty flimsy considering all the corruption in approved all-white countries.

I'm gonna take a stab and guess they denied a shell company application by the Trump Clan.

[Estragon]

I did a little research myself. It has to do with Venezuela, I guess? Sometimes there are these super baroque reasons that only the hucklers are attuned to. In this case it appears to be merely that they spoke up in favor or diplomacy.

[Estragon]

Has anyone looked into why Ronny Jackson was prescribing WMDs to people in the White House?

https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/09/2003373440/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2024-044_REDACTED%20SECURE.PDF

[Mr. Bumble]

"A federal appeals court gave President Trump permission to keep National Guard troops deployed to the streets of Washington for the foreseeable future, saying presidents have unique powers when it comes to the capital city.

The ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia puts on hold a lower court injunction ordering the troops to stand down."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/dec/17/trump-keep-national-guard-troops-dc-appeals-court-says/

[Bob from Ohio]

Opinion by an Obama judge too.

[John F. Carr]

This is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10759905/dc-v-donald-trump/

This is an order granting a stay. I don't know if the attached opinion is precedential.

Edit: Not precedential. "This decision does not bind the merits panel, which will engage in a fuller assessment of these issues."

[John F. Carr]

Summary:

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the D.C. National Guard. An employee of the Department of Defense is the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The Mayor of D.C. is not in charge the way the Governor of a state is in charge.

If state governors exceeded their authority in sending troops to D.C. they should be named as defendants. The Administrative Procedure Act is not the right tool for the job.

Concurrence: DC lacks standing to challenge acts of the sovereign that created it. This is the rule that prevents municipalities from asserting constitutional rights against their states.

[grb]

So DOD Secretary Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave closed-door testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Afterwards, Sen. Chris Murphy said they provided no legal or strategic justification for the deadly strikes on alleged smugglers at sea. He said Hegseth and Rubio admitted that no fentanyl is coming out of Venezuela despite Trump’s lying. Cocaine is flowing out of the South American country, Murphy said, but nearly all of it is going to Europe.

“So we are spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to wage a war in the Caribbean to stop cocaine from going from Venezuela to Europe,” Murphy said. “That is a massive waste of national security resources and of your taxpayer dollars.”

Murphy seems like a sharp guy, but here he's missing the point. Yesterday the Administration posted another Caribbean snuff porn video and the motivation behind it was the same as always : This is entertainment for Trump's political base.

We've seen MAGA-types here yowl about other uses of military power, like Obama's drone strikes. Recently someone even brought up Clinton's 1998 bombing of a Sudan factory, which many people now see as an intelligence error. But no president before has made military murder a spectator sport.

[hobie]

Unless Trump plans on pardoning all the ICE and military command that have been forced to murder people, he's just setting up all these poor schlubs for criminal prosecution when the adults regain power

[Kazinski]

Kier Starmer has announced a national emergency:

"Violence against women and girls is a national emergency.

We're introducing dedicated referral services in every part of the country and trauma-informed care for children.

These changes will make sure victims and survivors receive the reliable support and specialist care they need."

Funny, nothing about stepping up police enforcement, increasing prison sentences, no bail while awaiting trial, and deportation for non-citizens.

But there will be someone there to hold your hand after you've been raped.

https://x.com/i/status/2001207422614970690

[grb]

So anti-trauma center for victims of sexual violence ?!? A bold stance to take, Kazinski....

[Kazinski]

Sure as one component of a response, but 98% of the effort should be prevention to stop the rapes from happening.

There's 4x as many rapes in England and Wales than there was 15 years ago.

They don't have to live like that if they don't want to.

It's not a deep seeded cultural problem, at least among the English.

[grb]

Oh! I see!

Your sneering at trauma centers doesn't preclude them from being part of a broad solution to sexual violence. That's welcome news indeed. But before we leave the subject, may I suggest Prime Minister Starmer championing them is exactly the same? Take a step back, stop trying to pick a fight over the dimmest possible reason, and I'm sure you'll agree.

[Kazinski]

If he had half a sentence about law enforcement cracking down, legislation to increase penalties, or pretrial detention, then I wouldn't have said a word.

But that's all he said, that's all they are planning to do to "fix" the "National Emergency".

[John 4]

The phrase is “deep-seated”. You don’t know anything about anything, do you?

[ThePublius]

It's an eggcorn. Why do you have to be so rude?

