1,262 thoughts on “April 17: Open thread!”

  1. My impression of Musk is the same as SteveF’s (Comment #220042). Musk seems genuine. He may be mistaken, but I doubt he is duplicitous. His interview with Tucker Carlson last night (part 2 tonight) seemed consistent with that.
    .
    Musk said that he started OpenAI because Google was dominating AI research and was totally unconcerned about risks. When he expressed concern, he was called a speciesist. So he decided to start a nonprofit to do AI research out in the open, where people could keep an eye on it. He admitted to taking his eye off the ball and deplored what OpenAI has become. He also cheerfully admitted to being a speciesist.

  2. angech,
    It is likely that Musk has done some skirt chasing, although the details are unclear/uncertain. He seems to treat all the women he has been involved with a lot better than someone like Bill Clinton…. although I know that is a low bar.
    .
    I suppose being too attracted to beautiful women is a flaw in Musk, but one we see more often in wealthy men, if only because they have more options than most.

  3. Elon Musk has gained much of his wealth in businesses that depend heavily on government subsidies. He would appear to have a rather unique ability to take advantage of those opportunities. His entrepreneurial abilities are different than those who risk more of their own, or, at least, private funds. I do not favor the subsidies that the government provides for EV, but Musk must favor them and the government involvement in his other businesses. I suspect that Musk is very much into crony capitalism which of course is not capitalism at all but rather a form of fascism.

    Musk in my view is not a technical genius or somehow an expert when it comes to AI, although I see a lot of comments on the matter coming lately from people who I am sure do not understand how the basics of AI currently works.

  4. Ken Fritsch,
    I agree the entire electric car industry is probably an economic mistake, and Musk has taken the generous subsidies, as have all other manufacturers. Still, many of Tesla’s cars are no longer subsidized, and yet continue to sell. As to whether or not Musk is a genius, I suggest you consider the many businesses he has founded (or helped found), including PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, OpenAI, and others. His business record is by no means perfect (look at the likely losses he will suffer from purchasing Twitter!), but I have a strong impression that money may not be his only, or even greatest, motivation.
    .
    I suspect we both object to many government actions (not just subsidies) that Musk supports. But he seems a lot more honest and willing to accept reality than the woke mob that currently runs Washington. That is something I value more than disagreements with Musk on “the proper role and scope of government”. YMMV.

  5. Ken Fritsch,

    Tesla was founded in 2003. Musk invested in Tesla in 2004. They went into production in 2008. The first federal tax credits were enacted that year and went into effect in 2009. No question that Tesla benefits from the credits, but they were not the reason the company was formed.
    .
    SpaceX does business with the government, but was founded with the intent of expanding space launch far beyond the usual market.

  6. No question that Tesla benefits from the credits, but they were not the reason the company was formed.

    But a big reason they stayed in business.

  7. Steve Bannon is no fan.
    Carlson’s interview with Musk was split into two parts. The first part aired on Monday, and the second will air on Tuesday night.
    -“You think you trust this guy adding “the interview last night, I think exposed everything you needed to expose.”
    –
    “ buying this guy’s snake oil “
    –
    There is a dichotomy.
    22nd century ideas being put forward in the 21st.
    All in favor.
    Electric vehicles, in their place reducing city pollution.
    Melbourne has had them for 100 years, called trams actually and a lot of rail is electric these days but OK, just cannot replace road transport and distance driving compared to fossil fuels in cost.
    Ever.
    Cheap satellites in space, low orbit.
    Great borrowed idea.
    Pay Pal.
    Ditto.
    Tesla into space.
    Great advertising.
    –
    What’s next?
    Turning water into petrol with an additive.
    Cold fusion.
    I hope not.
    –
    Yet hydrogen fuel and small nuclear reactors?
    Yep.

  8. I understand why one might respect Steve Bannon’s extensive personal expertise with snake oil, but just looking at SpaceX alone and nothing else, Elon Musk has helped deliver important advances and achievements. It wasn’t my impression that this sort of thing was usually identified with the term ‘snake oil’.
    He’s not God, but the guy who gave us SpaceX is obviously competent and valuable in my opinion.

  9. Here is a first part of a 3 part interview with Musk on SpaceX and a Starbase tour. It’s as much business philosophy as rocket science.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t705r8ICkRw&t=92s
    .
    Judge for yourself if he understands the technology, or instead make rash statements that he doesn’t without evidence. SpaceX didn’t get “subsidies” (i.e. NASA and military missions) until they had a proven rocket. That’s where most people fail. It’s a high risk / high payoff business that also has a high barrier to entry. You will find many billionaires behind these kind of businesses, as well as lots of catastrophic financial failures.
    .
    Liftoff: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days That Launched SpaceX
    https://www.amazon.com/Liftoff-Desperate-Early-Launched-SpaceX/dp/0062979973
    .
    Also, it’s not just electric cars, he built out an entire charging infrastructure where nothing existed.
    .
    He has definitely gotten a bit batty lately. Maybe he has way too much FU money now, ha ha.

  10. Russian disinformation network using social media …. The UK MOD says Russia plants battle disinformation that gets retransmitted and multiplied throughout social media.
    More than once I have taken their BS as truth.
    It is easy to be fooled by this stuff. It is well-sourced and appears to have supporting documentation.
    UK MOD: “It has cultivated multiple channels and proxies to spread disinformation: the intentional creation and sharing of false or manipulated information. One component of Russia’s disinformation is ‘narrative laundering’, whereby Russia promotes information from proxies, or unverified social media sources, which then permeates to more mainstream or state-run media. It then promotes misleading fragments of the narrative, while masking its vested interest.”
    It’s a way of countering real information that is contrary to the Russian war effort.
    https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1648563457480900608?s=20

  11. JAKE11 and REDEYE6 are watching Kaliningrad again. There are also two refueling tankers nearby. I assume they have fighter protection that is flying dark.
    Maybe they are working in consort with this Polish effort:
    WARSAW, Poland (AP) — “Poland has begun building a state-of-the-art electronic barrier at its land border with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave to monitor and counteract any illegal activity, the Polish interior minister said Tuesday.”
    Maybe they are watching the Russian Baltic fleet based in Kaliningrad.
    Maybe they are just trying to annoy the Russians.
    Screenshots of the tracks:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1648603596819243008?s=20
    If they are still airborne you can track them live here:
    https://www.flightradar24.com/JAKE11/2ff3a8b1
    https://www.flightradar24.com/REDEYE6/2ff3dccc

  13. Ed, the “Ghost” stories were obvious fabrications designed to inspire the Ukrainians. These Russian disinformation stories are finely crafted. They have intricate details about current battlefield actions. They are real enough looking to fool me….. twice.

  14. The Starbase tour link with the Musk interview had him talking about the aspects of driving a project from design through manufacturing. That is a process of which I have had much experience in a past life.

    Maybe it was time limitations of the interview but his views came across as over simplified. The design versus manufacturing distinctions exists primarily where an organization has not fully coordinated those efforts and whereby designers are allowed to “sign off” before the manufacturing stage is entered.

    I recall Musk getting directly involved in “all nighters” in attempts to get a manufacturing line for Tesla up and running. I saw situations such as this one up front and personal and could always attribute it to poor and incomplete planning and usually by the very individual who would claim heroic status for his all nighters.

    I have heard more articulate explanations of the technical aspects of an organization’s operation by non technical CEOs than that from Musk in the linked interview. That is what CEOs get paid big bucks to do.

    I give Musk credit for his rather unique ability to obtain capital (often from government) for projects and businesses that require new technology, but that does not make him a technology or manufacturing genius. Sufficient capital to fall back on can cover a number of mistakes and false starts.

    Tesla not only thrives from purchaser tax credits for purchasing its products but it can sell credits to other businesses for its zero/low carbon emissions. How much of these advantages were considered by Musk going into Tesla, I do not know, but if he was aware of these assets, he has to get much credit for some kind of special genius there.

    Finally the end game for Tesla would have to be that it can make it into a mature industry with help from the government and be a leader with a leg up when government forces all new vehicles to be electric. If that was an unwritten plan by Tesla it has genius written all over it. In my book it is misplaced genius, but unfortunately a quality that going forward with ever more government involvement in businesses will be rewarded.
    .

  15. NASA’s Artemis rocket: US$4 billion each launch. Cost for SpaceX’s ‘Starship’ per launch (based on recovered booster and second stage): well under US$100 million (Musk aims for $10 million per launch). So, not considering the lift capacity (SpaceX is significantly higher), SpaceX looks to be 40+ times more cost effective at putting things in space than NASA.
    .
    That may not be genius, but seems a very reasonable approximation.
    .
    Steve Bannon is either an imbecile, or can’t stop himself from commenting on things about which he knows absolutely nothing (or maybe both).

  16. Ken Fritsch (Comment #220067): “The Starbase tour link with the Musk interview had him talking about the aspects of driving a project from design through manufacturing.”
    .
    No ordinary projects. Both Tesla and SpaceX started from near zero to build complex systems represent significant advances over existing tech. I think that you can’t find many other examples of such.
    .
    Ken Fritsch: “That is a process of which I have had much experience in a past life.”
    .
    No doubt trivial examples compared to what Musk has done.

  18. Musk is a like Steve Jobs or Besos. Visionary, focused, driven, and only see roadblocks as something to be overcome with creativity and persistence and sufficient application of resources instead of reasons to give up. All can be be annoying as F to work with, and exhausting, but they have really changed the way the world functions. Sure someone else would have eventually created online markets, cloud computing, smartphones, easy to use computing, electronic vehicles, resuable rockets, etc. but they drove the evolution forward faster across more than one market.

  19. While number of patents is not necessarily an indication of technical genius here is an interesting breakdown on patents:

    Steve Jobs 630 patents
    Jeff Bezos 336 patents
    Elon Musk 18 patents
    Tesla patent ownership 3900

    Elon Musk claims to be against patents and I agree in theory when he says patents can impede technical progress, but in practice most patents can be gotten around without much difficulty.

    My best technical work was not patented while my lesser work was.

    I think some statements here confuse an organization’s technical genius with that of a CEO whose genius might well be in other aspects of the business.

  20. Washington House passes bill to hide whereabouts of runaway children seeking sex changes
    .
    A Washington bill that would give the state government the power to hide the whereabouts of children seeking sex changes from their non-affirming parents has passed the House and Senate.
    .
    SB 5599, Supporting youth and young adults seeking protected health care services, is intended to “give meaningful choices to young people who may not have supportive families at home so they do not end up on the street, but instead have shelter options when seeking this ‘life-saving’ care.”
    .
    California currently has a similar bill in the works that would allow “gender-affirming” therapists to place gender-confused children into state residential facilities without prior accusations of parental abuse.
    .
    “Democrats have claimed many times that the brains of minors are not fully developed until age 22. Right now, they are sponsoring a juvenile offender sentencing bill [Senate Bill 5475] based on ‘the expansive body of scientific research on brain development, which shows that adolescents’ perception, judgment, and decision-making skills differ significantly from that of adults. “It’s revealing how brain research matters to them when juveniles break the law, but not when they seek life-altering, potentially irreversible health care,” concluded Braun.
    .
    https://thepostmillennial.com/washington-house-passes-bill-to-hide-whereabouts-of-runaway-children-seeking-sex-changes
    .
    “Trans kids” is an effing “social construct”. It’s a predatory cult seeking converts from the most vulnerable and offers little but crippling consequences. Since when was it good medical practice to “affirm” an effing delusion? Where’s the evidence this is anything more than child experimentation? These people are out of their effing minds.

  21. Ken Fritsch,
    “My best technical work was not patented while my lesser work was.”
    .
    Same with me. Weak patents (which are very often ‘obvious’) can certainly be gotten around. I think a bigger problem is that many patents are filed with a description specifically designed to hide the best practices of the patented technology, so that someone ‘skilled in the art’ will be misled by the patent, not really informed.
    .
    I believe there is a case before the Supreme Court this term (not yet decided), where a patent was claimed to be invalid for lack of an accurate/honest/complete description of the technology. It is an interesting case, which goes to the heart of the deal a patent is supposed to offer: limited time exclusivity for full discloser of the technology. We’ll see what the SC says.
    .
    I do think Musk is right about one thing: lots of patents are filed to specifically block technological progress. My company has already had this happen a couple of times… really ticked me off.

  22. End of day Ukulele update.
    Ukraine forces in Bakhmut city center have been squeezed into an area a bit more than 1 square km. A very high concentration of troops to be under intense artillery and air strikes.
    .
    Western Bakhmut Is Blocked. The Ukrainians Left Spirne. Military Summary And Analysis 2023.04.19
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfRiou2F8tM

  23. I haven’t read a single patent in the past couple decades that has something interesting or innovative in it. The goal is to get an offensive patent (both literally and figuratively) without revealing the underlying useful technology. Easy patents are easy because they are typically very narrow and useless except perhaps as a spot defense. Some of the most unpleasant parts of my career were dealing with garbage patents.
    .
    The lawyers I talked to tended to side with never reading competitors patents because the clock starts ticking the moment you do. I’d flush this entire system in a heartbeat. The reality does not match the promise, not even close. Many offensive patents are not even tied to an actual product, some are.

  24. “Many offensive patents are not even tied to an actual product, some are.”
    .
    Yes, lots of patents are filed only to block competing technologies, with absolutely no intent to ever develop a product of any kind. IOW, keep a better approach/technology from being brought to market. This is an area Congress could address by making a patent null and void if commercialization is not actively pursued (eg, cancel the patent after 6 years if there is no commercialization). But I doubt Congress will ever do that, since powerful interests (large companies, and especially large pharma companies) support the current corrupted system which helps them avoid competition.

  25. Thanks Ed
    Presume you meant Ukraine.
    Austin Ukeklele Society (AUS) is a great site in USA for learning ukulele which us older folk have taken up at U3A.
    Real people, real songs a fun to listen to and look at.
    –
    In awe.
    Would love to be lucky enough to have a patentable idea.

  26. SARs “often contain evidence of potential criminal activities, such as money laundering and fraud,” according to a 2020 Senate report. U.S. banks have flagged over 150 SARs from Hunter and James Biden that included “large” amounts of money tagged for further review by the Treasury.
    –
    Where is the IRS when you need them.
    And Yellen.
    Should be easily explained if all this money is in their tax returns, which one presumes it is not.
    Surely some one has to take action.

  29. angech,
    It is already well known that Hunter Biden did not declare millions of dollars in income; he paid (actually wealthy Democrats paid) back taxes and penalties amounting to multiple millions. It seems likely the situation is similar with Biden’s brother. They have not been prosecuted for tax fraud because they are being protected by the execrable Merrick Garland…. Hunter has been ‘investigated’ for multiple years on multiple felonies, but never charged, nor will he be. The corruption and influence pedaling in Washington DC is blatant and is not going to stop.
    .
    What I suspect the bank records will ultimately show is that Joe Biden has received millions of dollars from family members, and he also has not reported that income. Whether the DOJ and Treasury can continue to protect the Bidens until after the 2024 election is unclear to me. But one thing is clear: they sure as Hell will try.
    .
    There is really nothing new here. The Clintons put the Biden’s to shame; they squeezed hundreds of millions for their “foundation” (essentially a Clinton slush fund) from foreign individuals and governments to gain access to Hillary when she was secretary of state and running for president.

  31. SteveF (Comment #220089): “Hunter has been ‘investigated’ for multiple years on multiple felonies, but never charged, nor will he be. The corruption and influence pedaling in Washington DC is blatant and is not going to stop.”
    .
    Indeed. But there is a ray of hope: An IRS criminal supervisory agent is seeking whistleblower protection. It seems that he is alleging a coverup in the Hunter Biden case and that a “senior political appointee” perjured himself in testimony before Congress. In this case, I am finding it easy to restrain my tendency to cockeyed optimism.

  32. Cleared the tower and blew up during ascent. The second stage never fired. Musk had a front-row seat. They called it a success?

  34. If at first you don’t succeed…look for someone to blame. Actually, this is likely part to the secret to Musk’s success, to maintain such a high team morale that they are cheering a “partial success”.
    .
    Ken and Angech, I don’t see what you don’t like about Musk. As humans go I can’t think to point to many that were more successful with less personal downsides (who have lived in the last 2000 years).
    .
    In other news there’s theories now to replace general relativity as the cosmological model for gravity in order to eliminate the need for dark matter and dark energy. https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/modified-theory-of-gravity-eliminates-the-need-for-dark-energy/
    .
    Methane is 30% less of a greenhouse gas than previously thought. Apparently they forgot to consider the high frequency absorption properties and only had looked at the low. I kid you not. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/methane-warm-earth-atmosphere-radiation
    .
    If the Ukrainians can succeed in an extraction of their brigades in Bakhmut I would consider the 10-month battle a defensive victory for Ukraine. I hope they can pull it off.

  35. Mike M.,
    ‘Ascent’ is the official term used by SpaceX to describe the stage between launch and first stage separation. It cleared the tower and the first stage never seperated.
    SpaceX official diagram of this flight: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1649096427660886035?s=20
    And to quote the SpaceX narrator on YouTube: “The rocket experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly during ascent.”
    ‘experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly’ means blew up in my book. They may have initiated the detonation, but it blew up during ascent.

  37. Mike M,
    .
    I saw in a video image of the ascending rocket that 4 or 5 of the engines were not ignited (shut down?). I think SpaceX have some work to do on the reliability of their super-efficient Raptor rocket engine.
    .
    I also noted that bad things seemed to be happening in the minute or so before they blew up the rocket….. “wildly out of control” sounds about accurate. We can safely say that manned missions on this rocket are some distance away. 😉

  38. SpaceX launch was a mixed bag. Cleared the tower and didn’t damage it. Most of the engines ran for the full time. Second stage not separating was unfortunate so that part of the test never happened. The trajectory didn’t quite look right either, it seemed to wobble a bit more than other launches.
    .
    But overall a good successful failure which is common in this industry for new products and especially SpaceX. Always fun to watch these as you never know what is going to happen. They have a bunch more in production or almost ready to go so I’d expect another test in the near term.

  39. Tom Scharf,
    That the rocket got up to 20+ miles is a plus. Still, much work to do.
    .
    One thing that is to me puzzling: why have 33 rocket engines? If one blows up, that would seem to doom the flight. Having that many chances of failure doesn’t strike me as having the greatest chance of success.

  40. SteveF (Comment #220103): “One thing that is to me puzzling: why have 33 rocket engines?”
    .
    Redundancy. Having a few stop working is not a big deal.

    The Saturn 5 had that capability. Beyond the earliest part of the flight, an engine could go out without ending the mission. It happened on Apollo 13.

  41. Jim stopped by walmart hoping to restock his stash of PBR. The beer fridge was bare.
    No PBR at Walmart: no 12 packs, 6 packs 30 packs. So he looked for Coors. None. No Saint Paulie Girl.

    He did find plenty of “TranHeiserBusch” and more expensive higher alcohol craft beers. (He read that term from commenters at Fox news.)

    He also found some Old Style, which he bought.
    Our guess is grocery-store beer afficionados are really not buying Budweiser. And that’s the demographic that matters when you sell grocery-store beer (aka: Bud.)

    I haven’t yet read the effect on sales. But if this is the situation at Walmart it looks suspiciously like it’s not moving.

  42. Mike M,
    I get that. Still, a catastrophic failure of a single engine would seem to doom the flight. When they did a static fire test a few weeks ago a few of the engines did not light. If I were Musk, that would have given me pause: failure or two or three in a ground test suggests real
    problems with reliability of the entire system. I hope they got enough information to reduce the risk of failure in the next flight.
    .
    I also get that more small engines are lower in weight and higher in theoretical thrust efficiency than fewer larger engines. Living creatures never grew to 1 KM size because strength scales as the square of size, while weight scales as the cube…. a creature much heavier than brontosaurus would overwhelm the physical strength of living materials. A greater number of smaller engines can tolerate higher internal pressures and give higher thermal efficiencies. Still, the rocket engines have to never blow up for the “many-engine” approach to be practical. I am sure Musk et al understand this.

  45. TranHeiserBusch, ha ha. That was an own goal by an out of touch Team Blue marketing “expert”. Expand your product’s base by alienating the existing base. I guess that’s how they teach it at Harvard. The (over) reaction has been overplayed by Fox.
    .
    C’mon man! Pabst Blue Ribbon. Worst beer ever. Of course I drank Strohs as a child so YMMV.

  46. Ron Graf,
    Thanks. Would never have figured that out. Never drank it…. likely never will.

  47. SteveF (Comment #220106),

    I have never heard of a rocket engine blowing up, by which I think you mean destroying everything around it. If that is a significant failure mode that does not increase with size, then that would argue against multiple engines. I don’t know the answer to that,but I am certain that Elon Musk knows.

  48. I find it interesting that the MSM is no longer in favor of leaks and revealing government lies and misdirection. The media has leaked and so have our security agencies when it has fit their agendas.

    I see the current leaks as helpful in understanding world developments, but I guess the media wants to become a fourth branch of government – at least when the Democrats are in power. Ellsworth never served time and was treated as a hero, but I suspect the fate of the current leaker will be very different.

  49. Lucia,
    The CEO has already sort-of-but-not-really apologized. It was exactly as honest an apology as Bill Clinton apologizing about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Associating a beer with a trans-gender influencer is so very stupid that only a 20-something numbskull who has not a clue about the world could imagine it was a good idea.
    .
    Businesses should stay 100% out of politics.
    .
    Sadly, many CEO’s are too foolish to understand that alienating half your customers is not a good idea. They will throw the 20-somethings under the bus and back away from the worst of the idiocy, claiming personal innocence, of course. They are no more innocent than Bill Clinton. They are just plain incompetent.

  50. These early Starship prototypes are disposable. They literally want to get this one off the pad for the next test. Of course blowing up millions of dollars of hardware without any test outcome is never optimal. SpaceX is as much about building rocket factories as rockets.
    .
    The engines are designed to shutdown before they go into a catastrophic failure. It looks like they may have let a few run in less than perfect mode on this launch, maybe because the numbers got critical. I expect this will get better quickly.

  51. Matt Taibbi commented that he is still outraged that internal leaks by the usual suspects of secret info is treated as news by the media, but it is a high level national security espionage charge for regular people. I agree with this, and the fix is fully investigating and charging the internal leakers to the media and sending them to prison also.
    .
    EDIT: Just in time to prove my point:
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/journalist-matt-taibbi-threatened-prison-time-perjury-top-democrat-over-twitter-files-testimony
    “Independent journalist Matt Taibbi is being threatened with jail time by a top Democrat on Capitol Hill over testimony he gave about his reporting on the Twitter Files.

    Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, sent a letter to Taibbi regarding a comment he told lawmakers, which she alleged included an error that was previously propped up by MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan in a tense interview exchange regarding the name of one of the federal agencies swept up in the Twitter Files.”

  52. Tom Scharf,
    “…and the fix is fully investigating and charging the internal leakers to the media and sending them to prison also.”
    .
    Were it to happen, it would be an excellent development. I rather suspect it won’t.
    .
    Really, what high government official has been charged with a felony for leaking of information? Say, during the 4 years of the Trump administration? I know of none in spite of hundreds of leaks to damage Trump. Our execrable attorney general Garland will never allow the prosecution of a case against anyone who supports Biden administration policies. I am sure that scumbag will never allow prosecution of a bureaucrat who is supportive of the left (AKA virtually all). The only way to stop the madness is to stop electing leftists.

  54. SteveF

    The CEO has already sort-of-but-not-really apologized. It was exactly as honest an apology as Bill Clinton apologizing about having sex with Monica Lewinsky.

    Yes. I heard it. It was a classic “not-pology”.
    I just rolled my eyes. Unfortunately, in the first place, the gesture was an attempt at PR and advertising.
    .
    But … well… like it or not, what is the market for inexpensive supermarket beer? That’s what Bud and Bud light are? And looking at the usual ads, it’s been aimed at more “heart on your sleeve, fly over country, middle america”. With respect to the trans-issue, the most useful approachs was “stay far, far away from that” and “for all practical purposes pretend it doesn’t exist”. They could just keep on with the Clydesdales, cute dogs, lizards and so on.
    .
    Once the stepped in the pile of s*it, there really was no good way out. There are people who are angry they sent the special beer cans to the trans influencer. But there will be others who will also be unhappy if they are, in the end, “mean” to a person for what is, ultimately, “no good reason”. So, the “apology” couldn’t be a real sincere one– because, that would sort of sound mean and kinda-sort-hateful to Mulvany alienating one group. And no apology was going to alienate the people who were already alienated. The PR harm caused the moment Mulvaney got the cans was irreversible (at least short term.)
    .
    It’s hard to believe someone on the marketing group didn’t see the problem with stepping into the whole “trans” discussion and that that problem was totally unnecessary. They could just ignore Dylan Mulvaney just like the ignore nearly everyone in the world!!!
    .
    On PBR– Jim likes it better than Bud (actually so do I.) It’s a “grocery store beer”– lowish alcohol. Not overly hopped. It’s no craft beer. But …. I don’t know… if some people like ginger ale, root beer, orange soda, I don’t know why some can’t like PBR!
    .
    I assume Walmart will sort out its supplies. But at least right now, the evidence in the store suggests that Bud is just sitting there….. and the obvious alternatives are selling out leaving shelves empty. Maybe it’s just our Walmart. But the fact is, Walmart is very good at shifting supplies to stores where they sell if they can do so.
    .
    I don’t know how long this dip in Bud sales will last. Typically people forget. But we’ll see.

  55. Sad story, I saw the Challenger Space Shuttle blow up from my office in Sarasota. There was no doubt. We were all devastated. From the Rogers Commission:
    “Their investigation revealed that the O-ring seal on Challenger’s solid rocket booster, which had become brittle in the cold temperatures, failed. Flames then broke out of the booster and damaged the external fuel tank, causing the spacecraft to explode and disintegrate.”
    That was not what happened today, but it ended in a big fireball, just the same.
    Two different views of the Starship Explosion from NASA and the WSJ:
    Video: Watch Elon Musk’s Rocket Explode After Launch | WSJ
    https://youtu.be/bl7IqyEyqhY
    SpaceX Starship Test Flight Launch Ends in Explosion/ NASA
    https://youtu.be/THkSvpyoJ20

  56. Russell, I remember watching the hearing on what happened.
    .
    Discussion was going around regarding the o rings being affected by cold or not. Much back and forth.
    .
    Richard Feynman, who was sitting on the hearing, got tired of the exchange, picked up an o ring, dropped it into a container of ice water, stirred it around, took it out and hit it. The o ring cracked from the cold.
    .
    I still refer to Richards books for getting through life. If you haven’t read them, you are missing out on a truly fascinating experience.

  58. Lucia,
    My local Walmart and Target are all fully stocked with PBR and Coors. A few sizes of Miller Light are out of stock.

  59. SteveF: “I am sure that scumbag will never allow prosecution of a bureaucrat who is supportive of the left (AKA virtually all). The only way to stop the madness is to stop electing leftists.”
    .
    This best message that the GOP has for the election is calling out the weaponization of government. All the people that are center left, like pro choice suburban moms, can be appealed to on the fairness argument. The irony of the Dem weaponizing the committee to investigate weaponization is a perfect example to bring up, especially since the person attacked is a center left Dem who came is calling out government weaponization.
    .
    Ken, I think you meant Daniel Ellsberg (not Ellsworth). But yes, I was thinking the same comparison. Also, a NYT reporter quickly deleted his tweet that said the only difference between being a landmark hero whistleblower and a traitor is whether or not you approach the NYT with your goods.

  60. Lucia,
    I see three glaring problems in the Bud Lite fiasco:

    1) Just about the only reason most Bud Lite drinkers buy that specific beer, instead of some very similar beer, is because of advertising which targets them with affirmation. “Yes, what you drive, what you like to watch (football!), what you like to do, and what you think are all OK…. and this Bud Lite’s for you!” Thinking a very odd looking trans person being associated with the brand would attract more beer drinkers can only be described as near infinite stupidity. “See, you’re just as good as this trans person!” doesn’t work.
    .
    2) Hiring and promoting anyone who has near infinite stupidity is only possible in an organization run by similarly stupid people.
    .
    3) The fish rots from the head down. Everyone from the CEO to the genius who signed the nutty trans person to a marketing deal ought to get fired if this impacts cash flow, as it likely will.

  61. Did you see the chunks of concrete flying up during launch? I wonder if any of those hit the engines and caused the five to fail?

  62. Mike M,
    I agree, the best approach is for the GOP to point out the crazy policies and how Democrats use government to punish opponents and reward friends. What they are doing, which is mostly 1) trying to put in place profoundly unpopular laws that effectively prohibit abortion and 2) telling old people that we have to cut Social Security benefits in several years, is a perfect formula to lose both houses of Congress and the presidency. Even DeSantis has gone a little nutty, signing a “heartbeat” 6-week abortion ban which is unpopular in red-state Florida. Republicans guarantee they will lose everything in 2024 if they do what their most extreme supporters want, and that looks like what they plan to do.

  63. Rick A,
    Did not see that, but losing 5 of 33 engines, mostly on one side, sure would appear to make control iffy. I hope SpaceX offers an analysis of the failure.

  64. Ron Graf (Comment #220125): “This best message that the GOP has for the election is calling out the weaponization of government. All the people that are center left, like pro choice suburban moms, can be appealed to on the fairness argument.”
    .
    I very much doubt that. The weaponization message riles up the GoP base. Maybe some people in center see how it threatens everyone. But by-and-large,left of center people think that the “insurrectionists” are getting what they deserve. Trump is getting what he deserves. Etc. Having the MSM as your propaganda arm has big advantages.

  65. SteveF (Comment #220128): “What they are doing, which is mostly 1) trying to put in place profoundly unpopular laws that effectively prohibit abortion and 2) telling old people that we have to cut Social Security benefits in several years, is a perfect formula to lose both houses of Congress and the presidency.”
    .
    Except that is not what they are doing. That is what the media tell people Republicans are doing while ignoring most of what Republicans seek to accomplish.
    ———–

    Addition: Can you provide evidence for “profoundly unpopular? I can’t find poll results that include the exact question asked.

  67. MikeM,
    On abortion.
    It doesn’t take much to find that the idea of making abortion illegal in all circumstances is unpopular. Here’s gallup:
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
    That position has been around and below 20% for decades. It’s recently had a dip in “popularity”, likely because the possibility it could happen is more real than in the past. So the sub-group of people who thought it might be ok in theory are peeling away when it might actually happen in practice.
    .
    Legal in some circumstances has always been the most popular position. Politically viable positions need to match that.
    .
    You can find other polls. The numbers will shift a bit one way or the other. But this has been the range of thinking for such a long, long time, and it’s so stable it’s almost ridiculous to ask for proof by a poll.
    .
    On SSN: cutting SSN is the third rail of politics. People over 50 want “their” money.

  69. Mike M,
    There is limited polling on Florida’s previous (2022) abortion law (limiting abortion to 15 weeks), and no polling yet on the new “heartbeat” 6-week law. Opposition to the 15 week law was 55% of voters, which grew to 60% opposition when voters were informed there is no exception for rape or incest. 34% supported the bill completely, and 6% had no opinion. That is not far from what you might expect: there is no widespread support for abortion bans in most states.
    .
    I have to believe the 6-week Florida law (effectively a ban, since many women don’t even know they are pregnant) will be less popular than the 15 week ban. There is a broad consensus in the country, as many surveys have shown, that supports early abortion, and only very limited support for effective bans (like Florida now has). Florida’s abortion data (required reporting) showed that last year ~80% of abortions were before 12 weeks and only a tiny fraction after 15 weeks, with the large majority of those due to either “severe malformity” or maternal health issues.
    .
    I predict that Republicans will lose the House in 2024 if they remain hell-bent on effectively banning abortions. It is a loser issue for them, and lose they will. They need to pull back and think clearly.