[grb]

Eggcorn!

I never heard of that word until now, and it's more relevant to me personally with each passing year. Now, the next time one slips by I can say "eggcorn" as I sadly shake my head. It sounds so much better than the alternate "oldtimer's disease".

(as I get older, I sound more & more like Constable Dogberry in Much Ado)

[Kazinski]

Thanks for that John.

You're assignment henceforth will be to check my comments for punctuation, spelling, and misuse of alliterations, since you don't seem to have any other function.

It should keep you busy at least.

[John 4]

Happily done! I agree, there is a vast realm of knowledge out there of which you know very little. I’ll do my best!

[hobie]

I remember in around 1990 oilman Clayton Williams was about to cruise to the first Republican governor win in Texas in a long time. But on a west Texas camping trip with reporters, he fucked up around the campfire and remarked that 'rape was like the weather, sometimes you just have to lay back and enjoy it.

Like rep King from Iowa and other MAGA talking about 'legitimate rape'. Or today's MAGA saying them 14 year old trafficked girls gave consent........while being trafficked?!

I honestly have no time for people like Kazinski who appear to have some towering concern for the girls in a foreign country run by a progressive government. But the girls here can pound sand....bounties and all.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I don't have any real concern.

There was the time my daughters 12 year old best friend was kidnapped, raped, and murdered, in Texas, by the way. I remember what my 11 year old daughter went through, especially in the 3 weeks she was missing before her body was found in a quarry.

The guy who did had already served a decade in Oklahoma before they let him out and he moved to Texas.

They caught him when he kidnapped a 19 year old a month or 2 later and she jumped out of up his car on the freeway at 65 and spent a couple of weeks in the hospital.

But conservatives like me never give any consideration to what the perp went through, or what his childhood must of been like.

[hobie]

Jocelyn Nungaray?

And no one here is lamenting the life of the predators. Stop being so hyperbolic

[Kazinski]

No, no, although it was slightly similar.

It was almost 30 years ago when my daughter's best friend was Kidnapped, raped and murdered.

https://abc13.com/post/23-years-ago-today-laura-smithers-disappearance/1272189/

By the way, I voted for Clayton Williams in that election, I was in Houston working for Texaco at the time.

[hobie]

I remember making a killing with Penzoil around the same time when Texaco had to transfer $1B to them which, at the time, was the largest bank transfer in history.

You seem like a decent fellow, Kazinski. But when you and yours rationalize child exploitation just to protect your boy (or the brand, I'm no longer sure)...that's shit that can never be forgiven. I doubt there is anything you could now do or say that could overcome that.

[Kazinski]

Now when have I rationalized child exploitation?

I mean other than the Ken Kesey quote.

"She was fifteen years old, going on thirty-five, Doc, and she told me she was eighteen, she was very willing, I practically had to take to sewing my pants shut. Between you and me, uh, she might have been fifteen, but when you get that little red beaver right up there in front of you, I don't think it's crazy at all and I don't think you do either. No man alive could resist that, and that's why I got into jail to begin with. And now they're telling me I'm crazy over here because I don't sit there like a goddamn vegetable. Don't make a bit of sense to me. If that's what being crazy is, then I'm senseless, out of it, gone-down-the-road, wacko. But no more, no less, that's it.”
― Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

I didn't even post any links to half naked 13 year olds.

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/15/134537646/gauguins-nude-tahitians-give-the-wrong-impression

The only thing I did is point out your early 21st century moral panic is just a phase, and a symptom of the infantilization of older teens and young adults is one of the reasons kids today are do fucked up.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"By the way, I voted for Clayton Williams in that election, I was in Houston working for Texaco at the time."

I was in Midland working for a service company at the time. We did some work for his oil and gas company. He was hot stuff in west Texas at the time.

My recollection is that his sage comments about rape were made while he and some reporters were hanging about the chuck wagon during a cattle roundup near Alpine which also featured the demonstration of how baby bulls get turned into baby steers. Fun times, definitely a great opportunity for a campaign event.

Another time during that campaign, as I recall, Williams attempted to endear himself with reporters and Texas voters by commenting on his history, as a young man, of going across the border to Boy's Town to get himself "serviced," sort of like getting your oil changed.

Just goes to show that one need not be a genius to be very successful in the oil/gas industry.