  70. BTW, by a couple minutes into flight, 8 of the 33 engines on the SpaceX rocket were out. Unless there is some external cause for multiple failures (like physical damage from flying chunks of concrete on the launch pad), that is a terrible rate for internally caused failures (24%). I think SpaceX likely has a lot of work ahead of them to make this rocket practical. I wish them luck, but wow.

  71. Lucia,
    It is possible to avoid SS insolvency well in advance of when that will happen, but it will require compromise and consensus, which are rare in Washington DC. Democrats (surprise!) want to raise taxes, including effective wealth confiscation, to fund SS, while republicans (surprise!) want to reduce net benefits either by advancing the age for eligibility or placing means tests on benefits. I don’t see a compromise happening, so whichever party is in control of Congress as SS approaches running out of money will impose their preferred solution. My guess: much higher taxes before 2032.

  73. SteveF

    I have to believe the 6-week Florida law (effectively a ban, since many women don’t even know they are pregnant) will be less popular than the 15 week ban.

    Yep. I think the 15 week ban can pass. I would not support a 6 week ban. Never. This is important enough to me to affect my vote.

    I”m also against any law that permits “woman’s choice” abortion after 24 weeks. By then, a woman should have decided and been able to act.

    I have a pretty big window for acceptable law.

    But it should be choice up to the moment of delivery and but choice should be permitted up to at least 12 weeks. A politician who bans “women’s choice” earlier than 12 weeks or permits it after 24 is not getting my vote.

  74. lucia (Comment #220133): “It doesn’t take much to find that the idea of making abortion illegal in all circumstances is unpopular.”
    .
    Sure. But the Florida law does not do that. And support seems to vary quite a bit by state.
    .
    lucia: “Legal in some circumstances has always been the most popular position. Politically viable positions need to match that.”
    .
    Indeed. But that is nothing like a consensus since those opposed to that position are very strongly opposed on both sides, and among those who agree with that position there is little agreement on which circumstances are acceptable.
    .
    The Democrat position, endorsed publicly by virtually all Dem politicians, is truly extreme. So it is not like the Republicans are extreme and the Democrats reasonable. But you would never know that from the MSM.
    .
    All Republicans get labelled extremist no matter their position on the issue. When a Republican takes a moderate position, the main effect is to aggravate the base.
    .
    Yes, that hurts Republicans at the ballot box. But it is not obvious what can be done about it.

  75. Lucia,
    “who are you and me”
    .
    Well, ya, I am an old fogy. But I pay a lot more in taxes than any benefits I receive, and I suspect always will. It is very likely to only become more unfavorable to me in the next several years.

  76. MikeM,
    Sure, it doesn’t ban it from day 1. But we know outright bans are unpopular. And Steve has pointed to a poll that shows this law– which he calls “effective ban” is widly unpopular. Not as unpopular as it likely would have been if it was from day 1, but it’s still wildly unpopular.

    Indeed. But that is nothing like a consensus since those opposed to that position are very strongly opposed on both sides,

    Were we discussing “what the consensus is?” Nope. we were discussing what position was unpopular. Whether or not there is a consensus, abortion bans are wildly unpopular. Trying to change the question doesn’t change that fact.
    .

    The Democrat position, endorsed publicly by virtually all Dem politicians, is truly extreme.

    Oh? What position is that? You are leaving me to guess.
    .
    As far as I can tell, most of then don’t explicitly state the “extreme” position you claim is their position. But then, your leaving me to guess what that is. Senator Duckworth didn’t state an “extreme” position. She blasted her opponent for holding the very unpopular position of being against abortion in all cases. And she gives reasons why abortions should be permitted up to 20 weeks– it’s because there could be undetected abnormalities (especially in IVF.) And she wants to be sure any bill contains specific language to protect women in the event of a need for D&C’s after a miscarriage.
    .
    These aren’t “extreme” positions. They fall in the window of legality I think makes sense to discuss. Including language to make sure necessary procedures aren’t banned is also not ‘extreme’. Maybe it’s unnecessary– but including specific language to make sure something doesn’t go awry due to misinterpretation is done all the time.
    .
    So at least one Democrat hasn’t aired a position that is “extreme”. Well… unless you consider permitting abortion for women’s choice up to 20 weeks is extreme. Of inclusind clarifying language is extreme.
    .
    Or perhaps you are reading her mind and ‘just know’ her position is more extreme than she states. Maybe it is. But this is politics, and she’s not pushing it or airing it. If GOP politicians want to win, they shouldn’t push or air those extreme views. Pick one that is not widly unpopular. Then let those who have “extreme” views be forced to air them.

  77. Mike M,
    “Yes, that hurts Republicans at the ballot box. But it is not obvious what can be done about it.”
    .
    I might gently suggest they stop taking extreme positions on restricting abortion. If you add up the ~50% who hold moderate positions on abortion and the ~25% who support the extreme position of the Democrats, then you have a ~75% majority available to kick Republicans out of office. And that is exactly what will happen in lots of places.
    .
    Republicans can satisfy 20% of the electorate (all in their “base”) or they can win elections in swing districts and states. They can’t do both.
    .
    BTW, the 6-week “heartbeat” law in Florida is effectively a ban, since most women will not even know they are pregnant until past the 6-week window. Most women in Florida who want an abortion will go elsewhere to get one, so the impact on the total number of abortions will be small. The impact on Republican electoral chances will not be small. DeSantis dropped the ball on this issue; 15 weeks is an electoral winner, 6 weeks is not.

  78. MikeM

    All Republicans get labelled extremist no matter their position on the issue. When a Republican takes a moderate position, the main effect is to aggravate the base.

    Ehrmmm… no. Or more specifically “labelled by whom?”
    Only the ones that are actively promoting unpopular bills are getting dinged for the unpopular bill.
    .
    As for aggravating the base: The base is not going to vote for someone who pushes abortion on the demand up to delivery (which I think is the ‘extreme’ position you are claiming Dem’s hold. But you haven’t actually said that– you are leaving me guessing what you consider ‘extreme’ or what you think they said.)
    .
    But voters don’t support that view. In Illinois, Duckworth only stated the truth: which was her opponent was for a bill that limited to 15 weeks. And Duckworth gave an argument for 20 weeks. If the opponent had been willing to accept 20 weeks, that would have either taken that issue off the table (since they agreed) or it would have forced Duckworth to “reveal” some other agenda.
    .
    Voters went for Duckworth. Abortion was likely not the main issue. But it was part of the issue.
    .
    I’m a swing voter. This issue is sufficiently important to make a difference in my vote. I read the arguments. Given Duckworth’s reason, I’d tend to move my dial toward 20 weeks. And vote for her. (I don’t like her other views– but on abortion, I favor her argument.)

  79. I should add: on Duckworth’s argument, the 15 week law could have been tweaked. Include the language for D&C’s. Include language for DNA abnormalities. Leave 15 week limite on “womans’ choice”. This is not hard if you are willing to be realisitic rather than just “dream” people all secretly hold your view that abortion should be banned. They. Don’t.

  80. Lucia,
    “unless you consider permitting abortion for women’s choice up to 20 weeks is extreme.”
    .
    Lots of people, including many in the ~50% who hold moderate views on abortion, do think 20 weeks is extreme. Of course, the real question before the voters is: which view is more extreme, no abortion under nearly all circumstances, or abortion allowed to 20 weeks? I suspect most voters are more strongly opposed to an outright ban (or nearly an outright ban) than opposed to a 20 week limit. If Republicans want to win elections in close districts and close states, they have no choice but to walk back from the “ban abortion” position so many have taken. I guess they are just too terrified of their most extreme “base” supporters to do that.

  81. lucia (Comment #220142): “So at least one Democrat hasn’t aired a position that is “extreme”. Well… unless you consider permitting abortion for women’s choice up to 20 weeks is extreme. Of inclusind clarifying language is extreme.”
    .
    Yeah, you’re right.That one would seem to be Joe Manchin.

    Duckworth co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act:
    https://www.vox.com/2022/5/11/23065959/senate-abortion-vote-womens-health-protection-act

    That act would have prohibited any restrictions on abortion prior to fetal viability. And it would allow at least some abortions after that. As near as I can tell, the decision as to whether a post-viability abortion would have been allowed was to be left up to the woman and her doctor, with no second guessing by the state. So the effect would have been to allow abortion right up to birth. The only Dem to vote against it in the Senate was Manchin. Oh, it looks like one Democrat in the House voted against it, so that makes two.
    .
    It could be that my impression of how unanimous and extreme the Dems are is colored by the Dems here in New Mexico and by Republican spin. But not by much.

  83. Mike M: “When a Republican takes a moderate position, the main effect is to aggravate the base.” “That is what the media tell people Republicans are doing…”
    .
    Since there is no short term way to correct the media problem the GOP is left to make the best arguments they can on all issues. But the main focus should be, of course, on the issues that can most easily appeal to the most voters as well as the ones the media is distorting the most. If the religious right can accept Trump’s lack of reverence I think they can also understand a compromise on abortion. The argument the GOP candidate should make to the base in the primaries should be the first priority is to counter the war on Christianity, the Constitution and the American way being waged by the left, which now controls most levers of power, including the administrative state and their mouthpiece, the MSM.
    .
    Lucia: “I’m a swing voter. This issue is sufficiently important to make a difference in my vote.”
    .
    Lucia, I am daring to guess that your personal stake in the abortion issue is no longer any more than mine. If that is the case do you really feel secure to have Biden or Harris as president and a SCOTUS to reinstate Roe if that is what it took to insure that every state had choice? Although I agree with Steve on the 6-week law as a loser and as unnecessary as Lindsey Graham’s pitch last October to pass a federal abortion ban, I still am disappointed that the center voters do not see the troubles America is in dwarf the abortion legality week.
    .
    Edit: That last point should be the main GOP message on abortion.

  84. Ron Graf,
    The sensible federal message for Republicans would be to say nothing about abortion beyond that it is a state issue, not a national one. Lindsey Graham strikes me as going nutty in his old age.
    .
    At the state level, Republicans should be sensible enough to adopt positions which are acceptable to the majority of voters in their states.

  85. Ron Graf (Comment #220150): “Since there is no short term way to correct the media problem the GOP is left to make the best arguments they can on all issues.”
    .
    But they need to focus on what they can get past the media filter.
    .
    Ron Graf: “If the religious right can accept Trump’s lack of reverence I think they can also understand a compromise on abortion.”
    .
    Wrong. One has nothing to do with the other. It amounts to telling them that is they are OK with mean tweets, they should be OK with murder, which how they view abortion.
    .
    Ron Graf: “The argument the GOP candidate should make to the base in the primaries should be the first priority is to counter the war on Christianity, the Constitution and the American way being waged by the left”.
    .
    If by that you mean that we must pick our battles, then I agree. But on abortion that only works with people who don’t see abortion as murder. Otherwise it amounts to saying “let’s accept the murder of a few million more babies while we deal with the more important stuff”.

  86. SteveF (Comment #220151),

    I really wish it were that simple. But the fact that a large portion (if not a majority) of Republican voters see abortion as murder makes it a lot more complicated.
    .
    In New Mexico, our governor got the legislature to legalize abortion right up to birth with no restrictions. There might have been a few Dems who voted against it, but I think it was only one or two. Her Republican opponent adopted a sensible position on abortion while saying that he was personally opposed to it. That made him the extremist.
    .
    Sadly, sensible does not appear to be an option.

  87. I don’t think this a good idea. Musk has begun removing the Blue Check marks from legacy accounts that will not pay his $8 a month. A lot of well know people are rebelling.
    I don’t usually agree with Malissa Milano but here She makes a point: “So by revoking my blue check mark because I wouldn’t pay some arbitrary fee, someone can just be me and say a bunch of bullshit. Does that mean Twitter and @elonmusk are liable for defamation or identity theft or fraud?”. Everyday users like me depend on the check marks to be sure we are reading the real person. If a lot of popular names don’t participate, we will have no idea who is posting things. I think it will lead to a lot less screen time (and a lot less ad revenue).

  88. Hah! Musk is starting to personally pay for some of the recalcitrant VIPs. (Elon Musk confirms the Twitter Blue subscriptions he’s personally paying for are William Shatner, LeBron James and Stephen King.“

  89. Mike M: “…Republican voters see abortion as murder makes it a lot more complicated.”
    .
    Yes, but the appeal can be done.

    Solomon, King David’s son, was required to decide which of two women was the mother of a baby, when each of them claimed parenthood. Both had recently given birth, but one child had died. The story is recounted in the Old Testament (I Kings 3: 16-28).
    Solomon announced that the child should be cut in two, so that each mother should have half. The real mother, unable to bear her son being killed, immediately offered it to the other woman, to save the child’s life, whereas the other agreed to the proposal. The false mother was thus exposed, and Solomon returned the living child to its real mother.

    .
    The GOP leader could then say, for example: “Compromise in the Bible is a virtue even when it came to the willingness of a mother to give up her child to a false mother. We now ask those of the highest convictions to be willing to give up the lives of the 12-week conceived to protect the lives of the 12+ week conceived. If this brings politicians that believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights then there is more chance that future generations will not need to sacrifice any of the conceived. Because we will have schools that don’t destroy the values that brought America to be great”…etc..etc..(all rights relinquished).

  90. SteveF

    Lots of people, including many in the ~50% who hold moderate views on abortion, do think 20 weeks is extreme.

    Perhaps. But they he should just say it. Just decreeing something extreme and then not describing the position in any other way is silly.
    .
    I’m happy to say I could tolerate up the law being anywhere between 12 weeks and 24 weeks. But hearing Duckworth’s argument, I now can also say: I need caveats if it’s 12. Include language to make sure some non-abortion procedures required to deal with miscarriage. Permit abortion in the event of obvious deformities– or DNA evidence of certain ailments. And always permit abortion if continued pregnancy is life threatening or threatening to physical health of the mother. (I’m not so lenient on mental health.) Need two opinions– fine. If there is really deformity or physical threat to health you’ll be able to get them.
    .
    I’m not going to hide behind just calling people “extreme”. I’m going to say what I consider extreme. Could I change my mind? Sure.

    Of course, the real question before the voters is: which view is more extreme, no abortion under nearly all circumstances, or abortion allowed to 20 weeks?

    Yes. But to debate it someone needs to state their position and also make the other party state theirs.
    .

    If Republicans want to win elections in close districts and close states, they have no choice but to walk back from the “ban abortion” position so many have taken. I guess they are just too terrified of their most extreme “base” supporters to do that.

    The reality is that if manhy GOP reps do take an extreme position, push it in the form of a bill, and won’t discuss any less extreme ones, they allow people on the other side to “win” the argument.
    .
    Because the other side doesn’t have to state their position. They just point out the bill the GOP side is actually pushing is extreme. If voters agree, that’s it for the GOP.

  91. MikeM
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

    (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

    (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

    (10) A limitation on a health care provider’s ability to provide immediate abortion services when that health care provider believes, based on the good-faith medical judgment of the provider, that delay would pose a risk to the patient’s health.

    Viability is currently near 24 week. So I’m fine with a law permitting that.
    .

    So the effect would have been to allow abortion right up to birth.

    If the mother’s life or health are at risk. Sure.
    .
    I’m fine with a law permitting abortion when a medical provider has a good faith judgement the pregnancy poses a risk to the life or physical health of the patient. I don’t think women should be forced to carry a preganancy if it’s going to kill them, cripple them or impair them physically.
    .
    I’m not sure this should be done at the federal level though. I’d prefer state by state.

  92. Ron

    Lucia, I am daring to guess that your personal stake in the abortion issue is no longer any more than mine. If that is the case do you really feel secure to have Biden or Harris as president and a SCOTUS to reinstate Roe if that is what it took to insure that every state had choice? Although I agree with Steve on the 6-week law as a loser and as unnecessary as Lindsey Graham’s pitch last October to pass a federal abortion ban, I still am disappointed that the center voters do not see the troubles America is in dwarf the abortion legality week.

    Huh?
    First, I would not cry if something Roe-like was reinstated.
    I haven’t said I’m voting for Biden or Harris. There are other choices.
    And even if Biden or Harris are voted in, it would be a freakin’ long time before something Roe-like was reinstated. Getting cases to the court requires time.

  93. Russel

    I don’t usually agree with Malissa Milano but here She makes a point: “So by revoking my blue check mark because I wouldn’t pay some arbitrary fee, someone can just be me and say a bunch of bullshit. Does that mean Twitter and @elonmusk are liable for defamation or identity theft or fraud?”

    Milano is showing her ignorace here. Impersonation is a violation of twitter rules whether or not someone has a ‘blue check’. And the do ban people for that.
    .
    She can pay the $8 or not. Up to her.
    .
    Lots of celebrities use twitter for business purposes. Or for to advance their own ideological ends. Under the circumstances the check mark is likely worth more than the $8. But if it’s not, they are free to not pay it and also free to not use twitter.
    .
    I’ve sometimes agreed with Milano. But on this, she’s wrong. Yawn.

  94. Lucia,
    “Getting cases to the court requires time.”
    .
    Yes, and the court can just refuse to hear cases on issues it considers settled and issue “per curium” opinions, without actually hearing anything. IMO, anyone who thinks Roe V Wade or similar is going to be “reinstituted” by the court any time in the next decade needs to have their head examined.

  95. Mike M,
    “sensible does not appear to be an option”
    .
    If Republican candidates ascribe to that, they will lose in every swing district/state. This is not a complicated question: either you want 1) Republicans elected (who will make early abortion legal but late abortion illegal), or 2) you want Democrats elected who will NEVER support any meaningful restriction on abortion, up to the onset of labor.
    .
    I keep arriving at the conclusion that those opposed to abortions (as I generally am) are either unbelievably stupid or have lost their collective minds. My question is: do they want to reduce abortions, or do they what to increase them? Everything they do indicates they want to increase abortions by electing Democrats everywhere. This is madness.

  96. Lucia: “First, I would not cry if something Roe-like was reinstated.”
    .
    Yes, Roe was 24 weeks. My point was that you say you are likely willing to flush America down the toilet on many fronts as long as we have something like Roe. I personally don’t understand this elevation of the need to preserve abortion on demand everywhere in the US from a presumably rational and non-religious voter. Roe didn’t bother me except for its unconstitutionality.
    .
    “I haven’t said I’m voting for Biden or Harris.”
    .
    There is a non-trivial chance you will not have a choice in order to preserve your single voting issue stance. Using that hypothetical would you really pull the lever for them?
    .
    “And even if Biden or Harris are voted in, it would be a freakin’ long time before something Roe-like was reinstated. Getting cases to the court requires time.”
    .
    It took Biden one day to open the border and cancel US energy independence. It took him 9 months to change the US’s deterrence posture on the geopolitical stage. Things happen fast nowadays.

  97. Ron,

    My point was that you say you are likely willing to flush America down the toilet on many fronts as long as we have something like Roe.

    This is why I love communicating with you and find speaking with you so rewarding.
    /SARC
    Lucia has said absolutely nothing to imply this. Why don’t you ask her, I doubt she supported Roe Vs Wade in the first place. Ask what her position is instead of assuming. You might learn something, who knows.

  98. There is a non-trivial chance you will not have a choice in order to preserve your single voting issue stance. Using that hypothetical would you really pull the lever for them?

    More classy commenting here. Somehow I sincerely doubt Lucia is a single issue voter.

  99. Mike M,
    “let’s accept the murder of a few million more babies while we deal with the more important stuff”
    .
    Ummm… ya. The alternative is to accept the murder of many MORE millions of babies AND take the country down in flames in the process by electing crazy left Democrats who will do enormous damage to the country on a multitude of issues, not just on abortion.
    .
    I simply can’t understand how stupid some people who call themselves Republicans are. Democrats: never criticize or challenge even the most absurd democrat. Republicans: destroy any Republican candidate who does not agree with your personal nutty agenda 100%.
    .
    You can guess which party is likely to prevail in elections.

  100. Ron Graf,
    “My point was that you say you are likely willing to flush America down the toilet on many fronts as long as we have something like Roe.”
    .
    It is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. You have obviously undergone a complete recto-cranial inversion. I suggest you see a proctologist who has a large vacuum pump available.

  101. Lucia: “I’m a swing voter. This issue is sufficiently important to make a difference in my vote.”
    .
    I apologize profusely if I got the wrong impression from this comment and others Lucia is arguing. I thought we were talking about GOP prospects for electability as the main topic, and abortion was the puzzle of why GOP is uncompromising. Then I heard Lucia say she was not compromising but I will let her correct this. Thanks Mark and Steve. I see how easy it is to be taken out of context.

  102. Here is an excellent speech on the trans social epidemic by the journalist and author that is sounding the alarm to parents.
    .
    I think this issue is more important than abortion (as well as national security, weaponization of government, free speech, Orwellian big tech marriage to USIC and financial collapse of the west).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWbxIFC0Q2o

  103. Here is a pretty good discussion on the SpaceX launch and how their approach differs from NASA’s:
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/

    Fortunately for SpaceX, the company can afford to “fail.” It can do so because it has already built three more Super Heavy rockets that are nearly ready to fly. In fact, SpaceX can build 10 Super Heavy first stages in the time it takes NASA to build a single SLS rocket. If the first five fail but the next five succeed, which is a better outcome? How about in two or three years, when SpaceX is launching and landing a dozen or more Super Heavy rockets while NASA’s method allows it a single launch a year?

    The author thinks biggest issue might be launch pad damage that will likely require both a rebuild and re-engineering.

  104. Ron

    Yes, Roe was 24 weeks. My point was that you say you are likely willing to flush America down the toilet on many fronts as long as we have something like Roe.

    Huh? No. I didn’t say that.

    There is a non-trivial chance you will not have a choice in order to preserve your single voting issue stance. Using that hypothetical would you really pull the lever for them?

    Also: Huh? I’ve voted 3rd party plenty of times.

    It took Biden one day to open the border and cancel US energy independence.

    That did not involve getting someone to retire from SCOTUS, nominating a new person,getting an appropriate case to SCOTUS and having them rule. Some things have always happened fast. And somethings don’t. This ain’t new.

  105. Ron Graf

    Then I heard Lucia say she was not compromising but I will let her correct this.

    I didn’t say I was not compromising.
    The statement you quoted doesn’t come anywhere close to “not compromising”. Nothing close to that.

    Lucia: “I’m a swing voter. This issue is sufficiently important to make a difference in my vote.”

    An issue being important enough to matter doesn’t mean it’s the only issue that matters. Some issues don’t matter to me at all. This one matters enough for me to weigh it in the balance. That’s not being ‘uncompromising’. Moreover, I have absolutely no idea why anyone would think so.

  106. Well said Kelly….
    Megyn Kelly @megynkelly “Bud Light waves the white flag, ousting disastrous VP of Mktg, weeks after destroying its own brand by going woke on gender. Let that be a lesson to other corporations. We’ve HAD IT.”

  107. Lucia: “An issue being important enough to matter doesn’t mean it’s the only issue that matters.”
    .
    Thank you for clarifying. When you were saying the abortion issue was going to swing your vote I misinterpreted that you were like a large number of women who have a red line on abortion (maybe indoctrinated from their vulnerable youth from “war on women” or “creepy men” propaganda) who care little about any other issue. Some of them could not even carry on a conversation about a political issue for lack of knowledge, thus are easy prey to identity politics. Obviously, that is the opposite of you. But I was shocked to hear you say, “Yep. I think the 15 week ban can pass. I would not support a 6 week ban. Never. This is important enough to me to affect my vote.” [my emphasis added]
    .
    Mark, Steve, Lucia, I’m all about learning. Please excuse my brashness in getting to the heart of things. And, I hope to learn what makes people uncompromising and extreme (and even delusional). I know that many others, including the FBI and CIA, have been studying this for decades (but that has not done much good for the public it seems).

  108. In other beer news:

    The Comité Champagne asked for the destruction of a shipment of 2,352 cans [of Miller High Life, the Champagne of Beers] on the grounds that the century-old motto used by the American brewery infringes the protected designation of origin “Champagne.”

    The consignment was intercepted in the Belgian port of Antwerp in early February, a spokesperson at the Belgian Customs Administration said on Friday…

    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/calling-beer-champagne-leaves-french-114313245.html

  109. Ron,
    I didn’t say it was going to swing my vote. I wrote (and you quoted)

    ““I’m a swing voter. This issue is sufficiently important to make a difference in my vote.””

    This is not saying it was going to swing my vote. It says
    (a) I am a swing voter. ‘Cuz I am. I sometimes vote Dem. I sometimes vote GOP. I sometimes vote 3rd party.
    (b) Abortion is an issue I care enough to affect my vote. Some issues aren’t. For example: Gun rights positions don’t affect my vote.
    .

    “Yep. I think the 15 week ban can pass. I would not support a 6 week ban. Never. This is important enough to me to affect my vote. my emphasis added

    I would not support that ban. And it would affect my vote. Yes.
    The verb “to affect” is not the same verb as “to decide”.
    .
    For what it’s worth, politicians who push for things like 6 week bans are often loonie in other ways too. So the choice to not support them is rarely difficult.
    It’s interesting DeSantis signed this in a late night session with no fanfare. He’s got to know this harms his presidential aspirations. That’s very sad for Republicans, since it makes a Trump nomination more likely.

  110. Ron,

    Mark, Steve, Lucia, I’m all about learning. Please excuse my brashness in getting to the heart of things.

    I don’t understand you and I freely admit that. Unfortunately perhaps, I consider you to be rude, and I don’t particularly like you, and I consequently don’t care to make further effort to understand you. The best I can do is try to keep my mouth shut when you comment, except when your ‘brash efforts to get to the heart of things’ strikes me as intolerably rude, at which point I will remark as I did the other day.
    Shrug.

  111. Interesting video of modern-day jumps by the 82nd Airborne “America’s Division”
    Interesting because:
    When the paratroopers line up and the door is opened they all get that far-away stare in their eyes, like the guys who jumped into Normandy on D-Day.
    The parachutes are nothing like the shoots the guys used on D-Day.
    All these paratroopers and all members of the flight crews are women.
    https://youtu.be/zT1qoFNqWTY

  113. Angech,
    In theory Garland could be impeached. It’s been tried before. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
    Even if he were to be removed successfully, I think Brandon’s people would only appoint someone indistinguishable to replace him.

  114. Mark, it’s understandable that if you don’t like someone you will assume the worst about them and have a low threshold of what is “intolerably rude.” Just please everyone note to call me out if I every use an ad hom argument or otherwise try to smear someone, as often done. I forgive anyone who loses control. I realize that some people do. I hope that they will accept that some people are unrestrained from calling out what they see as embarrassingly illogical or inconsistent, even if they might be misunderstanding the person momentarily.
    .
    Lucia, I completely respect the right of anyone to have any opinion but I don’t see the opinions that you have expressed in the past adding up to being a swing voter in today’s environment. I am very curious as to what issues pull you to the Dem side. I guess I was mistaken (as mentioned) in thinking that Dems had you with identify politics thinking that abortion is the most important issue for you because I don’t see what other issues are pulling you in the Dem direction. I am interested in discussion on that between now and 2024.
    .
    Mark, I am also interested to find out why so many here feel the most important issue to them is that Trump stay out of the White House.

  115. lucia (Comment #220176): “I didn’t say it was going to swing my vote.”
    .
    Well, actually:
    .
    lucia (Comment #220139): “A politician who bans “women’s choice” earlier than 12 weeks or permits it after 24 is not getting my vote.”
    .
    I am glad to learn that was just an overstatement of your position. That is something I have done many times myself.

  116. mark bofill (Comment #220180): “Even if he were to be removed successfully, I think Brandon’s people would only appoint someone indistinguishable to replace him.”
    .
    Indeed. But it would still serve as a warning that certain lines must not be crossed. Especially if Garland were to be prosecuted after being removed.
    .
    Impeachment could be useful even if removal is not obtained. It would provide an opportunity to put the misbehaving individual on trial before the public.
    .
    As much as I dislike Garland, I am not yet convinced that he has done something that would merit impeachment. Unlike Mayorkas.

  117. Ron,

    Mark, its understandable that if you don’t like someone you will assume the worst about them and have a low threshold of what is “intolerably rude.” Just please everyone note to please call me out if I every use an ad hom argument or otherwise try to smear someone, as often done. I forgive anyone who loses control. I realize that some people do. I hope that they will accept that some people are unrestrained from calling out what they see as embarrassingly illogical or inconsistent, even if they might be misunderstanding the person momentarily.

    So the (paraphrasing and not quoting) ‘brash behavior to get to the bottom of things’ is either deliberate or it is not. Personally I hope it is, because in that case you might desist if you decide to, whereas if it’s the result of an inability to detect or comprehend when you are being offensive, there is no recourse.
    As for the rest (talking more about Trump), nobody owes you the time of day. I certainly don’t owe you anything. I talk with people who I enjoy talking with. In order to talk with me, you need to demonstrate manners. You’ve established you haven’t by my standards, so I won’t be discussing Trump with you, or much of anything else. You can demonstrate over time that you’ve decided to restrain your ‘brashness in getting to the heart of things’, and maybe I will reconsider.
    No big deal. Who am I anyway that my opinions on Trump should make any difference to you, I’m just some random commenter at Lucia’s obscure little blog. It’s all good.

  118. MikeM

    lucia (Comment #220139): “A politician who bans “women’s choice” earlier than 12 weeks or permits it after 24 is not getting my vote.”

    Heh. Yeah. My real position is a little more nuanced. And yet…. it’s highly unlikely that meant my vote would “swing”. 🙂
    .
    Also: as a practical reality, I usually don’t like multiple positions of either of these candidates. So no “swinging” ends up involved.
    .
    Also: If one candidate bans before 12 weeks and another after 24, I can always vote 3rd party or not vote that specific race. The ballot machine will accept your ballot with a blank in one race. It warns you, but you can do it. I’d nearly also do that in this event: not voting for either of them.
    .
    And, of course, I can vote 3rd party, and frequently do. I’d do that too. So still not voting for either of them.
    .
    I can tell you my support for DeSantis has nosedived on this. The only saving graces for him is he are he is not talking about it and he signed practically in the dead of night like signing was a dirty secret. Still, he didn’t take a stand against a bad law. That’s a very strong ding against him. I’m looking for other non-Trump options.
    .
    This is a very big ding for DeSantis should he make it to the presidential ballot.
    .
    I don’t live in Florida, so I’m obviously not going to be in a position to vote or not vote for him unless he ends up on the primary ballot. So: can’t “swing” that.

  119. Mike M
    I agree with all of that, except possibly Mayorkas. Not saying you are wrong about him, merely that I don’t know enough about his situation to say.

  120. angech, mark bofill,
    .
    It is clear that the execrable Garland, like many other Attorney Generals, sees his job as primarily political in nature: protecting the Bidens from criminal prosecution and the Biden administration and its policies from political attack. Yes, he has been deceptive, and probably willfully misled both the public and Congress with many different statements. He is likely guilty of perjury.
    .
    But any effort to remove him from office would be a waste of political capital and a waste of time. The Senate would never convict and remove him, no matter the offence.
    .
    Were a Republican elected President in 2024, then prosecuting Garland for perjury after Biden is out of office would be possible, and the legal case strong, but also a waste of time: the trial would take place in Washington DC, and Washington DC votes ~90% for Democrats…. he would never be convicted of anything by a Washington DC jury….. same result as prosecution of those behind creating the false “Trump Dossier”.
    .
    We will just have to put up with Garland until he is out of office. Sometimes bad people get away with doing very bad things…. especially democrats in Washington DC.