As for the election, at the time, I had never voted for a Democrat in my life so chose to not vote for a candidate for governor. Not even Clayton Williams could get me to vote for one. Had to wait till 2016 for a candidate so manifestly unqualified.

[grb]

In 2020, a Chinese citizen, Heng Guan, heard about China’s mass detention of Uyghurs. But he wanted to see for himself, so drove across the country from eastern China to Xinjiang and secretly shot video of the hulking detention centers that hold the Muslim ethnic group. The footage was later snuck out of the country to the West, where it became rare visual evidence of the scale and forcible nature of China’s “re-education camps”.

In 2021, Mr. Guan fled to the United States, where he applied for asylum. Then, this August he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and scheduled for deportation. Following a public outcry, the Trump administration relented on sending Guan back to China, but argued that he could be deported to Uganda. But that country has deep economic and military ties to China and it’s likely the African country would just hand him over.

Of course Trump doesn't care. He just wants one more body as stats for the rubes....

[hobie]

I was sent to Angola and Nigeria for awhile. I can verify that China absolutely and completely owns all the sub-Saharan nations. And it is not that they show up with money and executives only. Hell no. The guys digging ditches and laying cinder blocks are all Chinese laborers too. Sorry to say, but them natives in Angola - as nice as they are - can't work a lick. The absolute microsecond Mr. Guan shows up in Africa...he's gonna be Guan

[grb]

If a person's life didn't hang in the balance, I'd salute your punning ability.
Hell, I salute it anyway!

[not guilty]

Jack Smith is testifying today behind closed doors before members of the House Judiciary Committee. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/17/jack-smith-trump-deposition-congress-00694730

Let the leakfest begin. Why was Rep. Gym Jordan scared shitless of receiving testimony in the light of day?

[hobie]

I've got my popcorn ready. Smith ain't no craven politician seeking office. He's going to scorch those soft congressmen. And, yes, let the leaks begin!

[Kazinski]

That's an easy answer.

Very few of the Senators, or Congressmen are skilled interrogators, nor do they have the time to put in to properly prepare for a deposition, but they do have them on their staff, and that NG is why they are going to do a private deposition, and because if there were cameras the Congressmen wouldn't be able to help themselves.

And it's true for both parties.

[grb]

Plus all the right is on Smith's side. The GOP Representatives are just whoring for a lifelong criminal.

On TV, that's likely to turn out poorly......

[David Nieporent]

You know that even in a public hearing, the members can delegate the questioning to staffers, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and give up face time?

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I think I covered that.

"and because if there were cameras the Congressmen wouldn't be able to help themselves"

[not guilty]

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Wednesday that she will sign a bill that will allow terminally ill New Yorkers to end their lives.

The law will apply to adults who have incurable, irreversible illnesses and six months or less to live, and each patient will need the sign-off of three doctors.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/nyregion/medical-dying-assisted-suicide-hochul.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20251217&instance_id=168102&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=212406&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She explains her decision here:

https://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/hochul-approves-aid-in-dying-21246206.php

It was the right choice not to let her religious beliefs or anything else interfere with the clear wishes of the legislature and the people overall. She negotiated some more safeguards.

This is a right of privacy matter. I think there is a constitutional right to make this decision. I'm not as clear about the NYS Constitution, but it probably can be cited as well as the federal.

But this issue (like the regulation of drugs) has a lot of regulations and line drawing that are best left to the legislature.

[Bob from Ohio]

"not to let her religious beliefs or anything else interfere"

You guys here are all about principles but she abandons her alleged ones and you applaud.

[Bob from Ohio]

Party of Death!

[SRG2]

Nah, just allowing individuals to maximise their expected utility.

[loki13]

I thought I'd pass this along.

https://lithub.com/the-most-scathing-book-reviews-of-2025/

One of my favorite genres is the literary smackdown- the book review so scathing it is an artform in and of itself. And these ... not bad. There's some truly great knifetwists in there.

(By the way, for those of you who tend to love putdowns of a particular side, make sure you read until the last one. You'll like that one.)

[loki13]

Fun filing of the day!

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71982634/30/richman-v-united-states/

This is from the Richman case (return of the documents re: Comey). Now, I'd normally say that this is a little snarky given the litigation is against the DOJ (presumption of regularity) ...