  121. lucia (Comment #220185): “This is a very big ding for DeSantis should he make it to the presidential ballot.”
    .
    Quite possibly true. Some reasons why he signed the new abortion law:

    (1) He thought it was the right thing to do. I am pretty sure he thinks it was the right thing to do, but that might not be the only reason or even the main reason. If it was the main reason, then he goes up in my eyes despite the fact that I disagree.

    (2) To get the nomination, he needs to peel off Trump voters. Many of those are evangelicals who feel very strongly on abortion. Many are convinced we need a leader who is willing to say “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”.

    (3) It might not make too much difference in the general election, especially if he takes the position that abotion is a state issue and that what is right for Florida might not be right for New York. The people for which abortion access is a big deal probably won’t vote for any Republican.

  122. I’ve arrived at the point where I have more or less resigned myself to the idea that the Democratic candidate will win in 2024. I consequently hope that DeSantis doesn’t even try until after the coming election. Let Trump (hopefully) finish his own political death throes without being able to damage DeSantis’s eventual shot down the road.

  123. Lucia,
    “I can tell you my support for DeSantis has nosedived on this.”
    .
    It was a very bad decision to support the new law, and a worse one to sign it. I can conclude only that either DeSantis honestly thinks it is a good law, or he thinks he can peel away support of the religious right from Trump by supporting an extreme abortion law. Either way, it does reflect poorly on him. DeSantis has weakened support among the very people he needs to defeat Trump in primary contests, and is clearly mistaken if he thinks he can shake Trump’s core of ~35% supporters with an extreme abortion law. IMO, he shot himself in the foot.

  124. (1) He thought it was the right thing to do. I am pretty sure he thinks it was the right thing to do, but that might not be the only reason or even the main reason. If it was the main reason, then he goes up in my eyes despite the fact that I disagree.

    If this is his reason, he goes down in my eyes.

    (2) To get the nomination, he needs to peel off Trump voters. Many of those are evangelicals who feel very strongly on abortion. Many are convinced we need a leader who is willing to say “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”.

    Sure. But he also needs to keep the other voters.

    (3) It might not make too much difference in the general election, especially if he takes the position that abotion is a state issue and that what is right for Florida might not be right for New York. The people for which abortion access is a big deal probably won’t vote for any Republican.

    Yes. If he does that, he doesn’t necessarily lose my vote. And if he explains that he didn’t push or endorse this law, but it was the will of the legislature, and he simply didn’t wish to block it in this case, that will help get my vote. In which case, I won’t view it as him banning the abortions so much as the legislature.
    .
    But this is going to hurt him in the general election because most voters won’t buy this “nuance”.

  126. mark bofill,
    “Let Trump (hopefully) finish his own political death throes without being able to damage DeSantis’s eventual shot down the road.”
    .
    Well, sure, given that Trump is probably unelectable. But OTOH, four more years of an Alzheimer’s patient being controlled/directed by a bunch of lefty extremists is not something good for the country. Add to that the Congressional landslide for Dems that I think a Trump candidacy would cause, and you have the potential for terrible long term damage to the country.
    .
    I keep hoping for a bolt of lighting on a golf course somewhere, but alas, that seems very unlikely.

  127. Steve,

    But OTOH, four more years of an Alzheimer’s patient being controlled/directed by a bunch of lefty extremists is not something good for the country. Add to that the Congressional landslide for Dems that I think a Trump candidacy would cause, and you have the potential for terrible long term damage to the country.

    I wholeheartedly agree. I just don’t believe DeSantis can win the nomination against Trump, in which case all of the points you highlight are essentially unavoidable. I’d just as soon not lose a viable 2028 candidate as well as suffer all the rest if I have a choice.
    Maybe I’m totally wrong (if anyone cares to investigate my commenting history, I am proven wrong much more often than I’m right when it comes to predictions of any sort, certainly including political ones) and DeSantis might win the nomination. Also, maybe it won’t matter if he tries and fails to win the nomination this go round. Don’t know, I just worry.

  128. SteveF

    It was a very bad decision to support the new law, and a worse one to sign it.

    .
    Based on what what steve writes, I’m guessing DeSantis did encourage this bill. Not a plus in my book. This is going to be a big negative at the national level. Big.
    .
    No “he thinks it’s right” won’t turn it into a plus. Sincerity is good in a person. But Gun Rights people don’t vote for those who pass gun bans on the grounds that “it’s ok because he thinks that’s right.” And vice versa. And most Americans wouldn’t vote for a Sharia favoring candidate who pushed for laws to ban women from education even if the candidate sincerely “thought that was right”.
    .
    Doing what you think is right is morally admirable. But you can’t expect someone to vote for you if they think what you did was wrong.

  129. Lucia,
    Even NPR says DeSantis was not a vocal advocate:

    DeSantis, who often places himself on the front lines of culture war issues, had said he backs the six-week ban but had appeared uncharacteristically tepid on the bill. He has often said, “We welcome pro-life legislation,” when asked about the policy.

    It was probably mainly a political calculation to sign the bill. I still think it was a mistake that will likely make defeating Trump in primary elections impossible.
    .
    Saying effectively “I am going to force my values on you” only works for Democrats…. they embrace that stand almost 100%. It doesn’t work for many conservatives and many libertarians. It is hard for me to understand the calculus that went into this decision.

  130. SteveF

    Saying effectively “I am going to force my values on you” only works for Democrats….

    And even that is starting to get push-back. There is definitely pushback on many of the moves by trans individuals with regard to sports, locker rooms etc. Lia Thomas not only being so large, but so obviously male looking. The women in the locker room now being willing to say “penis”.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11215537/Swimmer-lost-NCAA-race-Lia-Thomas-recalls-athlete-displaying-penis-female-locker-room.html

    Gaines also used the opportunity to recount how she was forced to share a locker room with Thomas at the NCAA Championships back in March.

    She wrote: ‘At the NCAA Championships, I saw a 6’4’ male exposing male parts in our women’s locker room.

    ‘To be perfectly clear, the anatomy I and many other women were forced to view, confirms Thomas is a male.’

    Gaines said she then asked National Collegiate Athletic Association officials where she could change ‘as I had no intention of undressing in front of a man.

    ‘They informed me that there were no protections in place for me to change in a space that Thomas did not have access to.

    ‘To summarize, the NCAA put the onus on the female to avoid undressing in front of a biological man with biological parts who is sexually attracted to women. Let that sink in.’

  131. Lucia,
    Sure, individuals who suffer due to the crazy left/woke policies object!
    .
    But I think it is almost impossible to find a leading Democrat politician, someone who could actually do something about the crazy policies, that comes out and says clearly they oppose the crazy policies. AFAICT, elected Democrats pretty much do always support the “I am going to force my values on you” position of the party. By comparison, most Republicans prefer a live-and-let-live policy position on most social/cultural questions.
    .
    Maybe Biden, Schumer, Jeffries, or even some Dem Governors will start opposing the crazy woke stuff, but I am betting they never will.

  132. “Maybe Biden, Schumer, Jeffries, or even some Dem Governors will start opposing the crazy woke stuff, but I am betting they never will.”
    .
    The author’s analysis on the rise of the trans movement is spot on. There is no establishment head that will push back even when it comes to irreversibly damaging our kids with chemical castration and mutilation. Affirming a 7-year-old’s self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria is medical malpractice in a politically healthy (honest) society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWbxIFC0Q2o

  133. Maybe Biden, Schumer, Jeffries, or even some Dem Governors will start opposing the crazy woke stuff, but I am betting they never will.

    No. The already established pols won’t. But I think people in some places are becoming willing to vote them out. Sometimes it’s by supporting things that go “sideways”– like school choice which lets the parents who want woke pick woke and the ones who don’t pick that. Sometimes it’s by FL and TX voting in people who will explicitly advance policies to squelch some things.
    .
    Lia Thomas with her penis has given people the ability to answer “I just don’t think people should be allowed to swing their penis around Women’s locker-rooms the way Lia did.” Specific examples help.

  135. Not a fan of the 6 week law. DeSantis seems to be responding to his drop in the national polls by going more hard right. Not a wise decision. It would have been better to just ride it out, the election is a long way away. This seems to be the track record of early favorites, burn out, see Low Energy Jeb.
    .
    Many people are single issue voters. Most people have a few issues that determine their vote. For me it is the integrity of the Supreme Court (i.e. not reinterpreting the Constitution), freedom of speech, freedom of association, and equal standing before the law.
    .
    I’m pro-choice but it is not a deciding factor for me, same for immigration and a bunch of other stuff. If state abortion laws only mean that one may have to drive to another state once in their lives then I can’t get too excited about it. I see a future business opportunity for a medical clinic on the Florida border.
    .
    Republicans choosing this hill to die on is foolish, but I respect people who think abortion is tantamount to murder. I just don’t agree with this view up to a certain point. The baby gets rights at some point, it’s a real legitimate debate. Nobody is an authority here.

  136. Defund The Police didn’t go so well. The political parties eventually know a loser, it just takes a while sometimes. Soft on crime is now surgically attached to the Democrats and anywhere there is increased crime they have a problem.
    .
    Abortion is going to repel women voters from Republicans, err, I mean voters who genetically identified as female at birth, err, voters capable of birth, err, zhe? I’m so confused.

  137. Tom Scharf

    If state abortion laws only mean that one may have to drive to another state once in their lives then I can’t get too excited about it.

    Which is a reason I don’t think the law should be at the federal level– in either direction. If a law permitting abortion is Congress’s business, then a law banning it could equally be Congress’s business.

  138. mark bofill (Comment #220194): “I just don’t believe DeSantis can win the nomination against Trump, in which case all of the points you highlight are essentially unavoidable.”
    .
    I very much doubt that anybody other than DeSantis can take the Republican nomination from Trump. And I very much doubt that Trump can win in the general election.
    .
    I will be really upset with DeSantis if he does not run. So much so that I would be reluctant to support him for the nomination in 2028. But in that case 2028 might not matter, because by that time America might well be over.
    ———

    mark bofillL “I’d just as soon not lose a viable 2028 candidate as well as suffer all the rest if I have a choice.”
    .
    Huh? Losing a run for the nomination is in no way disqualifying. Examples: Biden, Clinton, Romney, McCain, Gore, Dole, Bush, Mondale, Reagan.

  139. Mike, yeah. But wrestling with a pig like Trump gets you dirty. I think the contest could damage him. Like I said, I could be wrong too.

  140. From the Washington Post:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/22/bud-light-brand-identity-dylan-mulvaney/
    “Heinerscheid and Anheuser-Busch did not respond to requests for comment. The brewer announced Friday that Heinerscheid is taking a leave of absence.”
    …
    ““Bars, in our opinion, exist as public spaces where ideas should be exchanged,” Minniefield wrote. “Unfortunately due to all of the bigotry and hatred that has surfaced around the Bud Light controversy any patron wanting to voice their concerns about the issue will be immediately asked to pay their bill and leave our establishment.”

    The policy cost him some of his regular customers, Minniefield said. But it’s also brought in new business from people who appreciated how he stood up for inclusion.

    “As much as I hate to say it, I’m so glad these people are standing up and making fools of themselves so I have a reason to tell them to leave,” Minniefield said. “It gives me the ability to create the kind of space of inclusivity that I want.””
    .
    That logic speaks for itself. Yes, ideas can be exchanged as long as they are approved by the Ministry of Truth first. It’s definitely not hateful, but inclusive, to ask your loyal customers to leave.
    .
    The Post also quoted an expert, a “workplace inclusion psychologist” and also a “LGBTQ activist”. Surprisingly no overweight white redneck, football watching, Walmart visiting, pickup truck driving experts were asked to comment. No false equivalence allowed in a Bud Light discussion.

  141. Tom Scharf,
    “I see a future business opportunity for a medical clinic on the Florida border.”
    .
    I don’t. What border are you thinking about? In Georgia, they have the same 6-week heartbeat limit. In Alabama, abortion is prohibited except to save a mother’s life. Abortion is available in South Carolina, but that’s a long drive.

  142. Tom Scharf,
    So it’s OK to force a website business to build a website celebrating homosexual marriage when they don’t support homosexual marriage, but you can only talk about Anheuser-Busch in a bar if you hold the correct lefty views on transgender people? Only a lefty could be so very inconsistent and stupid.

  143. Abortion is a critical issue to me. I am extremely Pro-Life. It’s not a religious thing; I just think a prime duty of human society is to protect those members who are too weak to defend themselves.
    But I am an even more extreme realist. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey) holding that women in the United States had a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restriction. Last year, The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned Roe v. Wade. So for 49 years, my side was playing a losing hand. Now that we are on equal footing, we must not stumble. We must win short-term battles but not lose sight of the long-term war. Maintaining a Conservative advantage in the Supreme Court is paramount.
    My strategy is to pass legislation in each state that is only strong enough so that the Conservative majority at the Court is not endangered. We want to elect Republican Presidents and Republican Senators. No National Legislation because that would hurt the Republicans and endanger the Conservative majority. Then we can keep chipping away forever in each state by continually strengthening the protections for the unborn, being cognizant of not hurting Republican election chances at each venture.

  144. Tom,
    He’s owns his bar. So…. yeah…. he gets to kick people out. But I think he’s a big deluded about the idea bars are places where ideas could be exchanged. Or at least, he’s deluded if he thought everyone could exchange them safely. Drunk guys can be scary. I would never spend my time being shouted down by some loud drunk guy who thinks he can support his ideas by being large and loud. And that’s going to happen in bars.
    .

    The policy cost him some of his regular customers, Minniefield said. But it’s also brought in new business from people who appreciated how he stood up for inclusion.

    That’s fine for his bar. But vis-a-vis Bud, my question is: did they buy Budweiser? And will they continue to buy Budweiser? If the don’t drink grocery store beer, their patronizing his bar isn’t going to help Annheiser-Busch.

  145. Tom
    I think you also didn’t quote this relevant bit:

    McKinley Minniefield, owner of the Fairfax Bar and Grill in Bloomington, Ind., said some patrons were heckling those who ordered Bud Light and saying hateful things about transgender people. It got so extreme that some customers left the restaurant.

    It’s one thing to express a view in a one on one debate people entered into willingly. But customers heckling other customers for their orders can’t be permitted. I wouldn’t go to a bar where customers were permitted to heckle others for their orders no matter what “side” the heckling was expressing. I drink and go to bars. But I don’t go to places where loud drunk people start heckling others.

  146. Lucia,
    “It’s one thing to express a view in a one on one debate people entered into willingly. But customers heckling other customers for their orders can’t be permitted.”
    .
    Sure, but the details matter. We are hearing only one side of the story. Public accommodation laws don’t allow tossing somebody out without good cause. I would like to hear more than the bar owner/manager’s story before I conclude anything. I’ll venture a guess that the story from people who were tossed might be a bit different. I am thinking lawsuits may follow.

  147. SteveF

    Sure, but the details matter. We are hearing only one side of the story.

    Of course. But that bit was in the article Tom quoted and he left it out. That likely resulted in some here getting a misleading impression of the bar tenders position. Distorting the one side we hear isn’t helpful.

    Public accommodation laws don’t allow tossing somebody out without good cause.

    But heckling other customers would be good cause.

    I am thinking lawsuits may follow.

    Maybe. We’ll see.
    .
    My guess is the first who got tossed out won’t have much in the way of convincing evidence because they won’t have been filming the start of everything. So there will at best be some he-said-she-said.
    .
    Later ones might be people who try to get tossed out without “cause”.

  148. Right. If they were heckling random people. I suspect it was their friends. No way to know. I think the Post will write the story differently if pro trans people got tossed.

  149. Tom,
    It’s a college town. Could have been drunk college fratboys heckling non-frat people. Or townies heckling college kids. Or vice-versa. Sadly we have no youtube video.

  150. “Sadly we have no youtube video.”
    Perhaps the only time that adverb has been associated with “no youtube”. 😉

  151. Lucia, think practically. What are the chances the “heckling” was ribbing among friends or overly loud retellings of the story in the news, versus the chance that someone attacked a stranger in a bar for their beer brand? I would put $100 to a buck that it was the former.
    .
    SteveF: “Only a lefty could be so very inconsistent and stupid.”
    .
    This is the biggest mystery to me of why people believe so strongly in the things they believe. For example, I know I have never had to contemplate the possibility of becoming pregnant and only very remotely the possibility of getting someone pregnant out of wedlock. I know the rational arguments for and against abortion but I still feel it’s mostly (not completely) a women’s issue. Complete abortion bans seem as unreasonable to me as late term elective abortions (barring exceptions). I am thinking the only reason that Dems push for late term abortions and falsely claim that GOP are all for bans is to stoke anti-misogyny emotions. Framing the debate as “war on women” as was done in 2008 and 2012 is further evidence of this political strategy. I see the leftists not letting any crisis or problem or political dispute go to waste. The idea is to exploit everything for political power. I think this is what Musk meant when he suggested to Tucker that he would like to see just an average normal person be president.
    .
    My working theory on the Dem voter’s mindset is that they are mostly indoctrinated with disdain for GOP by ad hom and smear as being anti-(fill in your identity) and anti-science along with anti-planet and anti-fairness.

  152. A Pub With No Beer” by Australian song writer Slim Dusty
    For those missing Bud Light.
    “Oh it’s-a lonesome away from your kindred and all
    By the campfire at night, we’ll hear the wild dingoes call
    But there’s-a nothing so lonesome, morbid or drear
    Than to stand in the bar of a pub with no beer”
    –
    Re the abortion debate I think it is something that men should not voice too many opinions on as they are not women and cannot become pregnant.
    Any party taking a line that tells women what they can or cannot do is on a hiding to nothing.
    Best to follow Lucia’s advice.
    –

  154. angech,
    You wrote:“Re the abortion debate I think it is something that men should not voice too many opinions on as they are not women and cannot become pregnant.”
    Re the abortion debate I think it is something that foreigners should not voice too many opinions on as they are not Americans and cannot vote.

  155. They were heckling their own people was just the way I read it originally. The Post would have made it explicit if it was harassing strangers. They sent a national reporter for this story? Kind of crazy.
    .
    Also whenever a legacy media outlet asserts interpreted conclusions such as “heckling, hateful” without specifying exactly what was said then I become a bit suspicious. This was so bad it could not even be printed? So my guess (without evidence) is that somebody gave their friend some sh** when they ordered a Bud Light such as as “What are you, a trans? ha ha”. Some progressive types overheard it, took umbrage, and left. I totally agree the person who owns the restaurant can run it as they please. My experience though is that bars are very tolerant of their clients being a-holes and you have to go to some extremes to get tossed out for words alone. In fact I have never seen this, ever. Maybe I went to different types of bars.
    .
    Unless you are well versed in self defense calling a stranger a trans for their beverage selection is an invitation for a fight. It’s possible it happened the way it was implied, I just think it unlikely.

  156. It is also a very hard problem if a guy wants to have the baby and the woman wants an abortion. I think the woman should get to decide but it is not beyond the pale to imagine a man very strongly and conscientiously wanting to have the child, and offering to bring it up himself. This is not trivial, but the woman has to do the hard work here so the weight of the decision falls her way IMO. You just don’t want to put yourself in this situation.

  157. Tom

    Also whenever a legacy media outlet asserts interpreted conclusions such as “heckling, hateful” without specifying exactly what was said then I become a bit suspicious. This was so bad it could not even be printed?

    Well, I suspect the bar owner didn’t hear how anything started. He just saw fall out after whatever it was was underway. The reporter likely doesn’t have anymore info than that. As I said: too bad we don’t have youtube video.
    .
    It seems to be a college bar. It could contain some very, very drunk people. I would not assume behavior must have been mild. When I was at Illinois a rugby player bit a girl in the ass in one of the bars. I mean literally, leaving teeth marks. We were telling some friends this story and one of them said “That was my brother!” (The police were called. Yada, yada….)

  158. Tom

    It is also a very hard problem if a guy wants to have the baby and the woman wants an abortion.

    Yes. A guy may very well really want to bring up the child. But the guy can’t carry it to term. So until we have mechanical uteruses, this affects the woman rather immediately. Other than financially and emotionally, the man can only really help after the delivery. When the couple is not married, the emotional and financial issues can be fraught.
    .
    If you could transfer embryos mechanical uteruses which work well from week 2 would in principle solve some issues. The remaining ones would then be financial. We’d then be debating whether the taxpayer should pick up the cost of running the mechanical uterus when a mother and father relinquish parental rights to give the embryo up for adoption.
    .
    I don’t think anyone is working on making such things. But who knows?

  159. The US is unique among first-world nations in having no national abortion restrictions. The exception is Canada where each province has gestation limits, ranging from 10 to 24 weeks and in Australia 16-22 weeks by province. In Europe Poland and Malta allow no abortions. The other countries range from 10 to 22 weeks. In Japan, the restriction is 22 weeks, and in Korea 14 weeks. I am not advocating for US Federal restrictions, only pointing out that for 49 years under Roe the US was the only first-world nation with no restrictions.

  160. “That was my brother!”
    .
    In this age you have to specify which character in the story you are referring to, especially if they were drinking Bud Light. Har har.
    .
    Regarding mechanical uteruses, I have no doubt they’re in the works right now. And the demand for adoption will go even higher than it is today as 30% of our young people choose homosexuality of the 50% that are not choosing abstinence. (I made those numbers up but the trend is there).

  161. Russell Klier (Comment #220227): “the US was the only first-world nation with no restrictions.”
    .
    There are no restrictions on abortion in Canada.

  163. On top of all the declines in American traditions, Madison Avenue legends have to be rolling in their graves on the marketing move of Bud Light re-branding after the generations it took to cement “This Bud’s for you.” The new trans demographic was a classic opportunity to roll out a completely new and targeted brand “Just for you.” Think about it — what was the difference between Tab and Diet Coke? Tab in the purplish pink can was marketed to women to watch their weight by replacing sugar with saccharin. Then came along aspartame and that provided the opportunity to create a new brand, Diet Coke, to pitch to men as well as women, broadening the market with the red can. They didn’t put a man on the Tab can.
    .
    The second mistake A Busch make was immediately flooding the airwaves with Clydesdales and cowboys in an insultingly transparent attempt to smooth things over. They just polluted their iconic advertising theme. All they could really do is cancel all advertising for a blow over period while publicly firing their marketing director.

  164. Korea needs to outlaw abortion, their fertility rate is now 0.7. Zero Point Seven! Replacement rate is 2.1. What is going on there?

  165. Angech, I am always interested in your perspectives coming from the opposite side of the beach ball. Having the right to voice opinions is not attached in any way that I can see to having the right to vote a particular election. What is the history of the abortion issue there? Did you resolve it peacefully?

  166. Mike M. “There are no restrictions on abortion in Canada.”
    I said “The exception is Canada” in that same post above that you quoted. I also said that although Canada has no nationwide restrictions each province does have its own restrictions. It’s a mixture of laws involving gestation periods and other things. Also, abortion is severely limited in many areas because of the lack of suppliers. The following site is pro-abortion but does reference many of the laws and other restrictions. https://www.morgentaler25years.ca/the-struggle-for-abortion-rights/access-by-province/

  167. Russell Klier (Comment #220222)
    “Re the abortion debate I think it is something that foreigners should not voice too many opinions on as they are not Americans and cannot vote.”
    –
    I think you are right , Russell.
    –
    Pause…..
    –
    Did you really say that and mean it?
    –

  168. We have discussed this issue before.
    Complex.
    My experience working at times with both pregnant women and women with infertility issues plus other life experiences says this.
    –
    A doctor has the right to decide whether she or he feels comfortable
    with making a decision to perform an abortion or not separate to the woman’s needs.
    A woman has the right to decide if a termination is the suitable choice of action for her at all times.
    A man has no right to demand a woman should have or not have an abortion or a child for him.
    –
    My views have altered over time on a lot of subjects.
    Nature gives us a need to live but not a right to live.
    If life was the ultimate goal we would all be vegetarian.
    A child does better with a mother who loves and wants to bring it up.
    –
    Religion has negatives as well as positives.

  169. angech, (comment 220220)
    “Re the abortion debate I think it is something that men should not voice too many opinions on as they are not women and cannot become pregnant.?Any party taking a line that tells women what they can or cannot do is on a hiding to nothing.”
    Did you really say that and mean it? If you did, my comment #220222 stands. A male voter in the US has a right and a moral responsibility to join in the US abortion debate. A male foreigner has no authority to tell him he should shut up.

  170. Tom Scharf,
    I don’t know about why S Koreans don’t have many children, but I have, over years of travel, asked people (always educated mid to upper class people I was working with) in Germany, Italy, and Japan why they have so few children. The answers varied a bit, but there are common threads: “It is too expensive.” “It keeps you from doing the things you enjoy.” “It is a too big and too long commitment.” “We don’t need more people.”
    .
    In short, lots of people in developed countries can’t be bothered with having children. I found these conversations shocking.
    .
    Or as Musk suggested last week in his interview on Fox, humanity is more likely to end with a whimper than a bang. The global average will fall below replacement level within about 5-10 years, but a global decline in population will not come for several decades after that. But the range of impacts will be enormous: Places like Japan and Italy are going to see economically important drops (the per capita GDP will fall, with fewer workers and more elderly) due to falling population very soon, while most African countries will likely grow rapidly until well past 2100. Another ‘migration out of Africa’ seems likely if populations collapse elsewhere, as it appears they will. Things could change, but the trend toward global population contraction is long term and remarkably consistent across countries and cultures.

  171. My vote has and always will be influenced by the candidates views on government control over individuals and making individuals dependent on government. It is the antithesis of the political philosophy of the current intelligentsia. Since the intelligentsia overwhelmingly supports Democrats it becomes easy for me to not ever support Democrats.

    That does not, however, mean that I approve of the Republicans messages and how they deliver it. They do a very poor job of pointing out the problems of big government and too often encourage more government controls.

    Potential voters generally know much more about items that they deal with in their daily private lives than they do about politics and the perils of government controls. Those conditions sum up my deep concerns of democracy combined with big and authoritative government.

    Voter intelligence concerning political matters can be summed up in polls that show at least in one moment in time that 72% of Democrats believe the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election was changed by Russian interference and 70% of Republicans did not think the 2020 elections were legitimate. The Republican position is seen as more errant because the position of the Democrats had support from the ruling intelligentsia, i.e. the MSM and academia.

    The progressive political movement approved by the intelligentsia will continue to win elections -and thus the Democrats even if they run doorknobs as candidates.

    Changes from the current state of affairs will come from ideas and not votes.

  172. Russell Klier (Comment #220234): “although Canada has no nationwide restrictions each province does have its own restrictions”.
    .
    And I said that is incorrect. There are no legal restrictions of abortion in Canada. There are only restrictions on whether tax dollars are used to pay for an abortion.
    .
    If a restriction on government paying for abortion is a restriction of abortion, the the US has very strict federal restrictions on abortion.

  173. Russell Klier (Comment #220222)
    Russell Klier (Comment #220237)
    I did not know that male American Citizenship and the right to vote was a prerequisite for being allowed to have any opinion on any subject.
    Thank you for doing the Miranda act for me.
    Now I know my rights as a benighted foreigner.
    I feel so much better.
    –
    Seriously though, you can have as many rights as you want to to join in or not join in a discussion on abortion rights whether you are a male US voter or not and whether it is in the US or not.
    –
    however moral responsibility has nothing to do with whether you are a U.S. male. If you bothered to read my comment I did not tell anyone to shut up.
    I expressed the point of view that women are the ones affected by pregnancy hence practically, and yes, I will say it, morally they are the ones who should be making the decisions.

  174. Mike M.
    I stand corrected. I was reading the Canadian payment restrictions as absolute restrictions.

  175. Angech, you did not mention how the debate evolved or whether there was much of one in your country. We really don’t care about your personal opinion. (kidding)
    .
    One thing it seems you missed about the US debate is that the conservative view is not about the practicalities and responsibilities of child bearing and rearing, the later which is moot with the high demand for adoption. The pro-life argument is that society needs to protect innocent human life, especially those that are defenseless. The counter argument is that it it’s not a life until it’s born or can sustain itself without the mother.

  176. Yes, the Republicans have given up the fight for shrinking government, pretty disappointing. At best they want to grow it at a slower rate lately.

  177. angech,
    I am granting you a special local exemption to speak your mind. I still remember the lecture on US gun control we got on a tour bus in Australia. That went over well with a few of the passengers, not, ha ha.

  178. angech,
    “I expressed the point of view that women are the ones affected by pregnancy hence practically, and yes, I will say it, morally they are the ones who should be making the decisions.”
    .
    Yes, I think you made that perfectly clear in your earlier comment. But I believe “just let women decide” doesn’t do justice to the moral/ethical complexity of the issue.
    .
    I note that between conception (a single large cell) and birth, a living person is created. Unless we are willing to accept that living person has no rights at all until the moment of its first breath, (or even after, infanticide?) then everyone, even those who are not ever going to get pregnant, has an interest in protecting that living person. Does a baby born prematurely (say 5 weeks early) have less right to live than one not born 5 weeks prematurely? I have never heard a reasoned moral argument that is true.
    .
    At some point in a pregnancy, and certainly by viability, it seems to me everyone has a moral interest in abortion, not just the pregnant woman. Many countries, including Australia, have set one or more limits on gestational age for legal abortion. In none of those places are men or post-menopausal women excluded from the political process when it comes to abortion, nor do I think they should be, because human morality is gender and age neutral.
    .
    I would never suggest a daughter of mine (I had three) get an abortion, even an early one, save for a serious risk to her health or serious malformity in the baby. But I would not attempt to impose my will on her, or any other woman, so long as the abortion is early. I am perfectly comfortable with 12 to 16 weeks as a cut-off, but late abortion grows ever closer to murder, and I will vote against it whenever I can. This is a complicated issue, and glib ‘solutions’, like “I wash my hands of it because I am a man” are not solutions at all.

  179. Tom Scharf (Comment #220244): “Yes, the Republicans have given up the fight for shrinking government, pretty disappointing. At best they want to grow it at a slower rate lately.”
    .
    I don’t think that is quite right. It is true about Republicans like Bush and McConnell. Such Republicans still have a lot of power, but the party is changing. There is a growing contingent that is sincere about shrinking government.
    .
    Being a cockeyed optimist, I am hopeful that those in favor of shrinking government will eventually prevail. In the interim, I will settle for slowing the growth of government.

  180. Russell

    A male voter in the US has a right and a moral responsibility to join in the US abortion debate.

    I agree that males have a right to join the abortion debate. I think Angech would be wrong to tell you otherwise even if he were a US citizen.
    I disagree with your position. And, I do think women, especially those whoa are still fertile, have more at stake in the issue than men.

  181. Ron Graf

    The counter argument is that it it’s not a life until it’s born or can sustain itself without the mother.

    That’s not the only counter argument. There are people who not only think the fetus is a life, they think it’s a human life. And still think abortion should be legal.
    .
    They often don’t think it’s fully human, and recognize funerals for miscarriage are not traditiona point out that people have always made a distinction in the level of “humanity” related to “born” and “in utero”.
    .
    Or they think it’s ok to take lives sometimes– the way some people think the death penalty is ok. Heck, some people think euthenasia is ok in some circumstances. Or pulling the plug on someone in a coma even though they still have a heart beat.
    .
    There are a variety of counter-arguments. Not just one.