Except, if anything, it actually undersells the DOJ's incompetence and, um, "misstatements." Also, this is also the Court where the Judge has regularly schooled the DOJ on how to file documents correctly, so I don't think that the Judge (like most judges now) is believin' what the DOJ is servin' up.

By the way, the DOJ saying, "We can't say for sure that the material wasn't properly handled, so maybe it was even though other judges have already found it wasn't .... and also the dog ate our homework..." not a good look.

[Bob from Ohio]

not guilty's gay pal Fani testified today before a georgia commitee. Here is a taste.

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/2001324521459175505

[Mr. Bumble]

"The last pennies ever minted for circulation have been sold at auction, netting $16.76 million."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/dec/16/last-pennies-ever-minted-circulation-sold-auction-1676-million/

"Coin-focused auction house Stack’s Bowers Galleries sold 232 sets, marking the 232 years between the 1793 minting of the first American penny or cent and the last. Each consisted of a 2025 penny from the Philadelphia Mint, a 2025-D penny from the Denver Mint and a special 2025 24-karat gold penny also struck in Philadelphia."
Some one's going to be pissed if they ever start making them again.

[grb]

Without question, Trump is one of the bottom two or three worst presidents in U.S. history. That said, I'm ready to applaud him whenever he does something not harmful to this country. Which is pretty much nuking the penny alone.

But - hey - all my finest kudos for that! Though even there I have quibbles. I'd preferred he order prices rounded to a nickel and melt every damn penny down. Trump could hardly object over inflation grounds given his clusterf**k braindead tariffs. In this scenario, he'd repurpose his masked ICE goons to penny collection. Given they show little aptitude or training for legal law enforcement, that would be an chance for them to do some good for a change (no pun intended).

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you know; "The nickel, which costs 14 cents to produce, according to The Associated Press, is still being made."

[grb]

Ah, yes, the proverbial "slippery slope".......

[loki13]

Fun fact- Obama (perhaps others) also wanted to nuke the penny.

But it was the belief of the Obama administration that the President couldn't just unilaterally nuke the penny (because of the relevant statutory language that requires minting of ... I forget, but sufficient coins) and it required Congress to actually legislate it.

Remember Obama? The one that the people here complained acted all unilaterally?

Yeah. Anyway, the point was that his administration didn't do it because he believed as a matter of law he wasn't allowed to do it.

FWIW, I happen to agree that nuking the penny is a good thing. One of the few good things Trump has done. But ... even with that good thing, I don't approve of Trump unilaterally deciding to do things that are at best questionable, and often downright unlawful.

That's the point- for me, at least. It not just the result, it's the process, too.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"People" including one or more contributors who are not too concerned about the Trump Administration, except now and then, while worried about other matters.

I saw a report from five or so years ago on discontinuing the penny. It explained the various consequences and how they could be addressed. That is why it makes sense to carefully handle such things.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A vote alone won't do it, but it is still appreciated that four Republicans pushed the envelope here:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/group-of-house-republicans-join-dem-effort-to-force-vote-on-aca-subsidies-extension

I think long term that the Senate Democrats making this an issue can have significant long-term value. These fights are not won in the short term. We can see this with various things Republicans fought in the past that was successful later on.

Long-term is what bills regarding the shadow docket are about too:

https://www.lawdork.com/p/100-days-of-kavanaugh-stops-shadow-docket-bill

[John F. Carr]

If I could impose a procedural change on Congress, reducing the ability of leadership to block legislation would be high on my list.

Massachusetts voters tried to impose procedural reforms on the state legislature. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled the internal procedures of the legislature were not a proper subject for an initiative petition.

[bernard11]

I think, and hope, all the crap with the MA legislature is going to blow up one of these days.

[David Nieporent]

The trial of Judge Hannah Dugan, the Milwaukee judge who allegedly tried to help an illegal immigrant escape from ICE agents, has been going on for the past three days, all by the prosecution, which rested this afternoon.

It doesn’t sound like a slam dunk for the prosecution — the immigrant's attorney testified that Dugan did not actually direct them to go down a private staircase to evade the agents — but also doesn't sound like not guilty's position that there's no way she could be convicted is likely; the judge's court reporter said that the judge said she was going to do that.

Of course, I'm not in the courtroom and I'm relying on coverage, and Dugan hasn't presented a defense yet.

[Kazinski]

Her colleague didn't seem to help her at all, unless it was helping her get under the bus.