  182. “Tom Scharf (Comment #220245)
    “angech,I am granting you a special local exemption to speak your mind”.
    Thank you.
    Several bus tours of Europe with Americans and Canadians,Insight, I think they were. Virtually all were lovely people to talk to though never followed up with the communications.
    Somehow we all knew the topics to steer clear of.
    –
    Ron Graf. Australia and America are almost like identical twins on the abortion history, debate and arguments.
    –
    SteveF
    Appreciate your comments.
    You raised two points.
    One was the moral/ethical complexity of the topic demands more than just let women decide, from your belief.
    This could potentially incorporate the concept that moral authority dictated by male authority through the form of church and state can override personal views.
    Which is at possibly at odds with concepts of freedom of choice and perhaps the American Constitution.
    Maybe not.
    I feel we are trying to shoehorn an unfortunate natural occurrence and choice of a potential mother, an unwanted pregnancy into social constructs that we were brought up in.
    The issues of guilt that a pregnant woman will carry for the rest of. Her life choosing between having to bring up an unwanted child with all the social stigma in the past or the guilt of having a termination is a terrible burden, not for society but for the women involved.
    Not to mention the cost to the child with all the stigma that society throws at it.
    –
    The cost to both individuals is astronomical in some cases.
    It is not enough to say every human life is precious. The quality of that life has to carry some consideration as well.
    While not as obvious as malformations like spina bifida (severe) and cerebral palsy (severe) the social impacts can cause pain and misery for a lifetime as well to one or both individuals.
    As you say complex.
    Women have had to make these decisions from time immemorial, well before morals were invented by men.

  183. SteveF, your comment is so well composed I can’t add or subtract. In fact I would advise GOP candidates to borrow it.
    .
    Lucia, I grant all that you say, that there are a variety of arguments and complexities. What I am confused about is why there is no room to compromise from so many coming from the left. I more understand it from the religious right because it conflicts with very specific moral teachings. As a fiscal conservative, who also has great respect for the US founder’s ideals in liberty through limited and checked government, I find it much easier to compromise and even allow for some fluctuation among local jurisdictions.
    .
    My suspicion for the level of fervor on the left for this issue, looking at the pattern of fervor to burn down cities over George Floyd, for example, is that the left is simply taking advantage of the right on this, exploiting their religious principles against them by twisting it as proof of their bigotry against women, just like not applauding the Floyd protests proves their bigotry against black people. Do you think I am wrong that the left enjoys their ability to stoke racial tension as a political tool? If not, do you then think I am wrong that they would do the same with gender?
    .
    Why is it a “war against women” when the most fervent pro life people I know personally are women? If my suspicions are wrong I am eager to see it another way.

  184. angech

    This could potentially incorporate the concept that moral authority dictated by male authority through the form of church and state can override personal views.
    Which is at possibly at odds with concepts of freedom of choice and perhaps the American Constitution.

    .
    Men being participating on a co-equal with women in deciding laws touching on moral issues does not not incorporate the “concept [of] moral authority dictated by male authority” at all– not even potentially. Because men being involved in a process isn’t “dictating”.
    .
    And this bit

    through the form of church and state

    Well, the state does create laws and sometimes does override some personal views. I can think personal use of cocaine is fine– but it’s illegal. I could think it’s fine to enslave people– but the state overides that view. And I’m not groking how you think the “church” gets involved by allowing men to participate in something if it is not also involved by allowing women.
    .

    I feel we are trying to shoehorn an unfortunate natural occurrence and choice of a potential mother, an unwanted pregnancy into social constructs that we were brought up in.

    I thought I was going to be able to grasp you point and then you veered off into the “social constructs”. Then you go on.
    .
    But I can point out that whatever you wrote is supposed to mean: apparently, you, a man think you get to participate in this discussion. But evidently, you think other men aren’t allowed to participate even though they are men.

  185. Ron Graf,

    What I am confused about is why there is no room to compromise from so many coming from the left. I

    Well, I’m not sure what you consider a “compromise” nor do I know who you consider “left”.

    is that the left is simply taking advantage of the right on this, exploiting their religious principles against them by twisting it as proof of their bigotry against women,

    Of course the “left” is taking advantage of “the right” push to avoid any compromise at all— going so far as to make all abortion legal, including that using the morning after pill.
    .
    .
    That’s the way politics work. Griping about that is just silly. The “right” is taking advantage of excesses by “the left” in allowing books with images of men giving other men blow jobs into kids libraries.
    .

    Why is it a “war against women” when the most fervent pro life people I know personally are women?

    It appears you want to move the question from specifics of at what point abortion should be legal to something else. I’m not going to get into a debate about whether a law to ban abortion from conception is a “war against women”. I’m going to stick to “I’m against that law.” Period.
    .
    I’m not going to suddenly become “for” laws banning abortion before 12 weeks because you are griping about someone somewhere calling some collection of positions a “war against women.”
    .

    just like not applauding the Floyd protests proves ….

    And I’m also not going to suddenly for a law that bans abortion earlier than 12 weeks because you bring up “George Floyd” and thinks it proves something about “the left”. My position on abortion has nothing to do with “George Floyd” or “bad behavior by ‘the left'”.

  186. Lucia: ‘Well, I’m not sure what you consider a “compromise” nor do I know who you consider “left”.’
    .
    I consider “the left” to be the Democrats that would stoop to stoking bigotry (or any distrust) in order to advance tribal identity to gain power.
    .
    “Compromise” to me is not placing such a high value on one issue that I would forsake all others. My ideal proposal to mediate “choice” versus “life” would be to allow abortion for any reason up until 12 weeks and then after that only for rape of minors, deformities or defects that would significantly affect normal living and cases were the mother’s health or life would be put unduly at risk.
    .
    I think one should weigh all issues for their optimal social advancement of society. For example, I understand that cocaine may have medical uses and perhaps could be taken once to twice for personal experimentation without life altering consequences and thus the harms of severe prosecution would outweigh the harms to society of its use. I can understand the issue of “my body my choice,” to some extent including with abortion, recreational drug use, alcohol, tobacco and vaccination. All these issues deserve compromise, with the ideal outcome of bettering education society wide based on an inspired collective will to improve society. The overall aim I would think is to make laws restrictive enough to nudge behavior in what the collective agrees is a beneficial direction. Where the interest of the individual conflicts with that of society, (perhaps like with vaccination), or where there is no clear consensus, we should default to allow complete individual liberty. If done correctly I believe we can expand freedom by increasing responsibility. I believe I can see a some historic evidence this is possible.
    .
    At the same time I believe there is currently some retrograde motion in this social evolution due to weaponization of politics and ambition toward political domination through authoritarianism.
    .
    You can argue that Christians would be authoritarian on abortion if they had the ability. I would argue that is why we have the Constitution. And the last thing the Christian right wants to do is weaken the Constitution that protects their ability to practice their religion.
    .
    So, Lucia, I am not wanting to put you on the spot. I just find it fascinating that while you seem to base your political beliefs, as I do, on rationalism, not religion, you seem a bit religious on this particular issue, placing at such high priority on your list as you have stated.
    .
    What is your strongest principle involved? Is it “my body my choice” or worry of back alley abortions by the less educated, of what? And if I am asking too many questions I’ll drop it.

  187. Mike M,
    “Being a cockeyed optimist, I am hopeful that those in favor of shrinking government will eventually prevail.”
    .
    I am not nearly so optimistic. Certainly during my adult life (50+ years), and based on historical records, over all of the last ~100 years, the size and scope of government, Federal, State, and local, has grown tremendously. There is no evidence I can see which suggests that will change. Bureaucracies now must approve endless activities beyond personal hygiene, and it seems they even want some control of that as well, as the COVID mask fiasco shows.
    .
    With few exceptions (deregulation of airline pricing being the single significant example I can think of) the addition of public control over private activity seems to me like a ratchet strap with no release mechanism: it can tighten, never loosen. Efforts to Federally regulate many thousands of farmers’ ponds and normally dry storm water drainage ditches as “waters of the United States”, and the many passionate calls on the left for censoring people who do not agree with official government policy, seem to me just two more examples of tightening the ratchet.
    .
    Reversing that trend would be nothing short of a revolution, and I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future. I hope I am mistaken, but fear I am not.
    .
    In a populace where a fair fraction of 18 year olds complete high school unable to read with comprehension, expecting them to understand the restrictions placed on government by the Constitution (let alone embracing and supporting those restrictions!), looks to me completely unrealistic.

  188. I don’t have a problem with the fervor of the Left on abortion. They have a right to participate in the debate. The group that frosts me is the doctors. They have a huge conflict of interest, both financial and professional, and they pontificate on abortion without even disclosing their conflict. Further, abortion is very seldom about the health of the mother. For sake of argument, I say 90% of abortions are about something else. I agree the mother needs help. A social worker, minister, grandmother, and a whole host of concerned parties might help. But she doesn’t need a doctor and the debate would be better off if they stayed out of it.

  189. I very much disagree with the idea that men should keep their mouths shut with regard to abortion. Half of the aborted babies are male and half of their parents are male.
    .
    I observe that those who advocate that men should have no say never seem to note that Roe v Wade was decided by a court consisting of 9 men.
    .
    Public opinion on abortion is very similar for men and women.
    .
    There is an argument that easy access to abortion is more advantageous to men then women. I can’t say I understand it well enough to give it justice. I just note that it exists.
    .
    It is true that pregnancy has a much greater impact on women than on men. But so does having an abortion. Many women regret that choice for the rest of their lives.
    .
    It is a lot cheaper for a man to pay for an abortion than to pay 18 years of child support.
    .
    Since abortion was legalized, the number of single parent families has soared. That is very hard on the single parents, who are overwhelmingly women. There are no doubt multiple factors causing that, but the severing of sex, marriage, and pregnancy surely plays a role.

  190. Ron

    “Compromise” to me is not placing such a high value on one issue that I would forsake all others. My ideal proposal to mediate “choice” versus “life” would be to allow abortion for any reason up until 12 weeks and then after that only for rape of minors, deformities or defects that would significantly affect normal living and cases were the mother’s health or life would be put unduly at risk.

    That’s not defining what you consider “not compromising”.
    .
    It’s telling me your “ideal”. I think insisting on never letting women chose elective abortion, or passing one that only allows that for the first 6 weeks put someone in the category of “unwilling to compromise”. And it’s not even telling me what range of laws you would be willing to accept.
    .
    And there are are people in the right who insist on abortion laws as restrictive as I described. Some insist to the point of forsaking things like fiscal restraint. Those people would certainly fit the description of “not comprimising”.
    .
    Do some on the left not compromise? Sure. It’s a behavior seen on both sides.
    .

    You can argue that Christians would be authoritarian on abortion….

    I’ve said nothing about Christians on this thread. Or religion. Nor have most people. I think it might be fruitful if you provide counter arguments that people actually advance rather than suggesting they “can argue” something and then telling us why that argument they never made might be weak.
    .

    If done correctly I believe we can expand freedom by increasing responsibility. I believe I can see a some historic evidence this is possible.

    Ok. So if a woman or girl decides to go forward with the pregnancy, I say we have a law to collect in utero DNA and allow the woman to specify up to a dozen men to be required to give DNA to run the paternity test. Then have the man or boy be responsible for 50% of the medical costs and also pay her money to offset food during the pregnancy. And perhaps an amount to let her rest for the final month. And if the father is a minor boy, I say we make his parents pay. Garnish wages if they don’t. That should increase the responsibility.
    .
    Oh, and we might find some child molesters this way.
    .
    I still think the woman should be allowed to abort though. (And I’m somewhat serious about the above. I too am for using responsibility to guide people’s choices.)
    .

    So, Lucia, I am not wanting to put you on the spot. I just find it fascinating that while you seem to base your political beliefs, as I do, on rationalism, not religion, you seem a bit religious on this particular issue, placing at such high priority on your list as you have stated.

    Huh? Your not putting me on the spot. But what have I said suggest I am “religious”? You haven’t said, and I’d like to see what you consider “religious”. Because I don’t see anything suggesting my view is guided by any sort of god, holy text yada, yada
    .

    What is your strongest principle involved? Is it “my body my choice” or worry of back alley abortions by the less educated, of what?

    I haven’t said “my body my choice”. And I don’t know why you want to argue-by-slogan.
    .
    I think the physical, emotional, social and financial burden of pregnancy is high for women. And for normal women with normal lives there is often a risk of unplanned pregnancy. I don’t see why any woman should be forced to take on these burdens if she doesn’t want them. I don’t think her only option to 100% avoid having to take on these burdnens to have a sexless life (including rather magically organizing her life to be absolutely certain she cannot be raped. ). I can see reasons why we could limit the decision window somewhat. 24 weeks strikes me as certainly a long enough window of time.
    .
    I apologize in advance if I failed to provide you the sort of “slogan” you seem to prefer people sometimes use when discussing politics and instead provided you something rather longer. 🙂

  191. Russell

    Further, abortion is very seldom about the health of the mother. For sake of argument, I say 90% of abortions are about something else.

    Yes. And I favor laws that allow women a reasoable amoung of time to make the choice for reasons other than health. Then extend it to the full term if the pregnancy endangers the mother.
    .
    This is many people’s position. It’s not yours and you may not like it. But if 100% of abortions were for reasons other than the mother’s health, I’d still be for permitting it during a certain period of time.

  192. SteveF (Comment #220259): “over all of the last ~100 years, the size and scope of government, Federal, State, and local, has grown tremendously. There is no evidence I can see which suggests that will change.”
    .
    True. But I think it is generally true that trends seem inevitable until they don’t. So the situation is not hopeless, even if there is but a faint glimmer of hope. Just because people have not yet said “enough” does not mean that they won’t say “too much” at some point in the future. The question is whether that will be too late.

  193. Russell,

    Oh, and I don’t think anyone is disqualified from airing opinions or facts about abortion. I consider all these people have a right to discuss abortion: lawyers, engineers, hair dressers, men, garbage collecters, doctors and, well, everyone. Saying doctors shouldn’t be able to air their views is silly.

  194. MikeM

    It is true that pregnancy has a much greater impact on women than on men. But so does having an abortion. Many women regret that choice for the rest of their lives.

    And many women are very glad they made the choice. But that’s what happens with choice. That both pregnancy and abortion affect women is an argument in favor of it being their choice.
    .
    I mean, my biggest regret in life was going to the high school I went to. I wish I’d rebelled, refused to go. (I mean, just vanished from the house the first morning, refused to get in the car to commute, walked the public high school and presented myself her.)
    Going to that high school didn’t ruin my life, but there are many things about the situation I know were very sub-optimal relative to going to the local public school. I was in high school, and my choices were constrained.
    .
    And had I been given a free choice I would not have gone. I begged not to go. I cried… but to not go I would have had to do what I described. And I didn’t.
    .
    People sometimes regret things in life. But usually, the freer their choices, the better they are– especially as they become older and can weigh things.
    .
    Back to abortion–I also don’t think the government should not be able to mandate abortion (as the Chinese have). That sort of policy also has a greater impact on women and men. It’s fair to recognize some policies have greater impact on one sex vs. the other.

  195. MikeM

    There are no doubt multiple factors causing that, but the severing of sex, marriage, and pregnancy surely plays a role.

    Women having greater ability to participate in the workforce has also had an impact. (Not seeing this as a good argument to stop allowing women to earn degrees and work.)
    .
    Also: government support to make single parenthood less miserable has had an effect. (I don’t see this as a good argument to end SNAP.)
    .
    And DNA testing to identify men and requiring them to pay child support has changed it somewhat. (Not seeing this as a good argument to not force men to pay child support.)
    .
    Lots of things have made a difference.

  196. Lucia,
    I completely agree that the father of a baby must be held financially responsible if a woman chooses to have the baby he fathered. I think this is currently true in most places, although the process is likely too difficult for the woman in many places. I would be in favor of required DNA tests (these are now pretty cheap and fast) to prove (or disprove) paternity. In utero DNA testing is more complicated, but if that is actually needed, then it is OK with me for the father to be held responsible for half that cost.
    .

    I think the physical, emotional, social and financial burden of pregnancy is high for women. And for normal women with normal lives there is often a risk of unplanned pregnancy. I don’t see why any woman should be forced to take on these burdens if she doesn’t want them.

    .
    Sure. I think the only real policy question on which we might disagree is what is a reasonable time frame for a woman to choose to have or not have a baby. 6 weeks as a limit is dishonest, and obviously intended only to stop all abortions. 15 or 16 weeks seems to me plenty of time to make a choice, especially if clear exceptions for maternal health and child deformities are added. After 16 weeks up to viability without any restrictions is beyond where I can support. After viability, I think abortion should be strictly illegal except to save a mother’s life.
    .
    I was disappointed in DeSantis signing the 6-week law for Florida because it either shows he is buckling to satisfy a small base of voters, or he honestly holds moral views that I strongly disagree with.

  197. SteveF

    In utero DNA testing is more complicated, but if that is actually needed, then it is OK with me for the father to be held responsible for half that cost.
    .

    It’s more complicated. But it’s do-able 9 weeks along.
    https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/paternity-testing-while-pregnant
    .
    I think it is definitely advisable in the case of a pregnant teen where the possibility of child molestation and incest are plausible. The main difficulty would be getting her to provide a list of who the fathers might be. But if she’s willing to name fathers, I think they should be tested and required to pay. (Also, in some cases, get her out of their clutches.)
    .

    6 weeks as a limit is dishonest, and obviously intended only to stop all abortions. 15 or 16 weeks seems to me plenty of time to make a choice, especially if clear exceptions for maternal health and child deformities are added.

    My acceptable window was 12-24. I’m willing to accept a law with a 15 week window provided it has very clear exceptions for maternal health, child deformities, and language that makes sure procedures to deal with complications of miscarriage etc. are not interpreted as “abortion”. (It really should be that hard to accept such language if someone is willing to permit health procedures to deal with complications of a miscarriage.)
    .

    After viability, I think abortion should be strictly illegal except to save a mother’s life.

    Currently, viability is around 23-24 weeks. No one will ever have a universal consensus on the date. A law is going to have to pick a number of weeks. By my upper bound is near your “viability” window– but a bit on the higher side rather than lower.

    And of course, the bill has to not be “dishonest”– like requiring someone to hire a lawyer to present the “health” position to a panel of 12 who meet once a week. Or requiring 5 doctors to concur. Or something like that. (These sorts of unreasonable provisions have appeared in abortion restrictions, so it’s important to mention this for clarity.)
    .

    I was disappointed in DeSantis signing the 6-week law for Florida because it either shows he is buckling to satisfy a small base of voters, or he honestly holds moral views that I strongly disagree with.

    Yep. The 2nd is why I told someone above is his sincerely thinking the law is good doesn’t make me support him. I can admire a person for standing up for his views. But that doesn’t mean I’ll vote for him if I don’t want those views to be the law of the land.

  198. Lucia,
    “Yes. And I favor laws that allow women a reasoable amoung of time to make the choice for reasons other than health.”
    Lucia, my position can be accommodated within those words. In my Comment above #220210, which was too long and too verbose, I said:
    “My strategy is to pass legislation in each state that is only strong enough so that the Conservative majority at the Court is not endangered.”
    My approach is political. Make each state’s law as strong [shortest time for choice] as possible given the absolute need to maintain a conservative Supreme Court. Roe was undone by a Conservative court. Keeping it undone is my highest priority.

  199. Russell: “Keeping it undone is my highest priority.”
    .
    Do your really mean that it’s your highest priority? What I am hoping you meant to say is that it would be your ideal political strategy to compromise enough as to keep the issue from becoming used by extremists on either side to promote alienation of the rival political party and exploit tribalism without regards to the societal harms that in itself leads to.
    .
    Lucia, this is my exact point to you as well. While I thank you for your detailed reply I really didn’t hear your answer as to what makes the issue such a critical deal breaker on a candidate when you seem to acknowledge in conversation all the complexities and counter arguments, and even men’s rights and interests in the issue, which is scarce in most of pro-choice side of the debate.
    .
    Would you vote for a candidate that voiced support for complete choice to 24 weeks but also was calling for defunding the police, locking up the Jan6 trespassers for 10 years, increasing welfare spending by 25%, etc…, versus the opponent that voiced support for a 7 week cut off by was in line with you on every other issue? And, do you have that same position regardless of the political reality that there is no chance there will be a federal ban of any kind, and that only a few states would be able to sustain a ban shorter than 12 weeks?

  200. My questions on “never 6 weeks” is similar to my question of “never Trump.” How can one rationally be so strong one one point or personality trait as to be blind to all other implications?

  201. Ron Graf,
    “What I am hoping you meant to say is that it would be your ideal political strategy to compromise enough as to keep the issue from becoming used by extremists on either side to promote alienation of the rival political party and exploit tribalism without regards to the societal harms that in itself leads to.”
    I might mean that, but I have no idea what it says. To quote Winston Churchill …. “This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.”

  203. Wow, Tucker Carlson and Don Lemon out of a job on the same day.
    .
    I think Fox will have a lot harder time replacing Carlson than CNN, ha ha.

  204. Ron,

    Lucia, this is my exact point to you as well.

    I can’t tell what “this” refers to in that sentence. Could you state your point explicitly?

    I really didn’t hear your answer as to what makes the issue such a critical deal breaker on a candidate

    You didn’t ask me that. I answered the question you asked. What makes it a deal breaker is I think it’s an important matter. Specifically, I think adult people health, social, financial and emotional lives are important. Freedom to organize ones life is extremely important to me, and I think it should be to everyone.
    Hope that answers your question.

    Would you vote for a candidate that voiced support for complete choice to 24 weeks but also was calling for defunding the police, locking up the Jan6 trespassers for 10 years, increasing welfare spending by 25%, etc

    No. I have no idea why you are asking. I never said or suggested that I would support anyone or everyone who is “ok” in matching my position on abortion. Only that I will not support someone who is pushing for laws that are outside my position.

  205. I see abortion as a matter of property rights and the most basic of these rights is that each individual owns their own body and thus can do with it without restriction as long as another individuals body or property is not harmed (property is not violated) in the process. A pregnant individual can do with their body what they want and including abortion up to the point that the unborn is considered an individual with property rights (own their body).

    Vaccination mandates could well be considered a violation of ones property rights, i.e. ownership of their body. While the argument from some advocating for abortion “rights” appears to be in agreement with the ownership concept that ownership for a number of these advocates goes out the window when mandated vaccinations are considered.

  206. Wow. Carlson leaves a huge hole in the Fox lineup.
    .
    Fox sock market valuation dropped $500 million within an hour of the announcement. I don’t see anyone currently at Fox filling his time slot and attracting the same or similar audience (3.5 million I think).
    .
    Don Lemon walking the plank? Not the same thing at all. Nobody is going to tune in to anything to listen to Don Lemon.
    .
    Carlson is wealthy and famous. Will he set up his own media outlet (a la Joe Rogan), or head off into politics? I suspect he could join up with Megan Kelly and a couple others at Newsmax and raise hell with the cable incumbents. We live in interesting times.

  207. Ken Fritsch,
    “A pregnant individual can do with their body what they want and including abortion up to the point that the unborn is considered an individual with property rights (own their body).”
    .
    That strikes me as just a cop-out. When is the unborn child considered an individual with ‘property rights’? Real question, not rhetorical. What do you honestly think?
    .
    Comparing pregnancy and abortion with vaccination mandates seems to me, frankly, beyond bizarre. I don’t think libertarians handle nuanced questions very well.

  208. Russel,
    Your strategy also included this

    Then we can keep chipping away forever in each state by continually strengthening the protections for the unborn, being cognizant of not hurting Republican election chances at each venture.

    And, of course, at that “chipping away” point, I start not voting for candidates who are working to “chip away”. But of course, the willingness to pass a law that allows abortion for a reasonable window when you would want otherwise, is compromising.

  209. Mike M. (Comment #220261)
    A lot to discuss here, Mike, thanks.
    “I very much disagree with the idea that men should keep their mouths shut with regard to abortion.”
    I agree.
    Always have encouraged the right of all people to have a view.
    Other people should read very closely what I have said consistently above.
    Not ban men from having views.
    –
    “Half of the aborted babies are male and half of their parents are male.”
    Nitpicking for fun but this is inaccurate and irrelevant.
    The sex ratio is usually higher for males so more males should theoretically be aborted.
    Ont the other hand sex selective abortions actually result in far more female terminations. 16 Apr 2019 — A huge analysis suggests sex-selective abortions have led to at least 23 million fewer girls born worldwide.
    Whichever pronoun is being terminated is not the issue, the termination is the issue.

    “I observe that those who advocate that men should have no say never seem to note that Roe v Wade was decided by a court consisting of 9 men.”
    –
    Again irreverent, The issue is termination, not the sex of the judges.
    –
    “Public opinion on abortion is very similar for men and women.”
    –
    Sadly not so.
    You are confusing what people say in a socially modulated way with what people feel (true opinion).
    This is an intensely visceral subject for women who have to consider it a a potential outcome for them and their daughters, let alone their mothers. It is a taboo subject, socially abhorrent but very necessary.
    The recent court decision brings into the open the gulf between men and women in this subject, women know the right to abortion, if such a right exists, is essential to them. Men? Meh!
    .
    “It is true that pregnancy has a much greater impact on women than on men. But so does having an abortion.”
    –
    “Since abortion was legalized, the number of single parent families has soared.”
    –
    Philly 76s have been making the layoffs as well.
    See the relationship?
    –
    I read somewhere that abortion reduced the size of single parent families and resulted in much happier , better adjusted single sex families because the children that were born were loved, looked after and had better outcomes growing up.
    A statistics book sold in airports for the last thirty years, someone should know it.

  210. SteveF posted
    “I note that between conception (a single large cell) and birth, a living person is created. Unless we are willing to accept that living person has no rights at all until the moment of its first breath, (or even after, infanticide?) then everyone, even those who are not ever going to get pregnant, has an interest in protecting that living person.”
    –
    SteveF, a Cell or a small collection of cells is not a living person.
    They are a potential person, just like a Dolly the sheep embryo is a potential Dolly the sheep.
    This night be a bit hard on the psyche but a sample of cells from any part of the body say a skin biopsy, contains many more living viable cells than an embryo and in the near future May well be able to reconstitute another me or you.
    What rights does that skin sample have?
    Answer zilch.
    What rights do all the unused harvest embryos in fertility clinics have?
    Zilch.
    Now as you are a lawyer I understand that legally zilch is not technically correct.
    But practically think it through.
    An embryo is a group of living cells with the potential to become a person but it is not a person and cannot be a person until it is born and alive.
    At some stage it changes into a a person as we would define one in that it becomes a recognisable baby with working arms, legs eyes and brain. After 28 weeks it is usually viable.
    Premature babies now can seem to survive with a lot of help from 24 weeks onYou might be able to get a 20 week old to survive with an incredible amount of work but I would be happy to say 24 weeks with the odd exception and any younger is being potentially cruel to mother and child.
    – “Does a baby born prematurely (say 5 weeks early) have less right to live than one not born 5 weeks prematurely? I have never heard a reasoned moral argument that is true.”
    –
    The rational reply is that a 5 week premature baby has a lot more that can go wrong so nature says it has less “right” to live by the simple fact that it is that much more at risk.
    The moral argument is therefore both incorporated and irrelevant.
    .
    At some point in a pregnancy, and certainly by viability, it seems to me everyone has a moral interest in abortion, not just the pregnant woman.
    I note that between conception (a single large cell) and birth, a living person is created. then everyone, even those who are not ever going to get pregnant, has an interest in protecting that living person.
    Does a baby born prematurely (say 5 weeks early) have less right to live than one not born 5 weeks prematurely? I have never heard a reasoned moral argument that is true.

  211. Russell, Lucia, rephrasing the point, I hope both of you agree the policy ideal is one in which results in the most positive positive for society goals once all the complexities of social dynamics work out over time. This is an extremely hard thing to gauge, by the way, which makes the 50 states trial and error experimental matrix very valuable.
    .
    If one grants the above assumption then the uncertainty is pretty high in crafting the optimal policy on any topic. Add to this the constant movement of circumstances due to technology, like the morning after pill, prenatal imaging, DNA technology, and non-tech circumstances like fertility rates and adoption demand. Add to that the uncertainty in the candidates fidelity to his campaign message, which is targeted based in part on election strategy.
    .
    If one accepts all the above then how can one make sense of putting a vast amount of weight on any particular issue?
    .
    I believe that politicians try to exploit known human emotional (non-rational) tendencies by what we commonly term propaganda. One of the several types of propaganda is the appeal affinity (identity). Appeal to patriotism, (waving the flag), is one we recognize that the GOP tries to use. But flag waving is not limited to nationality, it is also applicable to every facet that makes up one’s identity or affinity, including race, religion, status, gender and age. I see the Dems simply as being more expert in exploiting this form of propaganda.
    .
    Lucia: “Specifically, I think adult people health, social, financial and emotional lives are important. Freedom to organize ones life is extremely important to me, and I think it should be to everyone.”
    .
    Your stated reason for having strong feelings supporting abortion availability is a generality. I’m sure everyone can agree your statement. If you are saying that you are pro-choice because that naturally fits in with the libertarian mindset then you need to explain why so many libertarians here do not share your view. If that is so then one reason might be that the Dems are not really the pro-choice party. They are just good at using semantics. Larger government, taxation and regulation naturally take away choice. So you trade your freedoms on a broad front for all people in order to give young women a slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.
    .
    I agree with you that the freedoms we enjoy because of America’s history is undervalued on the whole among the greater society and especially the youth. They are the least likely to be aware that they can be tricked into voting away liberty but will very seldom be giving a chance to vote back liberty once lost.
    .
    So what is the best way to protect freedoms? Protect the Constitution. Which party is more based in this philosophy? It’s the GOP, IMO. Why do Dems support more abortion access? I think it’s partly because full restriction of abortion, which was a policy that might have made more sense when it was not medically safe, was outdated and the Dems were the first to respond. But the primary reason for elevating it as a feminist revolution plank was to build a propaganda lever on women to vote Dem. The last group to embrace birth control were Catholics. Wait, wasn’t the Kennedy family Catholic? There is no reason for abortion to be a major partisan issue.

  212. angech,
    I am not a lawyer. Chemist, engineer, programmer, and entrepreneur are all closer to right.
    .
    I fear you didn’t really understand what I was saying. Of course a single fertilized egg cell is not a person, just as surely as a wailing full term newborn in the moments after birth most certainly is a person. The change from cell to wailing person is clear. What is less clear, and what generates the controversy, is defining when that emerging personhood is evident enough to merit protection.

    I get that Dolly the sheep’s stem cell precursor was not a sheep. But Dolly surely was a sheep.
    .
    The issue is NOT fundamentally a technical question, and can’t be answered with a technical analysis, even while the technically trained might hope it could be. It is a question of morality, and at what point in development an unborn should be considered worthy of protection afforded a person. It is an uncomfortable balance between conflicting rights: sadly, the mother’s right for personal autonomy versus the child’s right to live. At some point in pregnancy, that balance shifts from mother to child.
    .
    When in a pregnancy that happens is something honest people of good will can sincerely disagree about. What I want is for people everywhere to accept that sincerely held views different from their own are legitimate, and that as societies, we must strike a consensus (as many countries already have) and put the issue aside….. as uncomfortable as striking that consensus may be for many.

  213. SteveF (Comment #220279)

    For me it is when the unborn is self sustaining or viable. Others may argue for other stages of pregnancy.

    Abortion and vaccination both involve choices of what happens to ones body. I see the comparison apples to apples.

  214. SteveF (Comment #220284)
    “I fear you didn’t really understand what I was saying.”
    Clear now.
    I agree with all your last comments.
    Thanks.

  215. Lucia: a moment of indulgence if I may
    Today (25 April) in Australia and New Zealand is Anzac Day. A day when we remember all those that have died in war, yes our own dead but also the dead of other countries, including those who were the enemy at the time. It is especially sad to think of those that are still dying in war today, for instance those in Sudan and Ukraine. It was very touching to see the soldiers of Ukraine mark Anzac Day as in this youtube: https://youtu.be/iZL4EneD76o

    Lest We Forget

  216. Ron Graf,

    Russell, Lucia, rephrasing the point, I hope both of you agree the policy ideal is one in which results in the most positive positive for society goals once all the complexities of social dynamics work out over time.

    Put at that generally, everyone agrees. WRT abortion, it would mean those who insist on it being legal up until the kid is out of birth canal those who think it should never be allowed from the time of fertilization agree. The agreement is meaningless.
    .
    You can rephrase that all you want can claim it’s a point- it’s a pointless “point”.
    .

    If one grants the above assumption then the uncertainty is pretty high in crafting the optimal policy on any topic.

    Actually, the certain is 100%. We know with probabily 1 that we cannot craft a policy based on the above assumption.
    .

    If one accepts all the above then how can one make sense of putting a vast amount of weight on any particular issue?

    Accept “all of the above” in what way. I can’t “accept” the above because it says nothing.
    .

    believe that politicians try to exploit known human emotional (non-rational) tendencies by what we commonly term propaganda. One of the several types of propaganda is the appeal affinity (identity). Appeal to patriotism,

    You are now moving off into what you believe about politicians. Chasing the red herring about your thoughts about politicians is just avoiding discussing the topic of what law should or can be formed vis-a-vis abortion.
    .

    Your stated reason for having strong feelings supporting abortion availability is a generality.

    I don’t believe I’ve said anything about having feelings. (I did a word search…. The only ones who are telling us about how they feel appear to be you and angech. I’ve expressed my thoughts.
    .

    If you are saying that you are pro-choice because that naturally fits in with the libertarian mindset then you need to explain why so many libertarians here do not share your view

    I didn’t say anything about libertarians. So presumably am not required to provide said explanation.
    .

    I agree with you that the freedoms we enjoy because of America’s history is undervalued on the whole among the greater society and especially the youth.

    Well… I didn’t say anything about freedom being undervalued by society and certainly didn’t say anything about “the youth”. So I have no idea why you put “I agree with you that…” in front of an idea I never expressed.
    .

    So what is the best way to protect freedoms? Protect the Constitution…..

    Ok… you are going of on yet another tangent that has nothing to do with discussing abortion laws.
    .

    There is no reason for abortion to be a major partisan issue.

    Well…. say that over over and over and over and over. Maybe things will change? Look: it is a partisan issue. Lots of things are partisan issues. I don’t think it being “partisan” is the main difficulty.
    .
    And one thing I know for sure: saying it should be partisan gets us absolutely no where in formulating an acceptable law regarding abortion.

  217. SteveF

    The issue is NOT fundamentally a technical question, and can’t be answered with a technical analysis, even while the technically trained might hope it could be. It is a question of morality, and at what point in development an unborn should be considered worthy of protection afforded a person. It is an uncomfortable balance between conflicting rights: sadly, the mother’s right for personal autonomy versus the child’s right to live. At some point in pregnancy, that balance shifts from mother to child.

    Steve and I agree on this. To the extent that we disagree it is “at what point in development “. But we can at least talk sanely about it because we know that’s the question.
    .
    The “question” isn’t Ron’s complaints about partisanship which seem to sometimes involve George Floyd. It isn’t whether men or doctors should be allowed to speak. It isn’t whether we are “all true Republicans” or “libertarians”.
    .
    If we shift to the right question, and understand law, we can see that it’s a matter of the amount of time gets written into law. When written, that “number of weeks” will be a bright line legal rule because law on this sort of thing need a bright line rule.

  218. Ron

    So you trade your freedoms on a broad front for all people in order to give young women a slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.

    Honestly this line is the sort of things that people can point to and suggest some people do want to wage war on women.
    .
    Availability of abortion gives you women more than “slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.” And suggesting the availibity only makes some sort of small difference to young women’s lives because of things ” like the morning after pill, prenatal imaging, DNA technology, and non-tech circumstances like fertility rates and adoption demand.” is just totally ridiculous.
    .
    I mean, I honestly can’t even grasp what point you are trying to make by suggesting that fertility rates makes some difference to whether abortion should be legal at least up to the 12 week or as far as to the 24th week. I mean… huh? Is the idea that we can force women to have babies if the fertility rates drop? And similarly with the adoption demand. Is the idea that it might be ok to ban abortion because there ar plenty of people who want to adopt? I hope not. Because if those are anywhere close what someone suggests, the person is waging a war on women!
    .
    So it might be better for you to explain how you think those thing complicate or affect the relevant question: which is what should the law be vis-a-vis abortion. Because the way you write it….well… just…huh? You would be well advised to clarify to be sure people know that’s not what you mean.
    .

  220. Lucia,
    “the willingness to pass a law that allows abortion for a reasonable window when you would want otherwise, is compromising.”
    Yes, compromise is the curse of being a realist in a Republic.
    “And, of course, at that “chipping away” point, I start not voting for candidates who are working to “chip away”.
    Not to worry. Republicans haven’t controlled both houses and the Governorship in Illinois in a quarter century. [And even then, Republicans in Illinois tend to be liberal on social issues.] The chances of meaningful abortion restrictions in your state are nill. Further, when it comes to maintaining a Conservative Supreme Court, your personal vote has been meaningless for a quarter century. The last Conservative to win a Senate or Presidential election in Illinois was Ronald Regan.

  221. Russel,

    he chances of meaningful abortion restrictions in your state are nill.

    Agreed. But the chances of abortion restrictions passing is not the same as the chance that a candidate who pushes extreme restrictions will appear on the ballot.

  223. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-bud-light-handled-an-uproar-over-a-promotion-with-a-transgender-advocate-e457d5c6?st=3chme8hiok1fhye&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    .
    “The maker of Bud Light, after coming under fire for a social-media promotion with a transgender advocate, is now being criticized internally and externally by people who say the company didn’t support its marketing manager when she came under attack.”
    …
    “In the week ended April 15, Bud Light’s U.S. retail-store sales fell 17% compared with the year-earlier period, according to an analysis of Nielsen data by Bump Williams Consulting Co. Meanwhile, sales of rival brands Coors Light and Miller Lite each grew 17.6%.”
    .
    Sounds like the attack on the marketing manager was warranted.

  224. A lot of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions concentrated  over Eastern Romania and offshore over the Western Black Sea.
    -USAF RQ4 Global Hawk FORTE11
    -US Army CL600 ARTEMIS BRIO66
    -US Navy EP-3E Aries II 159887
    -Italian Air Force G550 AEW MM62303
    The Italian spy bird is really interesting…. https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1650823748524597248?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
    I have no idea what they all are listening to.

  225. I cannot verify this OSINT, but it is troubling none the less:
    “Initial Reports tonight that the USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) a U.S. Navy Guided-Missile Destroyer and multiple Taiwanese Naval Ships are currently “Shadowing” a People’s Liberation Army Navy Strike Group led by the Chinese “Shandong” (Type-002) Aircraft Carrier as it transits through the Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippines.”
    This much I do have conformation of:
    “The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Chung Hoon (DDG 93) departed Subic Bay, Philippines, following a scheduled port visit, April 17.”
    https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1650717564509585408?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ

  226. Kenneth,
    I think the comparison of abortion with vaccination is a stretch, for several reasons. The most obvious is the extent of connection between action and consequence for another person. If it exists at all, that connection is only tenuous in the case of vaccination, but clear and absolute in the case of abortion. If I am immunized against polio, someone else’s refusal to be immunized does not put me at risk of death.
    .
    One good indication of how different the two are: most who are adamantly opposed to limiting abortion are adamantly in favor of forcing people to be vaccinated, forcing them to wear masks, forcing them to have a “vaccine passport” to go to a supermarket or restaurant, etc.
    .
    I would see that glaring inconsistency as humorous, save for how damaging it is to the social fabric.

  227. Tom Scharf,
    “Sounds like the attack on the marketing manager was warranted.”
    .
    Maybe, depends a bit on how many people were involved in (or directly approved) the obvious FUBAR. In a big organization it seems likely lots of people were involved. Someone has to get thrown under the bus, but I can’t judge from the outside how fair that is. Maybe a committee of 20 should all get thrown under the bus, but that is unlikely to happen.

  228. Oh, they threw the marketing manager under the bus? Doesn’t surprise me. I agree with Steve this was probably a big joint decision. But as I wrote above:
    .

    Once the[y] stepped in the pile of s*it, there really was no good way out. There are people who are angry they sent the special beer cans to the trans influencer. But there will be others who will also be unhappy if they are, in the end, “mean” to a person for what is, ultimately, “no good reason”.

    .
    Throwing the marketing manager under the bus quite naturally got blow back too. Too bad no one in marketing or higher up had any foresight when they were considering sending Dylan Mulvaney novelty cans. I just shake my head.
    .
    I mean: even if “marketing” and “PR” think the blowback comes from the “transphobic” (whose definition is lose) and they think the ‘transphobic’ are “deplorable”, their customer base is full of drinkers who marketing considers “transphobic”. The extended marketing base is too. Which means– like it or not– a marketing campaign that highlights an otherwise somewhat obscure “influencer” and associates it with the beer is unlikely to sell more beer.
    .
    Yeah, maybe they are all starry eyed and want to “change the world”, including the views of all the deplorable transphobics. But the main job of marketing and PR is to sell more beer.
    .
    There is very little they can do now. Which they knew when they issued the first not-pology.
    .
    (Jim is reading me WSJ. In the week ending April 15, Bud Lites retail sales fell 17% compared to the year before. Rival brands grew. Duh. And throwing the marketing manager isn’t going to help.)

  229. Ron

    So you trade your freedoms on a broad front for all people in order to give young women a slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.

    Lucia:

    Honestly this line is the sort of things that people can point to and suggest some people do want to wage war on women.

    .
    Now it seems you are backtracking to abortion being only a women’s issue and musclehead men have no business chiming in. If this is even close to what you are thinking then I respectfully disagree for the following points:

    1) Half of the people that are pro-choice, including activists on the topic, are women. That to me breaks the women against men argument right there.

    2) Men have a stake in the prospects of family life almost as much as women. To say women should have an equal stake in corporate, professional and other workplaces yet maintain complete dominion over child bearing is not fair, even if it was a tradition, which it was not.

    3) For those that argue that women have a special maternal emotional impact involved that men can never understand, this is true for some women more than others. But it is also true for some men more than others. If on average one says the women win, I would agree. But these are the same people that argue there is no difference between men and women emotionally on anything else, and even that female cats have no different personality tendencies than male cats, which any professional pet handler or breeder could say otherwise.

    4) Society absolutely has a stake in this issue and men make up roughly half of society. Do you think that legislation should not be driven by societal needs? Then what? I am not arguing for a Handmaids Tale scenario in an infertility crisis. Disrespecting any group’s rights is a recipe for having your own discarded. Society subsidizes children in all sorts of ways. Nobody would say that is butting into women’s affairs, least of all women.
    .
    So, I know this all is a very sensitive topic that almost never gets spoken about in this detail. So if I come off rude I think it is because there are more emotions involved than rationality, emotions from religious indoctrination and also political indoctrination. But where emotions rule I think are the ripe areas for detailed and painfully surgical debate rather than slogans that simply confirm of biases of each side.

  230. Ron Graf,
    I’m circling back to this:

    you seem a bit religious on this particular issue,

    By the way, not to put you on the spot, but I’m still waiting to hear why you think my position on abortion is religious.
    .
    I really want to hear this because many of your arguments on abortion are little more than demonizing “the left” and lionizing “the right” and explaining how important it is for various “right” leaning entities to be in power. (You can see my observations above where I tell you those sort of things are irrelevant.)
    .
    And I see you also try to insinuate some sort of religion inspired deviation from rationality in my position on abortion. So I’d like to hear precisely what you considered “religious”. And I’d further wonder if you continue to think this now that you see just how many absolutely false views or arguments you attributed to me. (You can look above and see how many argument you suggested I “could” make— seeming to suggest I had. And arguments you suggested I “must” make because maybe I made some other argument– e.g. claiming my views were due to being “libertarian” and so on and so on.)
    .
    Because, honestly, it seems to me that your interpretation of “my view” involves “not really reading much of what I wrote.”
    .
    So I’m interested in reading what it was made you think my view seemed specifically religious. (Perhaps it’s merely that I won’t vote for things you want me to vote for? dunno. )

  231. Ron

    Now it seems you are backtracking to abortion being only a women’s issue and musclehead men have no business chiming in.

    Backtracking? I never said it was only a women’s issue. Moreover, I corrected Angech for stating men shouldn’t talk about it.
    .
    See this:

    Russell

    A male voter in the US has a right and a moral responsibility to join in the US abortion debate.

    I agree that males have a right to join the abortion debate. I think Angech would be wrong to tell you otherwise even if he were a US citizen.
    I disagree with your position. And, I do think women, especially those whoa are still fertile, have more at stake in the issue than men.

    I stand by this– which I already wrote. And it is not remotely saying that men have no stake in abortion. Either you can’t read, you have trouble with memory (don’t we all) or you are not even trying to argue in good faith.
    .
    It’s getting tiring replying to all your “arguments” by telling you I didn’t make that claims.
    .
    If you want to defend your statement — which I quoted, do so. But don’t just make up what I said in the past as your defense.
    .
    You wrote this:

    So you trade your freedoms on a broad front for all people in order to give young women a slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.

    This is like it or not, suggesting that availability of abortion only gives a “slightly broader” options to women and it is suggesting that women’s freedom should be traded for some sort of freedoms on a “broad front”.
    .
    I don’t see having legal abortion as trading any freedoms on the “broad front”. And I do think expressing the desire to sacrifice women’s freedom worth it for others to maintain their freedom of “others” looks like “war on women”.
    .
    You can either defend what you said or not. But putting an argument in my mouth that I never made is not defending what you wrote. And worse, putting an argument in my mouth that is actually the opposite of what I wrote is utterly lame.

  232. Lucia: “Backtracking? I never said it was only a women’s issue.”
    .
    Lucia, “Honestly this line is the sort of things that people can point to and suggest some people do want to wage war on women.”
    .
    I am glad you openly agree that this issue is not solely a women’s issue. And I agree that fertile women who are sexually active have the highest stake. Do you agree that infertile women have no more stake then men? I don’t want to be continually accused of jumping to conclusions so forgive the slow progression of the conversation.
    .
    Lucia: ” I’m still waiting to hear why you think my position on abortion is religious.”
    .
    I did not mean to say that you were brought up with a formal religion preaching the restriction of abortions as a cardinal sin or greatest human rights issue of our time. My point was that the reason abortion access might be blown out of proportion as a political issue is because constituents on the right were brought up with a formal religious teaching that conception is wholly and the beginning of human life and therefore entitled to all of the Bill of Rights and Declaration. This position is unreasonable to me and I suspect all who were not brought up with that teaching. This opened up an opportunity for the political party not holding those constituents to have a majority winning issue. Now if you were a political strategist and had a majority winning issue would you down play the issue’s importance or amplify it? You would not only amplify it you would try to make it the defining civil rights issue of our time, especially if you could sensitize a voting block the size of all women.
    .
    Some evidence that my theory is true is that no matter what the issue is in how the political advertising is crafted at election time. When the Dems paint the GOP candidate as a creep that wants to get his hands on your uterus this is to evoke an emotional response. It’s pure identity politics. If you don’t see that they are doing that on abortion then maybe you can recognize it when the Dems play up racial tensions by twisting an omitting facts any time there is a black person harmed by a policemen, whether the policemen had a black partner or was black themselves.
    .
    So if this is true that the Dems do this how does this make their policies harm society, you might ask. Well if they are amplifying issues as hugely important that are not then that skews the voter’s choice against more relevant issues to their wellbeing the society as a whole. It would be like a car salesman being able to convince you that the color is the most important feature and they get you to chose the car with far fewer features, performance and quality. You not only harmed yourself you harmed society by rewarding dishonesty versus craftsmanship and innovation.

  233. To put it simply, you just don’t hire a marketing manager from frickin’ Harvard for Bud Light. It’s just stupid and this is a very predictable outcome from people living in a bubble thinking they know how to market to people outside their bubble that they have been * taught at Harvard * to deplore.
    .
    That’s not to say it’s impossible to do that successfully, and to handle the business aspects properly while allowing somebody more in touch to appeal to the target audience. It’s just a known problem that could have been avoided. Now it is a no win scenario, and it is literally her job to not put the company in that position. She deserves to be fired, period. How far the fault extends beyond her is unknown, but she is the epicenter by her job description.
    .
    She was trying to expand a shrinking product base, fine. This just wasn’t a wise move. I empathize a bit because it was really just a minor thing that did explode beyond all recognition. However she is getting paid a crapload of money and her alleged credentials are such that she should have performed better. This is just another relearned lesson for companies to stay out of hot button culture issues. Kaepernick kneeling was thrust upon the NFL, this one is different. Own goal.

  234. How could you market Bud Light today? By making fun of the Harvard types. Hire the writers from the The Babylon Bee instead. Keg parties are more fun than wine bars.

  235. Abortion tourism destinations. This map color codes US states based on the level of restriction or protection of abortions. It is easy to predict the places where abortion tourism will prosper. Illinois is protective but is surrounded by restrictive states.[all the way to the Gulf of Mexico to the South]. Oregon is protective and Idaho is restrictive. New Mexico is protective, and Texas is restrictive, and so on. This is an entrepreneurial opportunity for Planned Parenthood. The Florida law has not been updated.
    https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/colorado/abortion-policies

  237. Tom, the problem for corporations is that affinity marketing, which used to be their exclusive domain, has been taken over by the Democrat party. The trans movement can be seen as simply the next action to bait social conservatives after gay marriage is no longer an active issue. If the grievance ends so does the voter loyalty. Therefore a grievance must be constructed. The trans movement is to the Democrat party as Valentine’s Day is to Hallmark. The proof of political motivation can be seen in the feminist’s embrace of trans women taking over women’s sports.
    .
    Lucia, how can restriction of killing nearly viable human babies be the biggest women’s rights infringement of our time while in the same breath the stealing of women’s college and Olympic sports titles be supported? The answer is that the actual fairness or personal right is not the issue, it’s only how one can frame the issue that matters. If political opponents can be smeared it’s a win.

  238. Ron Graf (Comment #220309): “If the grievance ends so does the voter loyalty. Therefore a grievance must be constructed. The trans movement is to the Democrat party as Valentine’s Day is to Hallmark.”
    .
    Interesting. And, I think, at least partly true.

    Conservatives have long noted that groups formed to address specific problems, such as poverty in inner city black neighborhoods, don’t seem to be very interested in finding actual solutions. That would put them out of business, And no matter how many environmental problems are solved, there is always a new, even bigger problem. Climate change is perfect, since it is unsolvable and always in the future.

  239. Ron

    Lucia, “Honestly this line is the sort of things that people can point to and suggest some people do want to wage war on women.”

    That’s “backtracking to abortion being only a women’s “. You saying something that suggest you think it’s ok to sacrifice women’s freedom for some other goal sounds like “waging a war on women”. This is absolutely not the same as saying men have no say in the abortion debate. It’s not even remotely like it.
    .

    I am glad you openly agree that this issue is not solely a women’s issue.

    Well, if you are glad about it, don’t claim that I ever said otherwise when I absolutely did not.
    .

    I did not mean to say that you were brought up with a formal religion preaching the restriction of abortions as a cardinal sin or greatest human rights issue of our time. My point was that the reason abortion access might be blown out of proportion as a political issue is because constituents on the right were brought up with a formal religious teaching that conception is wholly and the beginning of human life and therefore entitled to all of the Bill of Rights and Declaration.

    Well, accusing me of holding my views on a religious basis doesn’t make that point. And it looks like your reason for claiming it seemed my views in favor of abortion being legal were “religious” is that you think some people who hold the opposite view hold it for religious reasons. If that’s your reason for think mine are, your critical thinking skills are not so great.
    .
    And honestly, you need to stop having arguments with people who are not here. Or at least stop having those here.
    .

    Some evidence that my theory is true is that no matter what the issue is in how the political advertising is crafted at election time.

    Are you refering to your theory about what some people who are not here might be thinking? Once again: I think it’s pretty pointless for you to be posting arguments with people who are not here. If you want to argue with them, go find them and argue with them. They might be able to tell you what they thing. In the mean time, I do not appreciate your somehow attributing their thought and arguments to me, and then explaing why the argument I never made was wrong and then telling me to back off it.
    .

    It would be like a car salesman being able to convince you that the color is the most important feature and they get you to chose the car with far fewer features, performance and quality. You not only harmed yourself you harmed society by rewarding dishonesty versus craftsmanship and innovation.

    I’m not going to debate whether something (not sure what) is like a car salesman doing that, nor whether society would be harmed if I decided to buy a car because it’s a swell color.
    .
    FWIW: My car is red. I love my car. It was a factor in my buying the car. The dealer tried to get me to buy one in a different color (for reasons ). I did not buy the other color car. We watched adds and waited to get a red one. And I bought the red one.
    .
    I do not think I harmed myself or society by strongly factoring in color when I bought my car. To some people, color matters a lot in a car. Trying to belittle their preference for red car and suggest that getting a car in the color they like will harm society is idiotic. You might want to rethink your analogies so they don’t sound quite so idiotic.

  240. Tom Schraf

    She was trying to expand a shrinking product base, fine. This just wasn’t a wise move. I empathize a bit because it was really just a minor thing that did explode beyond all recognition.

    Oddly, it exploded the marketing manager was right in the sense that Dylan Mulvaney is a talented ‘influencer’. S/he got right out there, showed how happy she was with the can, got it in front of his/her audience. Made the gesture very visible.
    .
    It was a niche audience. In the past you could make a splash in a niche and it would not be widely known outside that niche. It’s no longer the case.
    .
    And like it or not: outside that small niche, there were plenty of people who don’t want to think of “their” beer being “the trans beer”. When you end up with a celebrity lining up bud light cans and shooting them, you know you’ve alienated people who thought your beer was “their” beer. There are people who are never going to drink Bud again.

  241. Lucia,
    “FWIW: My car is red. I love my car. It was a factor in my buying the car.”
    .
    Yup, it’s not a conservative grey or similar. 😉 IIRC, it was almost new when I saw it. Must be 5+ years old now.

  242. Ron Graf

    Lucia, how can restriction of killing nearly viable human babies be the biggest women’s rights infringement of our time while in the same breath the stealing of women’s college and Olympic sports titles be supported?

    .
    (1)Who said abortion is the biggest women’s right infringement? Not me. If you meant to suggest I did, stop putting words in other peoples mouths to create your arguments If you meant someone else: go find those people are argue with them where ever they are. That’s not here.
    .
    (2) Abortion is a bigger issue for women in general because the lack of choices that let you plan your life affects more women in more important ways than the possibility of not winning a sports title. The notion that that topic is somehow more important is idiotic.
    .
    (3) Even if the issue of women winning sports title were comparable to the issue of ability to order your entire life, that wouldn’t mean we have to say, “Oh! Well. I better not express my view on abortion!” Rights aren’t either/or.

    The answer is that the actual fairness or personal right is not the issue, it’s only how one can frame the issue that matters. If political opponents can be smeared it’s a win

    Your question was based on a false premise– and so very stupid. And no that’s not the answer to your stupid question.

  243. SteveF,
    Car is still going strong! I tend to own them about 10 years.
    .
    I have no idea why Ron wants to suggest color and quality are “either or” in a car.

  244. Lucia,
    Your patience is admirable. It surpasses me, but at least it gives me something to aspire to.

  245. Lucia,
    “I tend to own them about 10 years.”
    .
    For me it is a bit longer (12?), but of course my next in 5 years will likely be my last. It won’t be electric. As they say, life is hard, you buy some cars, and then you die. 😉

  246. Ron Graf,
    “SteveF, your comment is so well composed I can’t add or subtract. In fact I would advise GOP candidates to borrow it.”
    .
    Borrowing is not needed. It is their’s if they want it, without worry of plagiarism or complaint. I very much doubt Republicans ever would use it, but if they can bring themselves a step closer to compassionate reason on a difficult issue, that is more than enough for me.
    .
    In any case, thank you for the kind words.

  247. Lucia, you seem to be missing my points. I know you are extremely intelligent but the mind can do amazing things to perception. So I will continue to answer your questions and objections squarely and sincerely and trust you will try to reciprocate.
    .
    You keep on saying that I am trying to take away a young woman’s freedom to conduct her life. I have said very little that should justify such an accusation. Such vilification is evidence to me that my suspicion is correct that the issue is more emotional than rational, which is exactly what makes it a great political play.
    .
    Having to be cautious about sexual relations relative to making babies is not something that should be blamed on men. Adults have a responsibility for their actions. Today their are many tools at hand for people to manage not ending up creating undiscovered unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy tests cost under $8 at CVS and are 99% accurate in as little as 10 days, but in all circumstances over 14 days after conception (depending on period).

    An at-home test uses your pee to look for HCG. They contain special strips that detect HCG. Most at-home pregnancy tests are about 99% effective when used correctly. That’s about the same accuracy rate as pregnancy tests done in your healthcare provider’s office.

    Cleveland Clinic.org
    .
    If an unwed hetero couple is having unprotected sex the woman has four weeks to do a drug store check even under the new Florida 6-week law. Twelve weeks, which is what I said was a reasonable compromise, would give more than ample time to detect unwanted pregnancy, discover, discuss, decide and schedule an abortion if desired. I do not see how this is a war on women.
    .
    Lucia, if you feel that 6 weeks are too short for those Florida women why do you think electing a soft on crime Chicago mayor, for example, is going to help them? If you are looking to vote for senators and the President on the issue why don’t you respect Floridian’s rights to decide for themselves? After all, if they think that freedom of late abortion choice is more important than freedom to walk on the street they can move to Chicago.
    .
    Also, you forgot to answer my question of whether you believe a non-fertile woman has more of an interest in the issue of abortion restriction than a man. Actually, I can think of more circumstances where a man has a greater interest, like if it is his child. A trans woman should have zero interest in the issue (but I doubt very much that is the case). What is your guess? If you agree with mine why would one feel so strongly on the issue that could never apply to themselves simply because of their political party affinity? There is not a rational answer, only emotional ones.

  249. Ron

    Lucia, you seem to be missing my points.

    It seems to me no one is getting your points. So perhaps the problem is either (a) you aren’t managing to make them clearly or (b) they are stupid points.
    .

    You keep on saying that I am trying to take away a young woman’s freedom to conduct her life. I have said very little that should justify such an accusation.

    I’ve quoted the statement that implies you think it’s worth sacrificing young women’s freedom for that of others. It was this.

    So you trade your freedoms on a broad front for all people in order to give young women a slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.

    If you want to explain how that precise quote does not imply that you would restrict young women’s rights to gain freedom for others, then do so. Don’t go into rants about democrats or weird metaphors about buying cars in one’s preferred colors. Look at that quote– which you wrote– and explain how it is not suggesting that women’s rights should be sacrificed for other rights.
    Whether you think this is saying “very little” or not, you did say it. Defend it or don’t.
    .

    I do not see how this is a war on women.

    I said the precise statement quoted above is what implies a war on women. That statement implies it’s ok to sacrifice the freedoms of young women. Let me quote it again.

    So you trade your freedoms on a broad front for all people in order to give young women a slightly broader choice of options after they made several mistakes in becoming accidentally pregnant.

    Having to be cautious about sexual relations relative to making babies is not something that should be blamed on men. […]

    I didn’t blame it on men. So: stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you are looking to vote for senators and the President on the issue why don’t you respect Floridian’s rights to decide for themselves?

    Huh? Why don’t I respect Floridan’s right to decide for themselves?! You seem to be thinking I have proposed invading florida, revoking their statehood or writing federal level laws to overturn their rights. I’ve done nothing of the sort.
    .
    What I did do was say who I would vote for. I hope you don’t think me deciding my vote is somehow disrespecting Florida’s right to decide their laws. Because that would be truly ridiculous.
    .

    Lucia, if you feel that 6 weeks are too short for those Florida women why do you think electing a soft on crime Chicago mayor, for example, is going to help them?

    I’m sorry. But I’m running out of patience with these silly questions. I gotta ask: Are you drunk? Real question. Cuz — as usual– I have never suggested voting for Lori Lightfoot would somehow affect abortion rights in Florida. (And anyway, I don’t live in the city. If I lived there, I would have voted for Valas, who lost.)

    Also, you forgot to answer my question of whether you believe a non-fertile woman has more of an interest in the issue of abortion restriction than a man.

    Oh. Sorry I failed to answer that. You ask so many– often it looks like you intend them to be rhetirocal. Never occurred to me to answer. To answer: Immediately: no. I think we both have an interest. I think we can have different perspectives due to the difference in our past and how lack of availability of abortion could have affected the trajectories of our lives.

    I’m not sure why you are telling me men can have an interest– I’ve never suggested they don’t. I’ve repeatedly said they should freely participate. And I get that a man might feel strong emotions if a woman he impregnated did not want to bear his child and aborted it. I’ve never said he shouldn’t have feelings about that nor that he is unaffected.
    .

    If you agree with mine why would one feel so strongly on the issue that could never apply to themselves simply because of their political party affinity? There is not a rational answer, only emotional ones.

    Huh? Well, first: as usual your questions involve a false premise. And your answer is wrong. You think there isn’t a rational answer to your question? Bunk!

    (1) People can consider world hunger an important issue without currently living in a famine plagued region. That doesn’t mean they are being “emotional”. They can consider peace an important thing to strive for without living in a war zone. That doesn’t mean they are being irrational and emotional.
    .
    (2) Are you accusing me of only caring about abortion because of “political affinity”? Wow. (And that’s ridiculous, and as usual, a false premise.)
    .
    (3) You’ve typed one megashit load on this topic. Sure seems to me you care a lot about the topic. Yet you think it’s irrational for someone to care when it doesn’t affected them personally. I’ll let others decide what they think of that grouping of facts. (I suspect they know what I think.
    .
    (4) Feelings, emotions and values are not bad things that need to be eliminated from politics nor discourse. So even though I suspect you are rather emotional about this issue, I’m not going to suggest you should not be allowed to take a political position on this. I don’t happen to think my position is “emotional”. But if it were, my reaction is “so what?”.

  250. Darn Lucia. That was effing spectacular. I particularly liked the four pronged combo at the end.

    (3) You’ve typed one megashit load on this topic. Sure seems to me you care a lot about the topic. Yet you think it’s irrational for someone to care when it doesn’t affected them personally. I’ll let others decide what they think of that grouping of facts. (I suspect they know what I think.[)]

    No, actually I still don’t really understand Ron at all. Not his motives for commenting here, nor his argument methodology, not the larger point he is trying to make … none of it. It could be that he cares a lot about the topic. It could be emotional. But it could be lots of other things too.
    If I could make some constructive suggestion, I would. Honestly, I don’t know what anyone can do to fix this. You’ve asked Ron repeatedly to quit putting words in your mouth. It doesn’t look like this is going to happen. He continues to baselessly speculate on your motives and then deny and refuse to address his own baseless speculation – first with the religion thing, now with the emotional thing. I don’t think he’s actually much listening to you or anyone anyway Lucia. Maybe he just likes to write and to admire his own words. Some people are like that.
    Anyways.
    [Oh. LOL. Yeah, in Ron’s own view, Ron is behaving irrationally. Took me a minute. Heh!]