"MILWAUKEE (AP) — A colleague of the Milwaukee judge accused of helping a Mexican immigrant evade arrest testified Tuesday that she was shocked by her fellow judge's behavior.

“Judges shouldn’t help defendants evade arrest,” Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Kristela Cervera testified at Hannah Dugan's trial.

The testimony on the second day of trial came after officers involved in the arrest told the jury that Dugan's behavior on April 18 made it more dangerous for them to do their jobs."

"Cervera testified that she was irritated that Dugan used her as backup during the incident, making her come out of her courtroom into the hallway while still wearing her robe."

"Dugan approached her three days later and said she was “in the doghouse” with the chief judge, saying something to the effect that the chief was upset with her because she had “tried to help that guy," Cervera testified.

When she learned that Dugan had led Flores-Ruiz out the private door, “I was shocked,” Cervera testified."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/officers-trial-milwaukee-judge-her-183942483.html

[David Nieporent]

The boldfaced comment sounds like a truism, but also irrelevant and question begging. These parts sound more damaging:

"Dugan approached her three days later and said she was “in the doghouse” with the chief judge, saying something to the effect that the chief was upset with her because she had “tried to help that guy," Cervera testified.

When she learned that Dugan had led Flores-Ruiz out the private door, “I was shocked,” Cervera testified."

[Kazinski]

Where I think the bolded part comes in is telling the jury that the behavior wasn't acceptable among her fellow judges.

A judge might ignore that but a jury won't.

Of course the biggest tell was going with a jury at all, if she thought she was innocent or it was acceptable conduct, she would have gone for a bench trial.

[David Nieporent]

Of course the biggest tell was going with a jury at all, if she thought she was innocent or it was acceptable conduct, she would have gone for a bench trial.

A defendant cannot unilaterally decide on a bench trial in federal court.

Where I think the bolded part comes in is telling the jury that the behavior wasn't acceptable among her fellow judges.

What behavior? You're begging the question. Dugan's defense is that she didn't try to help a defendant evade arrest. So a judge saying that Dugan shouldn't do something that Dugan says she didn't do adds nothing.

[John F. Carr]

"Judges shouldn’t help defendants evade arrest" ought to be stricken unless Judge Cervera was qualified as an expert witness.

[David Nieporent]

If it could have been precluded from the start, it should've been. But once it was said, no competent defense attorney would make a motion to strike it; why on earth would one want to call the jury's attention to that statement? It does little to actually advance the prosecution's case; Dugan's defense (as I understand it) is that she didn't do that. But it can't help Dugan's image in the jury's mind.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I thought of that, too. But, Cervera is a sitting judge and should be qualified to opine on judical ethics and duties, I would think.

[David Nieporent]

I think a sitting judge could easily be qualified as an expert on judicial ethics, but expert testimony is only allowed to help the jury understand something that isn't within their ordinary experience. "Judges shouldn't help defendants evade arrest" is not something for which expert testimony would be beneficial. Unless Dugan's position were "Judges are allowed to do that."

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Ok, thanks.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Josh Blackman decided to bring up Roe v. Wade when discussing the ongoing executive removal of officers debate.

I provided my usual .02 & was accused of "pretending." I responded with some more detail, and the person doubled down without addressing the substance of my comments.

Sometimes, people are so sure of themselves that the other side can only be arguing in bad faith. TBF, sometimes that is an appropriate sentiment. Still, often it isn't true. The other side might be wrong. They might be confused. (Or not!)

But they are honestly wrong and confused. This is especially the case in various debates that have been debated long before any of us were around. Still, the other side sometimes thinks the only way a person can argue the point is (some conspiracy theory).

It's depressing, but also human nature to some degree. The presence of such a mindset in this country since the beginning has been the subject of scholarly analysis.

[jb]

I find that the abortion debate in particular tends to bring out these sorts of responses. Many pro choice folks simply refuse to acknowledge that anyone could actually believe that abortion is murder, and instead simply declare that what they really want is to control women's bodies. And, as you found, many pro life people refuse to acknowledge that other people may not share their belief that a fetus is a human life with all of the same philosophical attributes as a newborn infant, because...they just love murdering or something I guess. As a result, everyone is just talking past each other most of the time.