  251. Lucia, you seem to be chop editing so as to be able to take my points out of context with harsh retort. Why are we even making this about you me? I agree with your opinions on 80% of political issues. And on the 20% that we come down on different sides I respect your arguments as usually thoughtful and objective. If we simply advocate for each side of this issue rather than for each other personally I think it would would be able to come to a conclusion of this rare one in which I don’t see your rationale. Your answer was a generality about freedom. Well, everyone is for that. The question is if we are objectively weighing all of the actual consequences of the different party platforms and also deciding how impactful the worst case scenarios are.
    .
    Judith Curry often points out that even the worst case climate scenarios, (which are wildly improbable), are addressable by adaptation rather than spending double the trillions instead on mitigation as a precaution. I think the Democrat party’s position on climate is irrational and it will affect me and my children and humanity. I could name 20 more issues that I align with the GOP over Dems. Abortion bans are one where I align with the Dems but it is a very small issue because in modern day people now have the tools to deal with even an unreasonable ban. If a women is going to carry the baby into the third trimester I think it would be thoughtful of her to carry it a little longer and provide a childless couple the dream of their life. (Maybe it would even be that trans couple that voted for late abortions.)
    .
    Now you never directly answered my question. Again it was “whether you believe a non-fertile woman has more of an interest in the issue of abortion restriction than a man.”

  252. Ron,

    Lucia, you seem to be chop editing so as to be able to take my points out of context with harsh retort.

    You can’t possibly expect I’m going to quote every single word. Everyone can scroll back to see if the chopping is out of context. I’m confident they will disagree with you.
    .

    Why are we even making this about you me?

    .
    “About you”? I’m replying to what you wrote. If you think replying to your arguments is “about you”, well… ok.
    .

    Judith Curry often points out that even the worst case climate scenarios, […]

    .
    Irrelevant tangent. This is not about climate. Nor is it about Judy. Nor is it about aligning with Dem’s vs the GOP. (And if anyone wants to see if this quote is ‘out of context’ they can scroll up.)
    .

    If a women is going to carry the baby into the third trimester I think it would be thoughtful of her to carry it a little longer and provide a childless couple the dream of their life. (Maybe it would even be that trans couple that voted for late abortions.)

    Well…at least at the tail of that tangent you got back to abortion.

    (1) The third trimester (> 40*2/3 = 26.66667) is past the last window I had for permitting abortion at the preganant womans call. (My window is 12-24 weeks). So I don’t know why you are making an argument for why it should be permitted past week 27 and aiming that at me. That is: I don’t understand unless you think the last date for my window is too early and you are with the Democrats and think even later term abortions should be permitted.
    .
    (2) The idea that the reason a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want and give up her life, liberty, financial, physical and emotional well being is to be the vessel to enrich the life of other people is abhorrent. That’s true whether this other couple whose dreams could be fulfilled by depriving her of freedom is cis or trans. I’m not sure why you think the dreams of this other couple are more important than the dreams of the pregnant woman. But I don’t think I have a legal right deprive other people of their dreams to achieve mine.
    .
    (3) Thoughtful?!? No one is required to be “thoughtful” in the sense of being pretty much enslaved to fulfill the “dreams” of other people. But if a woman happens to want to continue the pregnancy, and put the child up for adoption, I think that’s a perfectly reasonable option for her to chose. But the dreams of others is not a reason to deprive her of liberty.

    Again it was “whether you believe a non-fertile woman has more of an interest in the issue of abortion restriction than a man.”

    Yes I did. Let me quote the bit

    Also, you forgot to answer my question of whether you believe a non-fertile woman has more of an interest in the issue of abortion restriction than a man.

    Oh. Sorry I failed to answer that. You ask so many– often it looks like you intend them to be rhetirocal. Never occurred to me to answer. To answer: Immediately: no. I think we both have an interest. I think we can have different perspectives due to the difference in our past and how lack of availability of abortion could have affected the trajectories of our lives.

    As you see: my answer, was provided above, and addressed to you. It was ‘no’. And I elaborated. Maybe you should read my answers to you.

  253. Many spy missions in the air right now. Fly patterns in many different locations. Also Romania and Poland are flying airships that I can’t identify as spy planes but are flying spy track-like patterns.
    Spy plane activity is a lot like last year during the height of the battle season. Ukraine has been making probing ground attacks into Russian held territory for several days. Finally, attacks using HIMARs have increased. Bloggers from the front trenches are reporting the ground is still to wet for armor to engage, but the signs are pointing to something being about to happen.

  255. Lucia:

    Irrelevant tangent. This is not about climate. Nor is it about Judy. Nor is it about aligning with Dem’s vs the GOP. (And if anyone wants to see if this quote is ‘out of context’ they can scroll up.)

    .
    This is a perfect example of missing my point. It was obviously about looking at worst case scenarios as a rational way to assess the relative importance of an issue. Instead of addressing my point you accuse me of trying to shift the topic by saying this has nothing to do with Judith, climate or the many other points I have been making. By the way, this is tangent is only because I have no way of making progress with my points if they are never acknowledged.
    .

    I don’t understand unless you think the last date for my window is too early and you are with the Democrats and think even later term abortions should be permitted.

    .
    I often analyze issues by looking at surrounding likely consequences as well as shifting timelines. In this case, looking at a no restrictions before birth. I don’t know if you follow the debate but this is a position that many of your pro-choice candidates you would vote for hold strongly. But now I understand your position: 24 weeks is ideal and longer or shorter have negative consequences that outweigh the positive. Got it.
    .

    The idea that the reason a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want and give up her life, liberty, financial, physical and emotional well being is to be the vessel to enrich the life of other people is abhorrent.

    .
    Yes, The Handmaid’s Tale that’s what I advocate for…not. Even the pro-life politicians recognize the exceptions of rape, incest and life of the mother. By the way, late abortions are not the healthiest thing for the woman’s reproductive organs. As is known to you, the woman has many options for contraception and early action after conception. Interestingly, in Biden’s reelection bid speech yesterday he promised to continue to increase freedoms in America citing specifically “my body – my choice”. So, for the Dems it is promoted as the premier civil rights issue. Forced vaccination of experimental drugs and two years of school closures are nothing burgers.
    .
    Regarding whether men have as much interest as non-fertile women you responded:

    I think we both have an interest. I think we can have different perspectives due to the difference in our past and how lack of availability of abortion could have affected the trajectories of our lives.

    .
    I admit I did not catch your point the first reading. I think you are saying that women that were once fertile and sexually active had the experience of dealing more personally with the concern and thus can better empathize with the level of personal freedom the question involves. Is that right?

  256. And, I just remembered… There seems to be increased partisan activity by Ukrainians in the occupied territories:
    “According to the National Resistance Center of Ukraine, the Atesh partisan movement has carried out a successful operation in the occupied territory of Kherson Oblast.”
    https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/04/25/ukrainian-crimean-tatar-partisan-movement-eliminates-russian-military-unit-in-kherson-oblast/?swcfpc=1
    Although these reports are often more hype than fact.

  257. Ron

    This is a perfect example of missing my point. It was obviously about looking at worst case scenarios as a rational way to assess the relative importance of an issue. Instead of addressing my point you accuse me of trying to shift the topic by saying this has nothing to do with Judith, climate or the many other points I have been making. By the way, this is tangent is only because I have no way of making progress with my points if they are never acknowledged.

    It was an irrelevant tangent. And now that you elaborate, it remains an irrelevant tangent.
    .
    Beyond the switch to climate and “what Judy says”, neither I nor anyone here has used “worst case scenarios” as the justification for our position on abortion. So if that was your point– it’s yet another one of your strawmen. None of us need to debate that in context of abortion because none of us here used that strategy. If you find someone one who used it– find them. And debate that position somewhere where they are involved in the discussion.
    .

    I often analyze issues by looking at surrounding likely consequences as well as shifting timelines. In this case, looking at a no restrictions before birth. I don’t know if you follow the debate but this is a position that many of your pro-choice candidates you would vote for hold strongly. But now I understand your position: 24 weeks is ideal and longer or shorter have negative consequences that outweigh the positive. Got it.

    Huh? I said I wouldn’t vote for someone with a “no restrictions before birth”. I didn’t say 24 weeks is ideal. If I had, presumably you could quote me saying it. I did not. I said that is the upper end of my window. I doubt anyone but you would interpret either the longt or shortest ends of my window as ideal.
    .
    Once again, you debate by mistating my position in a way that is obvious to anyone reading this thread. (In this case, you mistate it less than suggesting I think the law should permit it in the 3rd trimester. But you still mistate it.)
    .

    Yes, The Handmaid’s Tale that’s what I advocate for…not.

    Then why did you write this

    If a women is going to carry the baby into the third trimester I think it would be thoughtful of her to carry it a little longer and provide a childless couple the dream of their life. (Maybe it would even be that trans couple that voted for late abortions.)

    .
    In context of this discussion about laws governing abortion certainly suggests a women should be required to carry a fetus if she made it to the third trimester, and the dreams of a childless couple is a good reason.
    .
    You didn’t have t bring this up as a reason to consider when deciding on abortion bans. But you did.
    .

    Even the pro-life politicians recognize the exceptions of rape, incest and life of the mother. By the way, late abortions are not the healthiest thing for the woman’s reproductive organs.

    Sure. But the reason you brought up for not/b> allowing it is the “dreams” of childless couples.
    .
    The fact that some (not all) politicians recognize exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother doesn’t change that you brought up forcing women to carry it to term to fulfill the dreams of other couples! And given your objection to people characterising some anti-abortion advocates as waging a war against women, it’s rather amazing you then characterize a balancing test of women losing the freedom to chose and forced to carry a child to term because it would provide a service to childless couples.
    .
    No one else here as advanced a position that suggest women’s freedom should be sacrificed in service of childless couples. Nor have they suggested the burden of requiring a young woman to remain pregnant is trivial. If anyone else commenting here had complained someone characterizes their position as a “war on women”, I would have agreed their position is no such thing. But you– alone out of everyone here– keep pressing and defending reasons that can be seen that way.
    .

    As is known to you, the woman has many options for contraception and early action after conception.

    Sure. So?

    Interestingly, in Biden’s reelection bid speech yesterday he promised to continue to increase freedoms in America citing specifically “my body – my choice”. So, for the Dems it is promoted as the premier civil rights issue.

    That’s a slogan. It’s not unlikely that he would push laws that go beyond what I accept. I wouldn’t accept that. But if they propose a law I think is reasonable, I don’t care if they use a slogan. Big whip. And why in the world would I object to Dems thinking abortion is am important issue. I agree with them.
    .
    And presumably someone like you who is writing a mega-shit-ton of commentary here defending you position also think abortion is an important issue. (I leave it to others to decide on your level of rationality in complaining Democrats agreeing with you that this is an important issue is evidence of their nefariousness.)
    .

    Forced vaccination of experimental drugs and two years of school closures are nothing burgers.

    Tangent.
    .

    I admit I did not catch your point the first reading. I think you are saying that women that were once fertile and sexually active had the experience of dealing more personally with the concern and thus can better empathize with the level of personal freedom the question involves. Is that right?

    Ehrm… Not sure what you are asking me.
    .
    Are you asking me what I meant? There are several possible ways to interpret that long (somewhat distorted) version of what I wrote.
    First, I think I was pretty clear when I wrote

    “I think we can have different perspectives due to the difference in our past and how lack of availability of abortion could have affected the trajectories of our lives.”

    .
    Different means means different, not better. And when I said “our lives”, I meant “our own lives”. For example: I know how an unplanned pregnancy when I was an undergrad, grad student or even later would have affected the trajectory of my life. I think women who were once fertile also know how it would have affected their lives. I know how the choice of terminating or not would have made a difference to the effect.
    .
    And I also mean how the unplanned pregnancy would affect a woman’s life is different from how it would have affected a man’s life.
    .
    I think most people who speak English as a first language would have no difficulty understanding that’s what I meant. I’m a bit surprised you are rephrasing it into something somewhat different. (Though given your rather constant mangling of what I say, perhaps I should be surprised. By now, perhaps everyone expects you to do that.)
    .
    If you, think this particular difference means women’s perspective better than men’s that’s your conclusion. It’s not mine. And I didn’t say that. I only said women’s perspective was different.
    .
    If you have trouble understanding the difference between the word “different” vs. “better” or “worse”, I suggest you consult a dictionary. That will help you better understand what people have said when they use one of these words.

  258. Ron,
    I hope I quoted you sufficiently above. But if you think I tooks your statements out of context, please feel free to include the longer fuller quote and explain how the quotes were sufficiently out of context so as to change their meaning.
    .
    If you don’t know how to cut, paste or include blockquotes, google is your friend. You can find lessons to do any of those.

  259. Lucia:

    Once again, you debate by mistating my position in a way that is obvious to anyone reading this thread. (In this case, you mistate it less than suggesting I think the law should permit it in the 3rd trimester. But you still mistate it.)

    .
    And:

    None of us need to debate that in context of abortion because none of us here used that strategy. If you find someone one who used it– find them. And debate that position somewhere where they are involved in the discussion.

    .
    I hope you believe that I am trying my best to define my position and be as transparent for your understanding. I try not to waste space telling you what I did not say unless I also accompany it with elaboration with what I do believe. This helps reduce the intellectual drag and friction of disagreement. Therefore I am going to detail my beliefs affirmatively here and ask that you probe me with any questions that you feel I have overlooked. Then I would ask you do the same and allow me to probe. I think we have covered most of the bases. We just need to razor off the stipulated parts and get to the core of the actual issue. If we can do that we can next look at how the actual issue is characterized on the political landscape.
    .
    I agree that the issue of unwanted pregnancy has been significantly affecting lives, especially women’s lives, historically. I also believe that modern technology as significantly affected the issue with better contraception methods, pregnancy tests, abortion methods and adoption clinics. In fact, I was surprised to learn that one could have 99% test certainty in 14 days after conception in the privacy of a powder room in minutes for a cost of 8 bucks. They might not have had that 30 years ago.
    .
    I acknowledge the negative consequences of a woman being forced to carry a child. But I also see some positive, including the providing of babies for adoption. I think a reasonable person can see this without automatically assuming one is for turning women into breeding cattle. I also acknowledge the religious aspect of viewing human life as wholly. All of our rights, including abortion rights, flow through our rights in our founding documents, which are based on that exact same religious premise. I fear if one discards any respect for one they are severely weakening the argument for preserving the other.
    .
    Balancing the above and other things we have mentioned I come down with the belief that the optimal policy is a compromise giving the mother ample opportunity to responsibly act as she wishes while time is of the essence. With today’s technology and social circumstances I would come down with the optimal compromise being a restriction (while allowing the exceptions) somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks. Each state should decide and amend as seen fit.
    .
    I believe that the degree of freedom a mother has to electively terminate the life of her unborn child is not a constitutional one. I also believe that SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench, because that is unconstitutional. Therefore I agreed with the overturning of Roe.

  260. All of these moves by Ukraine are in the South, Kherson Oblast. Last year they made a lot of noise in the South in advance of their surprise offensive in the North at Karkiv.

  261. lucia,

    FYI, If I use the Chicago VPN server rather than a server in Atlanta, I can access this site using a VPN with no problem.

  263. Ron Graf,

    I hope you believe that I am trying my best to define my position and be as transparent for your understanding. I try not to waste space telling you what I did not say unless I also accompany it with elaboration with what I do believe. This helps reduce the intellectual drag and friction of disagreement. Therefore I am going to detail my beliefs affirmatively here and ask that you probe me with any questions that you feel I have overlooked.

    You’ve been writing a lot of stuff which presumably expresses a number of views, attitudes and positions. I’ve been happy to comment. But I have no particular interest in “probing” or interviewing you. So far, I think you are trying to burden me with some particular form of interaction that I don’t thinks us useful.

    Then I would ask you do the same and allow me to probe.

    You’ve already been asking tons of questions. I’ve been answering. So as far as I can tell, I’ve already “allowed” you to probe and have answered questions you ask (at least when they don’t look rhetorical, which some are.)

    I think we have covered most of the bases.

    Yep. And now you seem to be proposing covering them again.

    We just need to razor off the stipulated parts

    I don’t even know what “razor[ing] off the stipulated parts means. Perhaps someone else does. But obviously I can neither agree nor disagree with whether we need to do this.

    and get to the core of the actual issue.

    Steve got to core of the issue at least to days ago long ago. And I quoted him

    SteveF

    The issue is NOT fundamentally a technical question, and can’t be answered with a technical analysis, even while the technically trained might hope it could be. It is a question of morality, and at what point in development an unborn should be considered worthy of protection afforded a person. It is an uncomfortable balance between conflicting rights: sadly, the mother’s right for personal autonomy versus the child’s right to live. At some point in pregnancy, that balance shifts from mother to child.

    Steve and I agree on this. To the extent that we disagree it is “at what point in development “. But we can at least talk sanely about it because we know that’s the question.
    .
    The “question” isn’t Ron’s complaints about partisanship which seem to sometimes involve George Floyd. It isn’t whether men or doctors should be allowed to speak. It isn’t whether we are “all true Republicans” or “libertarians”.
    .
    If we shift to the right question, and understand law, we can see that it’s a matter of the amount of time gets written into law. When written, that “number of weeks” will be a bright line legal rule because law on this sort of thing need a bright line rule.

    Since that time, you’ve brought in all sorts of other issues for us to consider– like the dreams of childless couples, the tactics of the climatati, policies about mandatory vaccines, taxes, deciding who to vote for in the Chicago mayoral election, the tactics of car sales people ….

    If we can do that we can next look at how the actual issue is characterized on the political landscape.

    You’ve already been doing it– complaining about Democrats and expanding your complaints to what appear to be a boundless number of other topics (like Chicago mayoral candidates position on crime) . And I”ve made it pretty clear I think the issue of how abortion is characterized on the political landscape is not especially relevant to my thinking about what the law should be. So I have little interest in this proposal. Feel free to find someone who is interested in the topic and discuss it with them. (No one seems to have chosen to discuss it with you here, but the intertubes are large and long. Surely you can find someone.)
    .

    agree that the issue of unwanted pregnancy has been significantly affecting lives, especially women’s lives, historically. I also believe that modern technology as significantly affected the issue with better contraception methods, pregnancy tests, abortion methods and adoption clinics. In fact, I was surprised to learn that one could have 99% test certainty in 14 days after conception in the privacy of a powder room in minutes for a cost of 8 bucks. They might not have had that 30 years ago.

    .
    I’m aware of this and don’t consider it particularly relevant to identifying the shortest reasonable time to permit abortion because neither the low cost nor the fact the time for the test is the limiting factor to someone being able to contemplate something very important and possibly organize a procedure.
    .

    I acknowledge the negative consequences of a woman being forced to carry a child. But I also see some positive, including the providing of babies for adoption. I think a reasonable person can see this without automatically assuming one is for turning women into breeding cattle.

    .
    I think suggesting that women would be legally obligated to carry a child to term for this “positive” of benefiting others is abhorrent. And I think any remotely reasonable person would see this is a person suggesting women– at least in some cases- should be required to carry fetuses to term for the sake of others.
    .
    I did not say this turned women into cattle. But somehow that allusion sprung to your head.

    .

    I also acknowledge the religious aspect of viewing human life as wholly. All of our rights, including abortion rights, flow through our rights in our founding documents, which are based on that exact same religious premise. .

    Not sure what this is supposed to mean. That you know some people are religious? Of course. Nothing wrong with that. That some people view abortion through a religious lens? Sure. That’s their view.
    .
    Are you saying the founding documents are all based on some specific religious premise? Like “abortion is wrong”. Sorry, but no they aren’t. But perhaps you mean something else.
    .

    I fear if one discards any respect for one they are severely weakening the argument for preserving the other.

    I have absolutely no idea what the “one” or “other” correspond to in that sentence.
    .

    Balancing the above and other things we have mentioned I come down with the belief that the optimal policy is a compromise giving the mother ample opportunity to responsibly act as she wishes while time is of the essence. With today’s technology and social circumstances I would come down with the optimal compromise being a restriction (while allowing the exceptions) somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks. Each state should decide and amend as seen fit.

    Ok. We agree on the time window. And we both prefer states rights.
    .
    But you want sometimes to explain that by providing abhorent views– like it would be good for women to carry fetuses to term as service to couple’s who dream of children. And other times you want to explain I might need to compromise on my stand on this time window to prevent soft-on-crime mayors from being elected.
    .
    I’m not going to say “Oh! Yeah! I agree with Ron’s view on women having to carry babies to serve the childless.” You say it that way I’m going to point out that it sounds like your reason for the window sounds like you think women’s rights are not important and that’s it ok to burden them to serve others.
    .
    And I should note that you also accused me of not respecting Florida voters because I said I would not vote as they did. I’m all for state’s rights. But I’m not going to sit here and have you suggest that I’ve disrespected states rights because I don’t let Florida voters decide my vote.
    .

    I believe that the degree of freedom a mother has to electively terminate the life of her unborn child is not a constitutional one. I also believe that SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench, because that is unconstitutional. Therefore I agreed with the overturning of Roe.

    .
    I actually have mixed opinions on whether it is a federal freedom. I do think Roe itself generally badly reasoned which is why were were constantly seeing slightly different types of reasons for permissions appearing. I have no strong feelings about it being overturned. I also have no firm thoughts (which matters more to me than my feelings). I can’t say for sure I discussed the constitutionality of Roe before it was overturned and I’m still not going to do it much. I neither agree nor disagree with SCOTUS no longer recognizing a right to abortion in the federal constitution.
    .
    My main position is: if it is not in the Bill of Rights, then it is a matter for the states. It is not something that belongs on the federal legislative agenda because I don’t see it as a power delegated to the federal legilature or executive branch. That means it falls to the States.
    .
    I’ve replied to you and commented on what you wrote. As I previously wrote, I have no interest in “probing” you nor having you “probe” me. (And as I said, it sure seems to me you already asked me a ginormous number of questions– most pointless, and many of which included false premises about my position, followed by requests I defend those.)
    .
    In short: it appears we do not agree on the window of number of weeks within which a woman should be free to have an abortion. But I find some of the reasons you give to support your your position irrelevant, abhorrent, and, in some cases deluted. And I find your veering off into irrelevant diatribes about partisanship or tactics of the-party-you-don’t like a silly waste of time.

  264. Ron,
    I should add, it is my impression that your gripes about my position are somewhere in the vicinity of
    (1) I care sufficiently about the issue of abortion to allow it to rather strongly influence my vote and
    (2) I will not vote for a candidate from the party-you-prefer if candidate’s position on falls outside the range I consider acceptable.
    .
    Both 1 and 2 are both true. And I would add even if a candidate supported my “window”, I would be reluctant to vote for them if the reason for banning it after viability was that it would be “thoughtful” for women to carry the fetus to term in order to supply babies to childless couples who dreamed of adoption!
    .
    That is an absolutely horrible anti-woman view. And I think any reasonable person would see that it is both anti-woman and horrible. That you do not suggests you are absolutely unreasonable.
    .
    If a politician thinks such a thing, I hope they don’t get elected to any office that might have any say in abortion laws. Moreover, I think they would be well advised to at least pretend their concern is the right of the actual unborn. That is, they better sound like Steve F and not you.

  266. The end of the Bloody fighting in Bakhmut is near. Seems like I have been saying that for six months. The commander’s message today sounds like a goodby,
    Video:
    “Situational report from Roman Hryshenko, commander of the 127th territorial defense brigade, defending Bakhmut.”
    “The enemy is shelling our positions with artillery and aviation around the clock. Heavy flamethrower systems are widely used. Despite this, the defenders of the city are holding on. I want to thank the citizens of Ukraine and the whole world for the support of our heroes. This is an invaluable contribution to raising the morale of the soldiers defending Bakhmut,” he says.
    https://twitter.com/noelreports/status/1651271489486823425?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
    As of 20 hours ago they held on to about 15 % of the town.
    Ed, There was no ‘pocket’, but a broad open crescent.
    Map: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1651324048444465152?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ

  267. RB,
    I’m mystified by that nymag article (which I clicked away from and was paywalled when I got back.) It sounds like they are upset that the “conservative-anti-abortion” SCOTUS set aside a lower court ruling blocking access to mifestiprone? So owing to their “partisan” nature and their anti-abortion stance, the drug remains available?
    .
    I don’t see anything wrong with them staying the lower courts injunction until the 5th circuit has a chance to hear the case on it’s merits. I don’t see anything wrong with “not explaining” in detail.
    .
    I definitely don’t see anything wrong with set aside     nation wide injuctions by lower courts! I don’t think SCOTUS should have to say anything. They could write “nation wide injunction? From a lower court? Play the laugh track!” and that would be reason enough for me.

  268. Posting the entirety here, one of the points made is that the criticism about misuse of the shadow docket may have left a mark in the most recent ruling:

    On Friday night, the clock ticked toward the Supreme Court’s 11:59 p.m. self-imposed deadline to rule on access to medication abortion. Deeply conservative lower-court judges had thrown down the gauntlet, drastically curtailing what’s left of abortion access and daring the Court to let them do it via its so-called shadow docket — what’s meant to be a temporary, procedural stage rather than the exhaustively briefed and argued merits docket. In his forthcoming book, The Shadow Docket, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck describes its increasing use as the Court intervening “??preemptively, if not prematurely, in some of our country’s most fraught political disputes through decisions that are unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained.” The shadow docket’s use spiked during the Trump administration, enabling some of its most egregious policies via a legal backdoor. Less than a year after overturning Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, would the Court use this power to yank a pill approved 23 years ago on the shakiest of legal grounds?
    —

    Just before 7 p.m., the answer came: no, at least not yet. Dobbs author Samuel Alito is pissed. Alito’s solo written dissent sourly took on not just the case at hand but critics of the use of the shadow docket in general — including some of his fellow justices. To break down this intriguing turn of events, I spoke to Vladeck about his critique of the shadow docket and why it has gotten under Alito’s skin.

    —
    What is the shadow docket? Why should nonlawyers care about it?
    —
    The shadow docket is an evocative shorthand that Will Baude, the Chicago law professor, coined to describe basically everything that the Supreme Court does other than the merits docket — so other than the 60 to 70 lengthy, signed decisions that we get each term in cases that were argued and that got the full nine yards of process.

    Will’s insight, which I’ve somewhat shamelessly appropriated, is that there’s a lot of important stuff that actually happens in the shadows — that just because the Supreme Court doesn’t write as much, and just because it doesn’t explain itself as much, it doesn’t make a lot of these orders any less important or impactful. He wrote this in 2015, but the irony is that, if anything, the ensuing eight years have totally blown that up. We’ve been hit over the head with example after example of incredibly significant rulings that the Court has handed down through unsigned and usually unexplained orders — like the one we got Friday night.
    —

    Was there one moment for you when you thought, Something big is going on here that I need to devote my time to understanding?
    —
    Before 2017, it was exceedingly rare for the Supreme Court to use any kind of emergency order to adjust federal or even statewide policies. Almost all of the pre-2017 cases were death-penalty cases where emergency orders were simply about whether an execution would go forward. The real shift that got me working on this was starting with the second version of the travel ban, when the Court allowed the Trump administration to carry out a lot of it. Then over the ensuing summer of 2017, there was all this litigation over what the stay meant, where it’s just, and it seemed like Pandora’s box had been opened. The Supreme Court just all of a sudden seemed to be much more willing to resolve these kinds of questions through this extraordinary, abbreviated posture. The Trump administration was quite successful in court, but I think part of its success was grabbing procedural victories in cases in which it was unlikely to grab legal ones.
    —

    Obviously, in 2017, Trump comes into office and the Court starts to transform. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh join the Court — and, eventually, Amy Coney Barrett does too. Is it fair to say that this increase you’re talking about is a joint project between the Trump administration and its appointees? One that Alito and Thomas were excited to join?
    —
    It takes two to tango. It wasn’t just that the Trump administration was so much more aggressive compared to its predecessors in trying to use unsigned, unexplained orders to carry out policies. It’s that the Court largely acquiesced. The Trump administration went to the Court 41 times in four years for emergency relief. That’s in contrast to eight requests over the prior 16 years from the Bush and Obama administrations. A really important part of the story is that the Court granted 28 of those requests in whole or in part — this is important — and never suggested that any of the requests it denied were somehow overreaching or inappropriate.
    —

    I think it was a combination of the executive branch pushing the envelope, the justices letting it push the envelope, then while this is all going on, two really important changes took place in the Court’s membership.
    —

    You observe that this pattern didn’t last under the Biden administration.
    —
    What’s remarkable is that all of the justifications that could have explained the Court’s behavior disappear as soon as there’s a Democrat in the White House. To me, that’s the problem with the shadow docket. In the absence of principled explanations, you have behavior that certainly looks like the explanation is partisan.

    One of the most notorious examples of the shadow docket, in terms of real-world impact, was when the Court used SB 8 to allow Texas to ban abortion past six weeks before the Court had even overturned Roe. Why do it this the way and not wait for a decision in Dobbs on the merits docket a few months later?
    —
    I honestly don’t know. I have to say that I’m not surprised by the Court very often. I’ve become fairly cynical. SB 8 was deliberately and openly an attack on the ability of federal courts to enforce the Constitution. To this day, I remain floored that there were five justices as opposed to two or three who were willing to let that attack succeed.
    —

    In the face of a lot of public backlash, Alito gives a speech at Notre Dame inveighing against “the catchy and sinister term ‘shadow docket’” — responding to you, Adam Serwer, and others. Why do you think that the criticism of the shadow docket gets under his skin?
    —
    It’s a great question, and it means getting into Alito’s head.

    Well, you could get into his jurisprudence — if there’s a really principled reason why he’s doing this.
    It’s interesting. Look at his dissent on Friday. He complains about hypocrisy on the shadow docket, then says, “Because they were hypocritical, I’m going to be hypocritical too.” I think he’s trying to relitigate the backlash to SB 8. Remarkably, he cites this really cryptic concurrence that Justice Barrett wrote in October 2021. This was a challenge to the vaccination mandate for Maine health-care workers, who tried to get the Court to block the mandate, relying on the same arguments that had succeeded over and over the previous term in blocking California’s COVID-mitigation measures.

    This time, Barrett and Kavanaugh vote to deny relief. You end up with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in dissent. Barrett writes this cryptic opinion that Kavanaugh joins, where she says, “Just because you’ve met the criteria for emergency relief doesn’t mean that we have to grant it. We should use our discretion.” She doesn’t say how that discretion is going to be informed or bound. She just says it’s discretionary.
    —

    And you saw this vote breakdown as a signal that Barrett and Kavanaugh were breaking away from Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch?
    —
    The data has, at least to some degree, born that out. We’ve seen a whole bunch of more emergency applications where Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are dissenting since October 2021. I think part of what’s going on here is that Alito is angry. One, because he doesn’t think that the blowback to the Court’s use of the shadow docket was fair. (That’s the Notre Dame speech.) And two, because he thinks the blowback cost him two votes.

    I think the question is this: What’s the lesson there? Is the lesson that public response actually had an impact? If so, I think that’s a pretty big deal. So many folks are fatalistic today about the idea that the Court is subject to any public pressure. That said, I’m not in a hurry to give the Court a participation trophy for what should have been a no-brainer. I do think that the real takeaway from Friday is not that somewhere between five and seven justices voted for one of the most obvious stays the Court’s ever going to grant. It’s that Alito felt inclined to dissent in the way that he did.
    —

    I am interested in the way the interpersonal dynamics play out here. Alito is taking a potshot at Barrett for being a hypocrite on the shadow docket, right?
    Citing her opinion in the Maine health-care case is unequivocally a potshot.

    Is there potentially a rift opening up here?
    —
    That or there’s a rift that’s been there for a while but this is the first meaningful public evidence of it. One of the things I didn’t appreciate about the shadow docket until I started working on the book is that there’s sometimes more honesty on the shadow docket than there is on the merits docket. The justices have less control over the cases. They have less time to think through the implications of what they’re saying.
    —

    Less time to polish and revise.
    —
    Exactly. When the justices write on the shadow docket, I actually have found the opinions to be far more revealing, instructive, informative. You see the justices saying things that perhaps you wouldn’t expect in a merits opinion. I think there’s this question: Which is the real Court? The answer is both of them. That, to me, is the takeaway here — that you can’t look at one without looking at the other. And the reality is that we still have a whole bunch of huge merit rulings coming down the pipe, and it’s very possible that they will all be best friends.
    —

    In your book, you mention that Congress could do something about the abuse of the shadow docket. It’s hard to be optimistic about that.
    —
    I think what has happened on the shadow docket in the last few years is just one symptom of a broader disease, which is just the extent to which the Court has become completely unchecked. One of my hopes in writing the book is not necessarily compelling Congress to take specific action but reminding it that, for most of the country’s history, Congress was regularly involved in conversations about the shape and size of the Court’s docket — that it regularly exerted pressure on the justices through non-substantive means. I think there are lots of respects in which having Congress do anything would be a really helpful first step back up that mountain.
    —

    I wonder if one reason some of the justices are so defensive about the shadow docket is that it underscores the general secrecy and unaccountability of the Court. The shadow docket is a symptom of the black box that is the Supreme Court. There’s so much that we don’t know. Even the limited disclosures that the justices are asked to do are incomplete — at least in the case of Clarence Thomas. Yet at the end of your book, you argue that we need the Supreme Court. These procedural abuses and your disagreement with the merits of opinions in many cases don’t lead you to say, “Let’s throw it all away.”
    It’s not that I don’t understand the folks who say we should burn the thing down. I’m a progressive. I get it. But I think that it’s myopic, because if we look at what’s happening in parts of the country where majorities, or not-so-democratic majorities, are running roughshod over what really ought to be pretty basic principles of democracy, speech, and equality, it seems like we ought to aspire to a better Court and not to no Court — that no Court is not a solution that’s going to be sustainable in the long term.
    —

    I recognize that that’s going to be a bitter pill for contemporary progressives to swallow, but it’s part of why I think the conversation needs to be on terms that are more institutionalist. That instead of talking about all of the ways Dobbs and Bruen (which struck down New York State’s gun law) are wrong — and they are — we should talk about all of the ways the Supreme Court’s behavior as an institution ought to offend even the people who think they’re right.

    That, to me, is the only way we’re ever going to forge any consensus about how to make the Supreme Court a healthier institution in our culture — and how to make the Supreme Court more responsible as an institution.

  269. Russell “ Ed, There was no ‘pocket’, but a broad open crescent.
    Map:”
    .
    If a pocket in this context mean no axis of retreat, then it’s a pocket. Estimates range from a low of 5k to a high of about 12k Ukrainian troops who are not going home now, or possibly forever.

  270. RB
    Wow
    Big post, lots in it from someone obviously not happy with actions of the Supreme Court-
    –
    Reminds me of some recent traumatic litigation/mediation my family put themselves through.
    The head lawyer said to me no one comes out of this happy that is a good result.That is the best result.
    One of the most profound and true insights ever.
    –
    “I think what has happened on the shadow docket in the last few
    years is just one symptom of a broader disease, which is just the extent to which the Court has become completely unchecked.”
    –
    An unhappy man.
    The court does not do what he thinks is right.
    Arbitrary he says confirming it.
    –
    The point is that all courts are composed of individuals with bias due to their education and upbringing with the added spice of trying to do the right thing for their community as much as possible.
    The law when judged on is always an amalgam of what is legalistically correct and what is morally correct at the time of judgement.
    One can always find a definition or a moral to tweak for the best outcome.
    –
    Note well NB this important observation. The Trump Administration was responding to a large number of unwarranted Democrat inspired lower court actions trying to block legitimate actions of an elected government, not initiating the way your author implies.
    –
    We are all equally guilty of not wanting to respect the umpires decision when it goes against us.
    Go the Supreme Court.

  271. RB,
    Well, Trump comes into office and starts issuing orders that lots of judges appointed by Democrats objected to. So yes, Trump was blocked and asking for relief from appeals courts and the SC. It is a snooze. Just as is the fact that Trump judges are blocking some Biden orders.
    .
    Or as my old friends in Eastern PA used to say: “What goes around comes around.” The current SC, with a clear conservative tilt, is going to be as much a PITA for Biden (and liberals in general!) as earlier liberal leaning courts were to conservatives.
    .
    They need to get over their horror, pull up their big-boy pants, and accept reality. I doubt they will. For some reason liberals have this nutty notion that any political loss is somehow illegitimate…. or more eloquently, somehow contrary to the “arc of history”. Hummm… sounds a bit like Trump. Odd bedfellows, but bedfellows in fact.

  272. RB,
    I think a lot of these “pre-emptive” stays by the Supreme Court spring from judges in lower courts starting to apply their rulings nation wide that is outside their jurisdiction. I see no problem with Scotus doing that when lower courts wreck that sort of havoc.

  275. Lucia:

    If a politician thinks such a thing, I hope they don’t get elected to any office that might have any say in abortion laws. Moreover, I think they would be well advised to at least pretend their concern is the right of the actual unborn. That is, they better sound like Steve F and not you.

    .
    Lucia, most of your comment is a straw man. I never implied that a woman should be forced to carry a child just so another person or couple could have it. I tried to dispel you from this. I don’t even understand that you would think a politician would have this view (outside of misogynic baiting fantasies like the Handmaid’s Tale). There are very few conservative Nazi’s despite what the MSM says. You don’t need the Dems to protect you from us.
    .
    On the one hand you agree with SteveF that there is a point at which the moral of the mother’s rights to liberty shifts in favor of the unborn child’s right to life. You are a gradualist on this, as am I. (The father’s rights are traditionally ignored, only his financial responsibilities are recognized. But that’s fine. It helps caution men to be careful.) On the other hand, your position overall on women’s termination rights is that of an absolutist. You acknowledge the complexity of competing interest yet the difference of what happens in the middle of the first trimester and the end of the second is uncompromising and absolute. And, you are unmoved by any circumstances, whether the mother’s time to choose is lengthened by access to early notification or there is some good that comes incidentally to society from a child brought to term. You implied you are still mulling the constitutional considerations. Let me explain what I wrote that you said that you didn’t understand.
    .
    America’s founding was exceptional, I was taught, because the documents state God creates rights, not the state, and thus the state does not have standing to take them. The abortion controversy come from the same religious logic that God creates life and thus the state or a person does not have standing to take a life, with the exception is having no choice but to preserve one’s own life. If you discard the religious argument against abortion you may well be weakening the legal argument underpinning all human rights.
    .
    The question for abortion in this logic then turns to when does life start? SteveF did a superb job of laying out that a good logical demarcation would be when the fetus would be viable outside the womb. If that is the case the timeline of demarcation is shortening for the mother to make the decision as technology improves. So the restriction on abortion is affected by moving parts, if you agree with SteveF, without a need for change of the governing morals.
    .
    Lucia responds to this concept with:

    I’m aware of this and don’t consider it particularly relevant to identifying the shortest reasonable time to permit abortion because neither the low cost nor the fact the time for the test is the limiting factor to someone being able to contemplate something very important and possibly organize a procedure.

    .
    What if the procedure were made safe, subsidized for those without means and readily available? Would this influence you to compromise on the timeline? In fact, if abortion access is the premier rights issue for the left there naturally would be NGOs lined up to take women across state lines if they did not have the means.
    .
    Lucia:

    (1) I care sufficiently about the issue of abortion to allow it to rather strongly influence my vote and

    (2) I will not vote for a candidate from the party-you-prefer if candidate’s position on falls outside the range I consider acceptable.
    .
    Both 1 and 2 are both true. And I would add even if a candidate supported my “window”, I would be reluctant to vote for them if the reason for banning it after viability was that it would be “thoughtful” for women to carry the fetus to term in order to supply babies to childless couples who dreamed of adoption!

    .
    You’ve expressed the desire that I not ask you any more questions so I will sum up. First I want to thank you for creating, The Blackboard, a site where issues (or “musings”) can be dissected for intellectual audit, a site that has a very high value to free speech and rarely censors.
    .
    As I have written, I weigh abortion rights as an important issue, but not one that is beyond compromise, which can be done state by state. It therefore does not deserve to be a federal issue. Lucia, I read that you and I agree up to this point.
    .
    You are also correct that I disagree with your (1) and (2), which I read to mean that few other issues rise to trump abortion rights in competition for your vote. There are several reasons for this:
    .
    1) Your state has little chance of enacting an abortion limitation shorter than 24 weeks. In fact, there is more chance they would lift all restriction until birth, (plus an hour or so).
    .
    2) Your vote for federal positions could only result in federal legislation or executive action, which you stated you oppose on constitutional grounds.
    .
    3) I am both for protecting women’s rights, men’s rights and the unborn’s. It’s a complicated and changing world. I support gay marriage because I do not see the harms to traditional values as outweighing the rights of people to have their union acknowledged by the community and state. I do not support trans women (biological males) competing in women’s sports, being housed in women’s prisons or using women’s shower and toiletry space because I believe this infringes upon women’s rights more than it protects trans’ rights. These examples are not to change the subject but to highlight that there are hundreds of types of rights issues, and new ones popping up all the time. What we need is to not be put at each other’s throats or be likened to fictional Nazi-types. This is a political tactic that results in ignorant politicians getting elected.
    .
    4) Because, we must stop the appeal to vilification by appeal to grievance and victimization I abhor politicians, media and scholars that do this. The Black Lives Matter riots and the defund the police movement in honor of George Floyd was a perfect example of this. This type of muck raking explains why we are telling people with black racial appearance that they deserve reparations, presumably because some resident’s ancestors abused the rights of some of their ancestors (potentially). The result is that Chicago elects a soft on crime mayor at the same time racial mobs are attacking stores for reparations and white looking people for retribution. If the Democrat party is not above exploiting racial identity one should expect that they may also be exploiting other historical sensitivities.
    .
    5) The Nazis successfully used this political tactic, scapegoating’s the Jewish intellectual class as disloyal Germans who stabbed them in the back in WWI (somehow) and whose bankers drained their wealth (somehow). The Communists mainly used class envy to gain power. The Dems have exploited both. Some people may think socialism can work if a country is wealthy enough. But I would argue that is will end badly when, as Maggie Thatcher pointed out, you eventually run out of other people’s money.
    .
    6) Today we are already seeing a merger of the state with big tech in censoring and controlling state propaganda. We saw with the Russia hoax a full blown psy op collaboration of the administrative state, the intelligence community, the Department of Justice, the Democrat party and the news media. It was only partly successful but for Trump not firing Mueller which would have triggered obstruction of justice charges and possibly conviction by the senate. Nobody has been held accountable. The DoJ lawyer fall guy got 1 year probation and Hillary for America was fined $2000 for a campaign funds violation.
    .
    7) We are all going to losing all sorts of freedoms very soon, even those mothers that get 24 weeks or more to decide what to do with unwanted pregnancies.
    .
    Thanks for your patient discussion on this topic.

  276. Ron,

    Lucia, most of your comment is a straw man. I never implied that a woman should be forced to carry a child just so another person or couple could have it. I tried to dispel you from this.

    You wrote this

    I acknowledge the negative consequences of a woman being forced to carry a child. But I also see some positive, including the providing of babies for adoption. I think a reasonable person can see this without automatically assuming one is for turning women into breeding cattle.

    Sorry, Ron. But “acknowledge the negative consequences of a woman being forced to carry a child” is not saying that we shouldn’t consider requiring her to do so. And following it by explaining the ‘benefit’ does imply you think this might be somehow a good idea.
    .
    You said this. You can keep claiming it doesn’t imply what it clearly does imply. It will keep implying that people should somehow recognize this benefit and weigh it in the balance, not withstanding the fact that it will have negative consequences for the woman.
    .
    My statement is not a strawman. Because you keep saying this.
    .
    Ok.. and now you are injecting Nazi’s? I didn’t.
    .

    On the other hand, your position overall on women’s termination rights is that of an absolutist. You acknowledge the complexity of competing interest yet the difference of what happens in the middle of the first trimester and the end of the second is uncompromising and absolute. And, you are unmoved by any circumstances, whether the mother’s time to choose is lengthened by access to early notification or there is some good that comes incidentally to society from a child brought to term.

    .
    Wrong. I said the minimum time it takes to get a positive test from cheap at home pregnancy test is not the correct time to consider. It is not the limiting time frame. People need time to make thoughtful decisions and that is not based on technology.
    .
    And the “good to society”– as an amorphous thing doesn’t count for much when you are depriving individuals of freedom to live their lives.

    You implied you are still mulling the constitutional considerations.

    No. I didn’t say I was “mulling” them. Please reread what I actually wrote.

    Let me explain what I wrote that you said that you didn’t understand.

    .

    America’s founding was exceptional, I was taught, because the documents state God creates rights, not the state, and thus the state does not have standing to take them.

    Uhmmmmm…. where? I’m not seeing God mentioned here:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    .
    Have a look at our founding document and tell me where and when you find a reference to God. You may discover somebody taught you something incorrect.
    .

    The abortion controversy come from the same religious logic that God creates life and thus the state or a person does not have standing to take a life, with the exception is having no choice but to preserve one’s own life. If you discard the religious argument against abortion you may well be weakening the legal argument underpinning all human rights.

    This religious reasoning has nothing to do with our constitution. We don’t need to “discard” it because it isn’t in our Constitution and never was.
    .
    In fact, observing it is not there, embracing that argument as somehow binding on our legal process could weaken the underpinnings of our constitutional framework.
    .

    What if the procedure were made safe, subsidized for those without means and readily available? Would this influence you to compromise on the timeline? In fact, if abortion access is the premier rights issue for the left there naturally would be NGOs lined up to take women across state lines if they did not have the means.

    No. Because at least two limiting factors that drive the lower 12 weeks limit aren’t addressed by those measures.

    (a) figuring out if you are pregnant in the first place. Which notwithstanding the existence of tests, will often not be until you’ve missed your first period which may not be the first one (which can be light.) And some women are irregular. (TMI: I sure as heck was irregular.) You need to take the test for it to work– and that can eat up 6 weeks right there. That’s often how long it would have taken me to learn even if I could buy a test.

    The time for women to know is not the 2 weeks you seem to think happens merely because the chemical reaction of the test could detect it that soon if the woman suspect she is pregnant and takes the test.

    (b) someone needing to figure out what to do– which will remain the case even if it’s free. I would have had to contemplate what I wanted to do– I don’t think 6 weeks to talk to friends, counselors and make a judicious choice I would not regret is a “long time”. I think the 6 extra weeks to think about the decision is a “short time”.

    So now: neither faster pregnancy tests or cheaper more available procedures would reduce the time below 12 weeks.
    .
    In any case, no one is going to propose a bill that limits abortion to 6 weeks but also sets up a free clinic within 20 miles of every young women’s home along with paying her for her uber fare to the clinic and back, and cover her her time off work and possibly for a friend to accompany her home. If I were willing to vote for a politician who voted for that law, it’s never going to happen.
    .
    After that, you’ve gone of on various tangents including your bug bears about Black lives matter, Democrats and so on. You’ve said all those things over and over. Not worth commenting on all that. And no, I’m not going to debate your point (5) about Nazi’s and Jews, nor discuss which political groups are most resemble the Nazi’s.

  277. RB,
    Please specify the laws (or constitutional requirements) that restrict the court from putting stays in place on lower court rulings. I doubt they exist. Yes, the SC is going to block the rulings of lower courts when the majority on the court think that is needed. With the current SC, liberals won’t like that very much.
    .
    Maybe judges should stop issuing sweeping injunctions of very dubious reasoning, or at a minimum, not put those injunctions into force, and especially not outside their jurisdictions, until the cases can be reviewed and ruled on by higher courts. That would immediately reduce the use of the dreaded “shaddow docket”. I doubt that will happen so long as Federal judges serve for life and are not meaningfully subject to removal, no matter how they rule on controversial cases.

  278. Ron Graf,
    Please just draw your bright line on abortion: how many weeks with no restrictions of any kind? 0? 6? 12?
    .
    No need to argue about how mistaken people who disagree with you are, the cost and accuracy of home pregnancy tests, advancing technology, BLM riots, voting irregularities, the risk to personal liberties, Nazis, Jews, Christians, atheists, etc. It isn’t that complicated. Draw your bright line and choose to vote for candidates you are comfortable with. Public opinion on abortion has been remarkably stable over multiple decades; arguing for an eternity, and drawing in a hundred utterly irrelevant issues isn’t going to change many minds.

  279. RB,
    I’m not going to read the whole thing because I don’t think it’s an important issue. However, I scrolled to page 8 and then 9. I am immediate struck by a weaknesses of Vladeks “rebuttal” that it is due to rising national injuctions.

    Second, even within the DOJ slice, less than half of the Trump
    administration’s applications for emergency relief involved nationwide
    injunctions. Rather, the theory on which the Trump administration
    routinely (and usually successfully) litigated most of its applications
    was that any injunction of a government policy created the kind of
    irreparable harm that justified emergency relief. That’s why, after
    staying a “nationwide” injunction against the “public charge” rule,23 the
    Court separately (and later) voted to stay an Illinois-only injunction
    against the same rule;24 the geographic scope of the injunction just
    wasn’t the central consideration.

    (1) When people write “less than half”, they generally mean almost half. So already almost half involved nation wide injuctions. That’s a lot of something that used to be very, very rare. Something that is wrong. And action that is inappropriate on the part of the lower court. So this would tend to point in favor if the Court doing this being due to the nation wide injunctions which fall under the umbrella h of “overbroad” injunctions. Which fall under the even broader category of “inapproprite” injunctions.
    (2) That the Trump administration argued against any injunction is pretty irrelevant to determining what caused the court to act. The two sides in a case always adopt over broad positions. The court usually decides based on something in between.
    (3) The court later enjoining Illinois only isn’t very meaningful because it’s later. The Illinois court is throwing in injunctions knowing full well this is trickling up to SCOTUS. And beyond that, having read news papers we are not ignorant of the fact that cases were being levied state after state after state. Large collective groups are lodging cases they see as politically importnat– with no specific plaintiff who has been harmed. The goal is to throw wooden shoes (or as they say in France, sabot) into the gears of federal operations.
    (4) That a geographical limitation is not “central” to the ruling doesn’t mean it wasn’t relevant. And a factor merely needs to be relevant for it to cause increasing emergency injunctions.
    .
    The rebuttal is starting out that weak, and as far as I can see doesn’t get any better.
    .
    The increase in national injunctions by lower courts may not be the only reason. But it’s probably one of the reasons. And I imagine the tactics of groups getting together, shopping around for “friendly” courts, and filing in multiple courts in scattershot fashion is part of what has caused the change. Reading further, the latter cause– of tactics by plaintiffs– likely has quite an influence. But it makes sense to see enjoin stays won in individual cases that are involved in a large scatter-shot campaign to throw wooden shoes in the gears of any and all government actions– whether the government action is on the left or the right.

  280. SteveF

    No need to argue about how mistaken people who disagree with you are, the cost and accuracy of home pregnancy tests, advancing technology, BLM riots, voting irregularities, the risk to personal liberties, Nazis, Jews, Christians, atheists, etc. It isn’t that complicated. Draw your bright line and choose to vote for candidates you are comfortable with. Public opinion on abortion has been remarkably stable over multiple decades; arguing for an eternity, and drawing in a hundred utterly irrelevant issues isn’t going to change many minds.

    .
    I actually find the fact that his (5) followed his (4) side splitting.
    Here’s the sequence from Ron:
    .

    4) Because, we must stop the appeal to vilification …

    followed by this in (5)

    ) The Nazis successfully used this political tactic,[…]. The Dems have exploited both. ….

    .
    Yep… we must stop vilification. Because that’s what Nazis and Dems do. (So evidently, it’s ok for him to vilify Dems, as his vilifiying them in in pursuit of stopping the vilification.)
    .
    Yeah… yeah…I trimmed two quotes. Perhaps he’ll complain it was “out of context”. Feel free to use word search and scroll up to read those paragraphs in their full glory. After reading, tell me that Ron doesn’t come off as telling “us” to stop vilifying and then immediately vilify the-party-he-doesn’t like by associating them with Nazis!
    .
    Hard not to bust out laughing at that one.
    .
    And all this ranting seems to be triggered my me exercising my right to vote for Candidates based on my own views. Because– at least to hear him tell it– he actually agrees, (at least with todays technology and social circumstances), the bright line in a law falling somewhere between 12-24 weeks is reasonable.
    .
    As far as I can tell, the gripe that is causing Ron to expend sooooo much energy, vilify others, go off on weird tangents about issues is he doesn’t seem to like that this issue matters to me when I cast my vote.
    .

  281. Lucia:

    Yep… we must stop vilification. Because that’s what Nazis and Dems do. (So evidently, it’s ok for him to vilify Dems, as his vilifiying them in in pursuit of stopping the vilification.)

    .
    Lucia, you make an excellent point. It’s very tough to fight the dark side without becoming dark yourself. The danger of misinterpretation and escalation are ever present and always negative. I am not religious in the formal sense but I have huge respect for the wisdom of the Judeo-Christian ethics, treating thy neighbor as thyself is so easy to say but so hard to remember it needs to be repeated weekly and forever. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
    .
    We owe western civilization IMO to this ethic and teaching. It delivered us from preoccupation of war with those we distrust long enough to peacefully ponder and create. Part of that pondering is the study of history to use as a guide the understand how good intelligent people, maybe the most intelligent, go astray. I genuinely fear for our country and civilization.
    .
    I would never want to intentionally misinform you, fill you with a false vilification, hate or infringe on any voting right. But I am not convinced that everyone has the same ethic. What I think is a fair way to counter to those who feel justification for misinforming is to inform them and the others by rational discussion, even if they take offense…and they surely will.
    .
    Everyone’s actions get compared to Nazis at some point because we have a duty to never forget what can happen to anyone and any society when nature takes its course without dissent.
    .
    I think the Democrat party is wildly off course in promoting the idea that conservatives are deplorable racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and uncaring and that this is the underpinning of any of their policy motives. We don’t need to teach that America was founded in 1619 because it is a slave country or that oil companies are evil and have been knowingly destroying the planet.
    .
    Lucia:

    As far as I can tell, the gripe that is causing Ron to expend sooooo much energy, vilify others, go off on weird tangents about issues is he doesn’t seem to like that this issue matters to me when I cast my vote.

    .
    Lucia, how do you propose one should call out evil without creating evil? Real question.

  282. BTW, when I say Democrats I realize I am generalizing. I have huge respect for all the Democrats that are calling out the party. I like wat RFK Jr. has been doing even though I think he may have overstepped accusations a slight bit on vaccination harms and Fauci corruption, even if he was on the right track. I have no doubt the Democrat establishment as a whole will crush him without the courtesy of allowing him much air.

  283. Ron,

    Lucia, you make an excellent point. It’s very tough to fight the dark side without becoming dark yourself.

    .
    In other words, you aren’t going to even try to stop vilifying those with whom you disagree. And you are going to blame your habit of vilifying others on those you vilify. Snaps to you!
    .

    Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

    Just to let you see how this read to me: You asking us all to forgive or over look your tresspass while you refuse to forgive others when you perceive they have tresspassed against you.
    .
    When you start not vilifying others, I may stop laughing at your constant requests that “we” (but not you) must all stop vilifying.
    .

    We owe western civilization IMO to this ethic and teaching.
    Sure. Too bad that while you admire the ethic and teaching, you can’t bring yourself to adhere to it.
    .

    I would never want to intentionally misinform you, fill you with a false vilification, hate or infringe on any voting right.

    Well… I’m not worried about you “misinforming” me (intentionally or otherwise), because I have access to facts which I can check. What I don’t understand is why you rather constantly vilify those with whom you disagree. (Perhaps based on the above you think what you do is not not ‘false’ vilifation? And that “truthful” vilification is ok? Dunno.) And I don’t understand why you have gone of with paragraph after paragraph– usually on weird tangents– because it hurts your feels that I decide my vote for reasons of my own.
    .

    Everyone’s actions get compared to Nazis at some point because we have a duty

    .
    Great resort to passive voice to obscure the actor doing the vilifying!
    .

    Based on this thread I think that should be edited to
    .
    “I, Ron, will always compare the actions of people-in-the-party with-whom-I-disagree at some point because, I, Ron, think it is my duty. And people like me– who feel it is a duty to vilify exist, so it’s always going to happen to people sometime. ”
    .
    And yeah, tell us how you really feel about Democrats. After having compared them to Nazis. And on a thread where no one has called you a Nazi. (Perhaps you feel “forced” to liken them to Nazi;s because somewhere else someone else might have called people-who-you-identify-with Nazis. That’s not a great reason.)
    .

    Lucia, how do you propose one should call out evil without creating evil? Real question.

    Uhmmm… well that’s a softball:
    By quoting them and showing they personally think we should “consider” the benefits of women carrying babies to full term when debating abortion laws and calling them on it. Or pointing out that someone has launching on paragraph after paragraph of weird tangential “arguments” and their only gripe with my position is that I cast my vote in favor of advancing it.. (Otherwise, they supposedly agree with my position entirely.) And just basically calling them on their irrational arguments.
    .
    I don’t have to liken them or their tactics to Nazis– as you have done multiple time on this thread.
    .
    And in fact, as far as I can tell, likening the-people-you-disagree with to Nazi’s doesn’t do anything to “vanquish evil”. I honestly see no point in resorting to the evil tactic of calling people Nazi’s when that tactic is generally ineffective. That your tactic — displayed multiple times on this thread– is also evil is, of course , another reason why you should not indulge yourself.
    .
    (And yet another practical reason you might wish to not resort to your go-to-evil tactic is– as soon as people read your allusion to Nazis, they tend to suspect that deep down inside you know your argument is weak or alternatively, you have poor reasoning skills and can’t tell a good one from a bad.)
    .
    Hope the first bit tells you “how” I propose to call out evil without resorting to it, and the second two bits provide reasons why you should stop resorting to evil. If I think further, I add more ways “how” one could avoid it and also reasons why– purely as a practical matter- you should avoid resorting to it.

  284. Lucia,
    That was epic. (I know, I sound like a millennial. I’ve been spending a lot of time with my stepson; he’s 16 years old and I’m running out of time to hang out with him. It rubs off, maybe.)
    Reading this thread makes me realize I ought to work on how I handle trolls.

  285. Ron,

    BTW, when I say Democrats I realize I am generalizing.

    Everyone already knows that. Your habit is to throw out blanket vilifications that can be interpreted to apply to a much larger group of people than the group you actually dislike intensely. We’ve all seen this– so we know it.
    .
    Not. A. Good. Habit.
    .
    It s (a) is evil, (b) is unpersuasive and (c) tends to backfire. Hilary’s “deplorable” statement shows us (b) and (c). Not everyone agrees it was also evil — but I do.

  286. Ron Graf,
    I keep waiting to hear your bright line (gestational period) for unrestricted abortion.

  287. Lucia,
    I would shy away from saying Hillary is evil, but IMO the deplorable statement was evil, and showed clearly how unsuitable she was to be president; the president ought not loath half the country.

  288. I should add: a president also ought not have dementia nor be an utter a$$hole. We seem to get a lot of very bad choices.

  289. Steve

    Ron Graf,
    I keep waiting to hear your bright line (gestational period) for unrestricted abortion.

    .
    He’s also not stated which factors count most to determining this, which less and which not at all.
    The factors I consider most important to unrestricted abortion available to the pregnant woman.

    * The balance between the woman’s rights to guide her life, and the moral issue of ending a not-yet fully human but developing into-humanness life.

    * that being pregnant has very large social, economic, moral, emotional and physical impacts on the pregnant woman. They are typically life changing. Many can be very negative when the pregnancy wasn’t planned. (It impact the father’s to, but less. ) For this reason, it must be allowed for a reasonable period.
    .
    * for timing on the “short” window: people need time to make appropriate decisions about issues that are life changing. Mulling over the many,many things to consider and people to consult (including the father), twelve weeks seems just sufficient to me. Shorter time windows are unreasonable.
    .
    * for timing on the late window: viability strikes me as a good final time. The precise week ending viability will always be debatable, and may change. But for now (which is the time frame for picking the window) it is near 24 weeks. This drives the long window. And I think by this point, the woman has definitely had enough to to make a decision and organize the procedure.
    .
    And, of course, the windows are irrelevant to the issue of whether abortion should be permitted to save the life or physical health of the mother. It should be permitted. (We can have some paperwork to verify the danger to the woman– but not overwhelming to the extent of blocking.) And I think it should also be permitted if the developing fetus is discovered to have significant deformities or physical problems. (Once again: paper work permitted.)

    All other factors are either totally irrelevant, or of so little relevance that I think bringing them up amounts to a red herring. Or if someone thinks they are that important, that person arguing should explicitly proactively state why they matter a lot, and in particular why they matter more than the factors I have stated.
    .
    If they think my short window is too short: They should voluntarily explain why they think “T seconds” after the shortest time in which a pregnancy test can work is “enough time” for woman who finds herself in this life changing situation is reasonable– or why the balance toward the developing fetus is “more important”. And if the think “T more weeks” are necessary or justifiable. None of this “Well… I’m just throwing out spitballs. But no one should think this implies I think any of these spitballs matter or are important”.
    .
    So I would like Ron to answer your question and also explain his basis. (Hopefully it is not that Democrats are like Nazis or that Childless transcouples dream of adopting.)

  290. SteveF

    We seem to get a lot of very bad choices.

    Looks like the 2024 election is fixing to give us bad choices too. (Fingers crossed.)

  291. Lucia,
    Which is why stating plainly the bright lines and reasoning is so important. There are some people (10% to 20%) where no limit of any kind is acceptable. There are some people (probably 15% to 20%) for whom “abortion should never be allowed” is the only acceptable position. Both will never give a bright line value. It is a waste of time to discuss details and policy compromises with those two groups, because they will not compromise.

  292. Yeah. I don’t have one specific week/day/hour bright line. I have a range in which I think the law must fall. And I have reasons for the low time and the high end. Given my reasons the low end is unlikely to move. At this point, technology doesn’t really affect it. The high end could move down if viability moved.
    .
    But for viability to move a lot, I think that would mean we are starting to approach a technology where after 24 weeks there would be an additional choice: The woman could request medically induced premature birth, and then have the baby be transferred to what amounts to a mechanical womb.
    .
    The mechanical womb and care would probably be expensive. If she’s keeping it and has access to Musk level finances, she could pay for this. Or the father himself could pay. (There could be some formal agreement in the event she doesn’t want it, but he does and says he’s willing to pay the costs for the artificial womb)
    .
    If she’s giving it up for adoption, the state could assume the cost. That would certainly eliminate any demand for abortion after 24 weeks because it’s no burden to the woman whose life is otherwise disrupted at that poing.
    .
    And perhaps those childless-trans parents who dream of adoption could offer to pay as a cost of adoption. To offset the high cost and need for taxpayer funding, their willingness to assume the cost could put them in the front of the line relative to others.
    .
    All these are hypothetical changes that could move my views. But for now, the are a bit pie in the sky, so of course the don’t for now or any time soon.