[grb]

The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado is the premier weather research center in the country and the largest federal facility devoted to that purpose. So, of course, Trump wants to dismantle and destroy it. Some people think this is petty retribution because Colorado won’t set the criminal Peters free, but here’s the main reason:

Scientific research and data is kryptonite to today’s Right. They want to tell Stupid people to believe Stupid things without any pesky facts getting in the way. The Right of today is a religion of the Stupid. They worship Stupid in all its every physical, intellectual, and spiritual manifestation. Trump is their holy embodiment of Stupid made flesh on earth. They bow down in abject adoration to his every Stupid word, deed, or act.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/trump-administration-break-climate-research-center-ncar-rcna249668

[SRG2]

"Don't look up"

[John F. Carr]

It's also a trailhead for hiking in the foothills above Boulder.

[John F. Carr]

Massachusetts recently purported to rescind six prior requests for a constitutional convention made during the years 1931 to 1977. Seventeen other states are said to have done the same. This is the press release: https://malegislature.gov/PressRoom/Detail?pressReleaseId=295.

The most recent request from Massachusetts is House bill 5984 of 1977 titled "Resolutions Requesting The Congress Of The United States To Call A Convention For The Purpose Of Proposing An Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States Protecting The Right To Life Of All Human Beings During Every Stage Of Biological Development."

Whether the requisite number of states have requested a constitutional convention may be a political question. If Congress wants to accept Massachusetts' 1977 call to convene a convention to ban abortion, Massachusetts may have to fight the amendment at the convention instead of in the courts.

[OpinionsVary]

I think states really have to be able to rescind such calls up until a convention is actually called. Same reason Congress can set deadlines on amendments and states can rescind ratification of proposed amendment up until adoption - both of which happened with respect to the ERA.

The point of the amendment system is to require an extreme supermajority to adopt such constitutional measures. Allowing zombie amendments to potentially pass, while never having majority support let alone supermajority support at any one point in time, is perverse to that structure. The case is perhaps less pressing with respect to convention calls (since any proposed amendments still need to actually be ratified) but if you're allowing ratification rescinding (and I argue you really must), I can't see any consistent way to not also allow rescinding convention calls.

[John F. Carr]

I would likely accept your argument if put in charge of convention planning. I'm not in charge. If the count of states is a political question, the ability to accept zombie calls is limited only by politicians' sense of shame.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" If the count of states is a political question, the ability to accept zombie calls is limited only by politicians' sense of shame."

Is there much of a constituency clamoring for a constitutional convention, other than among the chronically disaffected crackpots, ?

I think it's very unlikely that Congress would call for a convention other than in response to an Epstein files level of public noise making. One reason is because exactly nobody (or fewer) know what would happen. Nobody knows what the rules would be, who the participants would be, what the distribution of participants would be, etc. Another reason is that if Congress would call for a convention and the convention would propose some largely unpopular amendments (perhaps about abortion or about the 2d amendment), members might actually be held accountable and none of them wants to actually be accountable for anything.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Same reason Congress can set deadlines on amendments and states can rescind ratification of proposed amendment up until adoption - both of which happened with respect to the ERA.

Historical precedent is that rescissions are not binding. The matter has been debated and analyzed in various contexts but "can" is not settled law.

OTOH, Coleman v. Miller, SCOTUS had held that Congress has broad power to regulate the amendment process.

The issue came up before & I wondered about it. How about the ratification of the Constitution? Was there an understanding that states could rescind until the necessary number ratified?

I know of no such understanding. I asked someone who is well-read on the Constitution Convention. He didn't know either.

[bernard11]

I think states really have to be able to rescind such calls up until a convention is actually called.

Me too, if only for the somewhat abstract reason that otherwise all proposed conventions will be called at some point, possibly in 2062.

[John F. Carr]

When subject to GPS monitoring as a condition of parole, a parolee is entitled to notice of any exclusion zones. So said the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The prosecution argued that GPS monitoring was needed to keep the defendant away from his victims. This was an audacious claim because the prosecution didn't know where the victims lived. The prosecutor just had an urge to monitor the defendant. In order to justify the GPS monitoring condition the prosecutor tracked the victims down. A no-contact order is a routine condition of release. But the defendant had not been told what cities he was supposed to avoid to stay out of prison.

Commonwealth v. Arnold, SJC-13768, https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-arnold-sjc-m13768/download

In Florida they would just tell him to stay out of all popiulated places. Massachusetts courts are less tolerant of designed-to-fail conditions of parole.

[grb]

Just survived another office Xmas party!