  293. Well somebody has to decide and it’s not going to be science.
    .
    The underlying issue is some unwanted children who were born anyway may end up being wonderful people and it could force the parents to take better responsibility for their lives. Alternately an unwanted child may end up being a heavy burden on somebody who is emotionally and financially unprepared for this hard task and all things go very badly for all involved. Different sides imagine different stories.
    .
    My random threshold is 16 weeks. Enough time to know you are pregnant and make a knowledgeable decision. After that the baby has rights. Exceptions late for serious health threats to the mother. I am basing this on the extreme science of gut feel.

  295. Tom,
    Of course both things will happen. Some unwanted children will be born and end up wonderful; others will turn out terrible. The same goes for what will happen with wanted children.

    I am basing this on the extreme science of gut feel.

    Hey. It falls in my window. And reasons are in same vicinity as mine. 🙂

  296. Hi all, haven’t commented here in years but the conversation still is interesting. Lucia, the web site is a little hard to find with google unless you recall the rankexploits name. The blackboard doesn’t bring it up at least on the first few pages.

    What the GOP should do on hot button issues is not clear to me. Individual GOP politicians are all over the place on abortion. I myself was nervous about the Florida 6 week ban. It does appear that the public supports revoking Disney’s special priveledges. I really think the trans issue is a winner too. Genital mutilation of minors seems like it is barbaric and horrifying and malpractice. Can anything be more obvious?

    But people in this country have become more irrational over the last 40 years. Legalization of weed is an example. There is now a lot of evidence out of Europe that its quite harmful especially for young men and boys. I’ve also heard that several of our recent young male mass shooters were potheads.

    On another note, Washington has gone full California and enacted this year a host of far left bills. They banned assault rifles, which can’t be defined really, made transing the kids legal without parental notification, and also handicaped cops. Cops now cannot pursue someone fleeing the scene of a crime unless they have evidence the fleeing person was the perp.

    Nowhere is the divide between sane and insane clearer than on the firearms issue. If you ban guns, then only criminals will have guns. Washington for example is not banning semiautomatic hunting rifles. My Remington 7400 has a 10 round magazine and a superior action to most AR type rifles. It has a “pistol grip” that is part of the stock. It shoots a round that can dispatch quickly any Moose.

  297. I also have a new post at Climate Etc. on how the disinformation industrial complex is harming science. There was a more technical one on CFD in December of last year.

  298. I didn’t leave the conversation. I just had a full plate today.
    .
    Lucia, I sincerely apologize for upsetting you so. As I said, I have no beef with you or who you choose to vote for, even if you lived in a swing state. You can choose what color car you like and I don’t mind if the salesman convinces you to pay $3000 over what any others are willing to pay for a color.
    .
    SteveF

    Lucia,
    Which is why [I] stating plainly the bright lines and reasoning is so important. There are some people (10% to 20%) where no limit of any kind is acceptable. There are some people (probably 15% to 20%) for whom “abortion should never be allowed” is the only acceptable position. Both will never give a bright line value. It is a waste of time to discuss details and policy compromises with those two groups, because they will not compromise.

    .
    Steve, I agreed with your point that there is no bright line, only a gradual transition of rights. How we dissect who’s rights are primary and how to think about the moral questions is a potentially great discussion. But first, I want to also remind all that my overall point that got me into the dog house was suggesting the entire topic is artificially amplified out of proportion to what it’s actual impacts are in young people’s lives today. In fact, if one looks at the historical line there was a time before the pill, and before that contraception, when the issue was paramount in a young girl’s life. She had to remain celibate to be safe. The situation for her improved continually from then to now, and should continue to improve until the issue of unwanted pregnancy is insignificant. Therefore, policy should be flexible to adapt with the times. I’m not sure there was even over the counter pregnancy tests when Roe was decided, for example.
    .
    To the question of where rights come from, I would say it is the Constitution and society’s reverence for it. If academia turns against it judges should eventually follow society’s view and order would decay I suppose unless there was a tyranny strong enough to coerce any dissent from popping up. We would have North Korea.
    .
    So, if we try to follow the Constitution then we need to look at rights being a product of divinity, even if we don’t all agree what exactly that means. But we do know the same authors of that document believed in divinity involved in conception. But giving full rights to a life inside another life creates the conflict at hand. Your solution of gradual transition with an arbitrary compromise on where the red lines of allowable action are during gestation, (and related exceptional circumstances), is the logical one.
    .
    One of the reasons that compromise can’t be reached by agreement is perhaps the reaction that occurs when people try to discuss the particulars. My thought is that political capital is gained by galvanizing each side’s base against the other in today’s political climate rather than looking for solutions.
    .
    Regardless to the divide on this issue I think there are a dozen other issues that right now would likely impact young people’s lives (as well as old) much more than this one. Nobody has to voice agreement. You can just safely nod or shake head.

  299. For my preference I like to see abortion discussed as matters of human rights and not practical/political matters as an adoption inventory or what will win votes from the public. My human rights position happens to probably hit the sweet spot for voters but that is not why I advocate it.

    A women has a right to her body and does not need “practical” rationale to justify it. At some point in pregnancy the unborn baby in my view has rights even though they are not documented directly. And again rights are rights without “practical” considerations. Voting on these rights does not make them rights, but rather preferences that could deny rights as any purely democratic action can do.

  300. David Young (Comment #220370)
    Lucia, the web site is a little hard to find with google unless you recall the rankexploits name. The blackboard doesn’t bring it up at least on the first few pages.
    –
    Same here, not sure if censorship or not

  301. mark bofill (Comment #220358)
    April 27th, 2023 at 8:11 am

    Wait till you become a grandfather it gets easier.

    You are young have years left to become mellower. My sons tell me that my increasing mellowness is the result of my diminishing testosterone levels but I do not believe it. They have become mellower in my view and their testosterone is still raging.

  302. Ken,
    Thank you. I hope to be a grandfather someday! Something to hope for and look forward to.

  303. Ron

    Lucia, I sincerely apologize for upsetting you so.

    You haven’t upset me. You’ve just said irrational and non-sensical things. I commented on that. It doesn’t mean I’m upset.

  304. My view of the Constitution is that in actuality it is what 5 justices think it is and as far as limiting government interference in individual lives it has failed miserably with little chance that retracting from the ever growing government is somehow going to happen.

    So called emergencies can readily wipe out individual rights for as long as the emergency can be maintained or the next emergency is generated while all the time the Supreme Court remains silent. It also becomes a testing period to determine how much the population (and the Supreme Court) will tolerate without any signs of resistance or rebellion.

  305. Ron

    So, if we try to follow the Constitution then we need to look at rights being a product of divinity,

    You have claimed the constitution is based on rights being a product of divinity. This is simply false. I’ve told you that and pointed to the preamble.
    .
    Most of us here are American and familiar with the Constitution. It makes no reference to God. As an American, you should know this. Evidently, you don’t.
    .

    One of the reasons that compromise can’t be reached by agreement is perhaps the reaction that occurs when people try to discuss the particulars. My thought is that political capital is gained by galvanizing each side’s base against the other in today’s political climate rather than looking for solutions.

    Sure. I mean, this topic clearly caused you to launch off into trying to galvanize some base. So, yes, that happens.
    .

    Regardless to the divide on this issue I think there are a dozen other issues that right now would likely impact young people’s lives (as well as old) much more than this one. Nobody has to voice agreement. You can just safely nod or shake head.

    Well, I think this issue is important to young people. And old. I’m obviously not going to agree with your position since I think it is incorrect.
    .
    I remain amazed you wrote so much on this topic if you think the topic is unimportant.

  306. Ron Graf, your overly polite digs do not go unnoticed as digs none the less. I suggest you stick to the subject at hand . State your case in the fewest words possible and leave it go at that.

  307. Ron
    Oh… and this

    But first, I want to also remind all that my overall point that got me into the dog house was suggesting the entire topic is artificially amplified out of proportion to what it’s actual impacts are in young people’s lives today.

    That’s never been the point that got you in the dog house in some sense. If you are in the dog house (and I’m not sure there is one.) the issue that dominates others is you seem to think I don’t have a right to decide my own vote for my own reasons.
    .
    If you just don’t think the issue is important– I and no one else have objected to you having your view on that. Lots of people think different things are important.
    .
    But it’s not your place to decide what I consider important nor vice versa.
    I’m also honestly rather amazed at your ability to misunderstand things.
    .
    Steve has repeated asked you to state your bright line rule. And now you answer

    Steve, I agreed with your point that there is no bright line, only a gradual transition of rights.

    .
    Now I get you might not want to state your bright line rule. But I’m mistified by you saying your answer to his request you state yours is you agree with him that there is none!!!!

  308. Ron Graf,
    Maybe you really did not understand much of what I wrote on this thread. I believe there is a gradual shift in the rights of child versus mother during pregnancy. But the ‘bright line’, as Lucia called it, is where you, as an individual, think the moral balance between mother and child shifts from mother’s rights to child’s rights. That is, the gestational age before which you think abortion ought not be restricted by law.
    .
    Since I have asked you several times and you have refused to give your personal opinion, my guess is you are simply opposed to abortion at any time during pregnancy. That is only my guess, because you have refused to say. It would be better for the quality of the conversation if you would just state your views on when abortion should be unrestricted by law (and I do not mean any of your views on the hundred other issues you think are more important than abortion).
    .
    Your comments on abortion appear to me confused, unclear, and I fear designed only to obfuscate. So I think further interaction on this subject with you is a waste of my time and yours.

  309. I also think google is hiding this web site. Of all the sites I visit, this one seems to be the hardest to google. I gave up on finding it that way. If I’m on a foreign device, I find it by inputting WUWT and going to links.

  310. All those videos of training and war material delivery were summarized at a press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated on April 27 that NATO has trained and equipped more than nine new Ukrainian brigades [my guess 35,000 troops]. Stoltenberg also stated that NATO and its partners had delivered over 98 percent of promised combat vehicles to Ukraine, totaling over 1,550 armored vehicles and 230 tanks. US European Command (EUCOM) Commander General Christopher Cavoli stated that the US has been working closely with Ukrainian forces to develop a counteroffensive plan, including techniques to surprise Russian forces.
    https://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natohq/opinions_214221.htm
    It’s on!

  311. I think Lucia’s lack of impact in search engines is mostly down to how the site is set up. Looking at DuckDuck, it makes an appearance at result 15, but while most sites have some accompanying text, rankexploits has nothing. Lucia’s wiki bio, and mentions in other blogs, do rank highly, even on google.

  312. I have a note to look at something on May 8– after AP’s are done.
    I have more energy lately. (I was diagnosed hypothyroid; was pretty tired. Probably affected my dancing, and fixing this issue was pretty low priority relative to other things like tutoring, fixing this, the small amount of house work I do etc.)

  313. Ken Fritsch (Comment #220373): “For my preference I like to see abortion discussed as matters of human rights”.
    .
    At best, that is a dead end since it does not allow for compromise. At worst, it is a path to civil war.
    .
    The reason that abortion is so divisive is that the extremes on both sides see it solely as a matter of human rights.

  314. I just tried searching for this site using DuckDuckGo, which is only anonymized Google. Not hard to find at all. Of course searching for “the blackboard” was a waste of time, as expected. But searching for “the blackboard lucia” brought up a bunch of relevant links. I clicked on the first two and both had links to this site.

  316. I think when there were more posts on specific subjects (not just open threads) the site came up more easily in searches. I suspect blog comments are not used by the web crawlers to generate search keys.

  317. I noticed for a long time that this site was showing in the browser url as not secure. That was as a result of not having a valid certificate for SSL, which was being phased in as a requirement. Is see that the site now has https and is no longer http, which shows that SSL certificate is present but Google may have already de-indexed the site before that occurred. Maybe a resubmission to Google would fix. That is the first thing I would try, that is if you want to increase visibility. The only other thing I could think of is that there is a “no robots” html tag somewhere in the meta tags that is preventing Google from crawling the site.

  318. HaroldW,
    Not surprising to see Glen Loury as the corresponding author; he is a consistent critic of racial preferences (even though he is black).
    .
    The battle between people who support merit as a criterion for advancement and those who reject it will be long and stupid. It is not clear which side will prevail in the short to medium term, but in the long term (eg 50+ years) I bet that the importance of merit will return to where it was before all the ‘equity’ nonsense started. Excellence is too important to be forever abandoned.

  319. Ron,

    . Is see that the site now has https and is no longer http, which shows that SSL certificate is present but Google may have already de-indexed the site before that occurred

    Yeah. Dreamhost made it easy to have one. So I now do.
    I have a list of things to do. Doesn’t have anything to do with “no robots” order. 🙂

  320. Ken:

    Voting on these rights does not make them rights, but rather preferences that could deny rights as any purely democratic action can do.

    .
    Lucia:

    You have claimed the constitution is based on rights being a product of divinity. This is simply false. I’ve told you that and pointed to the preamble.

    .
    Where rights come from and who decides what they are is a non-trivial matter that is often taken for granted, IMO. Lucia says the Constitution does not mention God. She is technically correct but Constitutional scholars include the Declaration of Independence as part of the Constitution, particularly the parts about inalienable rights and the examples given of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The word inalienable has generally been interpreted to mean God given. Also, God mentioned in the constitutions of all 50 states, according to Google.
    .
    SteveF, I thought I was answering your question about the bright line. My point was that my line would change over time according to practical circumstances. I think that Mike M is correct on his point that each side is seeing their particular right as inalienable. I don’t think our founders meant that every right is.
    .
    Rights must compete and compromise in order to have a civil society. We give up rights all of the time in exchange for security or convenience, as Ken pointed out. The problem is that when we give them up on temporary pretext there is no guarantee we will easily be able to reclaim them (i.e. slippery slope).
    .
    I will say once again that my biggest concern is for the success of society. I believe that the ideals of the American experiment are the best hope for a civil societies that preserve the most amount of individual rights. One threat to the experiment is a failure to be to have self-government because we don’t have access to correct information or that we are filled with such orthodoxy on issues that we cannot compromise.

  321. Ron Graf,
    That is a lot of words to not answer a simple question. Seems pretty clear you oppose abortion at all stages of pregnancy, most likely on religious grounds. There can be no compromise struck, to facilitate a civil society, when some will not even state their position.
    .
    If the framers had wanted to include references to rights coming from God in the Constitution, then they would have. The thing speaks for itself; there are no references in the constitution to rights coming from God. The only references to religion are: prohibition of establishing a government associated religion, prohibition of government interfering with religious worship, and a prohibition on religious belief as a qualification for office. Like most of the constitution, the focus is on restricting what government can do WRT religion.

  322. Ron Graf,

    Lucia says the Constitution does not mention God. She is technically correct but Constitutional scholars include the Declaration of Independence as part of the Constitution

    The Declaration of Independence is not part of The Constitution. It is a historic document of considerable importance.
    .
    But– whether you like it or not– those writing the actual Constitution– which we are governed by– made intentional decisions about what it would say. That included intentionally deciding to leave God out of it.
    .
    The founders wanted the legal document to make no mention of God and to be clear that our laws and any legal rights do not spring from “God”. This was motivated by a desire to avoid the religious strife they knew came from anyone believing the foundation of government or the underlying rational of legal rights sprung from God.
    .
    Moreover, to the extent The Constitution does from religion it states:

    ““no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” “

    The founders were very familiar with agnosticism and atheism because some were. So “no religious test” includes not insisting those taking office even believe in god.
    .
    Had your notion that the “Constitution” was based on “God” prevailed and wording to that effect been included, it would likely never have been ratified. Equally, Madison himself would not have written it. He was very strongly against the idea of the idea of connecting “God” with “law”. And he was against the notion of religious texts. That’s why he wrote things the way he did. And that’s what other people at the time endorsed.
    .
    Notably, the first amendment was to remove all possible ambiguity on this issue: It explicitly added that
    .
    ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    .
    Congress has no business with dealing, founding, establishing or prohibiting religion.
    .
    It is absolutely absurd to suggest that not considering religious foundation when we consider a law will topple the foundations of our Constitutional framework. Stripping consideration of relition is precisely what the founders did in creating the framework
    .
    https://www.paulksicinskilaw.com/blog/2020/07/god-is-not-a-part-of-the-constitution-for-a-reason/

  323. SteveF–
    Yep. Ron’s not answering your question. That does seem to put him in the category of people who won’t. You’ve already said what you think of spending time discussing with them. 🙂 (#220365)
    .
    The only surprise is, perhaps he didn’t write “I agree with you” somewhere in his non-response. 😉

  324. SteveF

    There can be no compromise struck, to facilitate a civil society, when some will not even state their position.

    Of course, some will also lie or mislead. In that case, their “arguments” will tend to contradict their stated position. This is where hearing the reasons for their claimed position can be revealing.
    .
    Imean… looks at this

    SteveF, I thought I was answering your question about the bright line. My point was that my line would change over time according to practical circumstances.

    Even if the line could change according to “practical circumstance”,
    (a) that doesn’t mean the can’t give their current line, nor explain why it is there now. (That allows one to figure out how it might move and why.)
    (b) it doesn’t tell us what those “practical circumstances” include. Based on considerations thrown out there by Ron in this thread, the ones he finds relevant seem seem to include the dreams of childless trans couples, the fact of BLM protests, trans-women being allowed to compete against cis-women in collegiate sports, and God being the foundation of the constitution (which is wrong.).
    .
    I may have left some “practical reasons” he”s mentioned. But the “practical considerations” he seems not to consider particularly important are the social, emotional, physical, or economic impact on the currently pregnant mother or the humanity or viability of the fetus.
    .
    Clearly, he does not want to rationally discuss the issue of abortion nor most important factors to consider in making it legal or illegal. And he especially does not want to discuss how consideration of those factors and the present time.

  325. Lucia,
    “You’ve already said what you think of spending time discussing with them. ???? ”
    .
    You are right, I should listen to myself. I learned long ago that arguing about religiously motivated politics is usually pointless because reasoned compromise is usually impossible.

  326. SteveF:

    Seems pretty clear you oppose abortion at all stages of pregnancy, most likely on religious grounds. There can be no compromise struck, to facilitate a civil society, when some will not even state their position.

    .
    Steve, I have stated that my ideal window for the transition of rights shifting from the mother to the fetus in priority is somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks. I think 6 weeks is too soon but I do not see it as giving the mother no opportunity for action as you claimed. I think young people today are largely educated on how sexual reproduction works and on their available tools to stay safe from predicaments. I’ll grant that there are young women who were unprepared for their first sexual encounter and got pregnant and further stayed in denial of that one encounter until their third trimester. In that unfortunate situation I think abortion might well be as traumatic as child birth and giving the child up for adoption. In any case unfortunate things can happen even when we do our best to set up fair legal frameworks.
    .
    I said I am not religious in the least and I meant it. I also said that I give great respect to those that are and particularly to the wisdoms found in religious teachings. I wish we could take the wisdom and leave the orthodoxy, whether it be religious or political. I am for compromise.
    .
    I do not believe in God thus I cannot believe that our rights come from God. If Lucia is correct that I have been misinformed that our country had embraced the notion of God given rights I would accept that. I absolutely accept that our laws should not be set by religious orthodoxy and agree that is what our founders feared and strived to avoid, not because the were not religious, but because they knew the history of conflict and the need for compromise to make the experiment of self-government work.

  327. “it (Constitution) has failed miserably with little chance that retracting from the ever growing government is somehow going to happen.”
    .
    While I agree that things are generally going in the wrong direction, the Constitution and the SC have been in this fight and are on the …. errr … right side of history. They just took abortion away from the federal government’s control and have smacked back numerous attempted speech coup’s. They can’t even get gun control through.
    .
    Imagine a world where these safeguards don’t exist and we were at the momentary whims of our benevolent elected representatives. This fight is a marathon, not a sprint. I still believe (fantasize?) that this pendulum will swing back the other direction once the new generation realizes that authoritarian control of the people isn’t an answer to society’s ills, see covid Every generation needs to learn this on their own the hard way.

  328. Imagine how much better this place would be if we had thousands more commenters! It will be awesome, another exemplary sewer of partisan talking point warfare. Lucia might be able to sell ads for Bud Light though.

  329. The possibility exists that the war against merit is self serving, our governing class’s progeny aren’t all so bright and are being brought up without learning to work hard. Thus, a fix needs to be put in. Nobody seems to ever point out that removing merit makes the system much more corruptible. Strange lack of curiosity on that subject.

  330. Declaration of Independence has God in it as a reference for the right to independence. It thus would logically follow that further down when it refers to inalienable rights it is the same reference to God given.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Here is a legal review of the history of the SCOTUS deciding cases based on the Declaration. The pursuit of happiness is the most often cited legal doctrine.

  332. God is not in the Constitution but religious groups and individuals have as much right to control society within those bounds as everyone else. That some of those views might be blindly derived from an ancient text makes them no less legally binding as environmentalism or progressivism or other conservative strongly held beliefs. “The Bible told me so” is an understandable argument and if people led with that then the debate would be much shorter. If you are taught for decades that all life is precious then you might start believing it, strongly. It’s a valid viewpoint. This is a very tough balancing of rights issue. Good luck resolving it amicably.

  333. I have a new Cause Du Jour… Supporting Riley Gaines.
    In her own words:
    “Riley Gaines, a 12 time All-American swimmer with 5 SEC titles was a successful female swimmer at University of Kentucky with ambitions to pursue a dental degree. That post-graduate ambition and her entire life was changed when she was forced to share a locker room and then compete against biological male Lia Thomas at the 2022 NCAA Women’s Swimming Championship.This uneven challenge, not just for Riley but for every woman competing in the pool that day, was made even more traumatic when the NCAA officials insisted on giving Lia Thomas the trophy, despite tying Riley down to the hundredth of a second in the event. Riley can recall wondering why no one was standing up for her or for any women in the room.This moment became her call to action – to defend and protect America’s daughters against the woke left and their gender-denying ideology. Biological men should not take opportunities for success in sports away from women. Biological men should not share locker rooms with women. Join Riley today and help Protect America’s Daughters.”
    https://rileygaines.com/
    https://twitter.com/Riley_Gaines_

  334. Tom Scharf,
    “This is a very tough balancing of rights issue.”
    .
    Sure. That is why it has been a point of political contention for most of my lifetime.
    .
    As to whether or not it can be resolved: I hope it can, and based on voter surveys, I think a consensus can be reached in most places. My doubts are twofold: 1) Can enough people in the broad center (>50%) insist a compromise be struck? I’m not sure. 2) Will the Republican party adopt policy goals on abortion which shift the balance of votes enough to put liberal Democrats in power in 2024 and for long enough after that to control the presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court? Everything I see suggests Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on abortion, and it will drive them out of power in Washington. I honestly find the Republican reaction to ending Roe incredibly stupid and the potential political consequences frightening for the future of the country.

  335. Ron
    Once again: The declaration of independence is not the constitution. It is also not a governing document.

    The link you site does NOT clain it is one. The author says he makes only this claim

    On these assumptions, I make a soft claim for the place of the
    Declaration in constitutional interpretation. The Declaration is
    an authority not so much for a particularunderstanding of con-
    stitutional rights     as for construing the equal dignity of each
    person as a fundamental constitutional value, the meaning of
    which derives in part from the shared national ethos of “We the
    People,” who continue to debate the nature and limits of the
    rights we regard as basic.

    .
    In other words, he say it is not an authority for understanding constitutional rights. That’s the opposite of what you are claiming.
    .
    Neither I, nor anyone here said the declaration was not am important document. But it is not the law of the land, and like it or not, the founders intentionally left GOD out of the our constitution. They knew how destructive it is to state the foundation of our laws comes from God.

  336. Tom

    “The Bible told me so” is an understandable argument and if people led with that then the debate would be much shorter.

    Yep. And that’s a very different statement from claiming God or religion is the foundation for our government or our civil rights. The later is what Ron is trying to claim and its simply incorrect.

    If you are taught for decades that all life is precious then you might start believing it, strongly. It’s a valid viewpoint.

    Yep. It’s a view point. People are allowed those. They are also allowed to believe in every standard in Sharia law if their religion tells them that. Our constitution has a process for people who believe in those tenets to try to pass laws they prefer. It can even be amended.
    .
    Nevertheless, Sharia law is obviously not the foundation for the American form of government. Nor is the bible. Nor belief that rights come from God.
    .
    And of course, the founders didn’t think we should have checks and balances because God told them that.

  337. Lucia, I respectfully differ on your claim that the Declaration is not a governing document or “law of the land.” I read your excerpt differently than you do, and it is just one opinion. The one that matters most is the one the SCOTUS has and they have routinely cited the Declaration as the basis for their legal philosophy when it comes to questions on fundamental rights.
    .
    SteveF,

    I honestly find the Republican reaction to ending Roe incredibly stupid and the potential political consequences frightening for the future of the country.

    .
    I 100% agree, Lindsey Graham’s proposal right before the midterms of a federal ban was not just nuts. (After all, Dobbs had just decided federal regulation on abortion was unconstitutional.) I think Dobbs had more to do with the dismal GOP results than Trump’s presence. I defer to Lucia’s perspective on this.
    .
    Russell, talk about a Homer Simpson, I forgot “the thing.”
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
    .
    The abortion debate is precisely about the competition of the fetus’s right to life versus the mother’s right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. The former could evolve as viability outside the mother improves. The later could evolve as the tools of contraception and detection improve, thus reducing the mother’s burden.
    .
    As much as we like to think that certain rights are untouchable, they are all a compromise with rights of other individuals and of the collective society. Mandatory vaccination is a perfect example. Society’s rights are dependent on the particular circumstances of safety of vaccine deadliness and contagion of virus, personal autonomy and other trade-offs. The two controlling political parties are crisscrossed on opposite sides of their weighing of personal autonomy and societal rights in abortion rights versus vaccine mandates.

  338. Ron

    Lucia, I respectfully differ on your claim that the Declaration is not a governing document or “law of the land.”

    You can disagree. But that merely means you are mistaken about facts.

    I read your excerpt differently than you do, and it is just one opinion.

    It is just one opinion. But it’s the one you linked to try to buttress yours. I have no doubt you read it differently. But as you have repeatedly wildly misinterpreted things expressed in English here, I’m not very suprised you are misreading that.

    This bit is the paragraph telling the reader what his claim is. (Quoted more fully above. Let me unpack that for you:

    On these assumptions, I make a soft claim for the place of the
    Declaration in constitutional interpretation.

    This sentence tells the reader that what follows is the claim he is making about the Declaration.

    The Declaration is
    an authority not so much for a particularunderstanding of con-
    stitutional rights as for construing the equal dignity of each
    person as a fundamental constitutional value,

    This part is saying he claims it is an authority for recognizing that people having equal dignity is a fundamental value. It also says it’s authority is not for understanding constitutional rights.
    .
    The word “not” means something in that sentence.
    .
    That sentence continues

    the meaning of
    which derives in part from the shared national ethos of “We the
    People,” who continue to debate the nature and limits of the
    rights we regard as basic.

    It recognizes that the meaning of “equal dignity” derives from our national ethos of “We the People”. Note “We the people are not God.
    .
    And it also implies that “We the people”– not God, continue to debate the nature and limits of rights.
    .
    I get you might interpret this “differently”. But it sounds pretty clear.
    .
    And I realize you might be able to find some other document that claims God provides the legal foundation for our legal rights or that the Declaration of independence is somehow a part of the Constitution. I’m sure someone, somewhere had made that claim in various circumstances. After all– you have.
    .
    But you told us to go read this scholarly article and claimed it makes the argument the Declaration of independence is somehow part of the constitution or that “GOD” is the basis for our legal rights. The one you suggested you read does not.

  339. Lucia, Here is a document I found in five seconds that delves into the SCOTUS’s use of the Declaration’s “pursuit of happiness” right.
    From that Columbia Law page:

    Protections of the pursuit of happiness have been written into various state and national constitutions, and have even been cited in some of the United States’ Supreme Court’s landmark decisions on marriage…

    .
    The justification for our nation’s independence was that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Bill of rights further explains examples in detail and says specifically that this is not an exhaustive list. Any powers not enumerated in the Constitution and not barred by the Bill of Rights flows to the states. The state’s constitutions all enumerate their limits (all referencing God) and the residue is given to local authorities. The cascade begins at the Declaration with the premise of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

  340. I tuned out the abortion debate here a long time ago. But I came across an interesting argument from Ann Coulter, of all people:

    Unlike a lot of people complaining about the anti-abortion zealots, I am an anti-abortion zealot. That’s why I’m begging them to stop pushing wildly unpopular ideas. These fanatics are going to get millions more babies killed when Democrats win supermajorities in both houses of Congress and immediately pass a federal law making abortion-on-demand the law of the land.

    It strikes me as the only argument that might move the extreme anti-abortion crowd. Not “compromise on abortion because X” where X is crime, the border, schools, whatever; but “compromise on abortion because abortion”.
    —–

    In case anyone actually wants the link:
    https://thespectator.com/topic/pro-life-hardliners-babies-killed-abortion/

  341. Ron,
    Sure you can find all sorts of documents quickly. The trick is to find one that shows what you claim. You haven’t because that one doesn’t show that the Declaration of Independence is either a constitutional document nor that it’s contents are used by SCOTUS.

    No one denies the Declaration of Independence is an influential document. (Likewise, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.) They aren’t “the constitution” nor do they form the foundation of our government.
    .
    That states wrote the pursuit of happiness into their constitutions does not make the Declaration of Independence a constitutional document. To the contrary, it suggest that it is not: the right had to be written into the state constitution to be a right in those states. Were the influenced by the Declaration of Independence? Sure.
    .
    Notably, SCOTUS doesn’t say the legal basis of the right to pursue happiness is the Declaration of Independence in those rulings.
    .
    That a right that everyone always knew existed before the Declaration of Independence was mentioned in the Declaration doesn’t mean the origin of that right is the Declaration nor that we have that right because of the Declaration.
    .
    And it certainly doesn’t demonstrate that the words the Declaration includes vis a vis God become part of our constitution. .

    Nor do other sentences like
    “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” or “Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren.” become the basis of our Government merely by dint of appearing the Declaration.
    .

  342. Operation Tower of London is underway. That is the codename for the secret movements of the crown jewels from their vault to the various destinations were they will be used in the coronation ceremonies. With a value in the billions, a crime movie is waiting to be told.
    Image of the crown:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1652273735003430914?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
    The ‘Stone of Destiny’ is also on the move…. traveling from Scotland to Westminster Abby. It’s not a gem, but a chiseled block of sandstone. It’s history is mythical but it’s been used in the coronation of kings since 840 AD.
    Image:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1652273735003430914?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
    “One legend dates back to biblical times and states that it is the same stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel. Later, according to Jewish legend, it became the pedestal of the ark in the Temple. The stone was brought from Syria to Egypt by King Gathelus, who then fled to Spain following the defeat of the Egyptian army. A descendant of Gathelus brought the stone to Ireland, and was crowned on it as King of Ireland. And from Ireland, the stone moved with the invading Scots to Argyll.”

  344. Lucia, I don’t think I said the Declaration is the Constitution but if I did what I actually meant is that the Supreme Court weighs the principles of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as if they are written into the Constitution. I don’t think it is an accident that the states expressly incorporated these into their own constitutions or that the Organization of American State’s AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN, for example, has as its article one: “Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.”
    .
    I think the SC justices assume that the only reason it is not in the Constitution is that it’s in the Declaration. So as far a legal doctrine it behaves identically as being explicit in the document.
    .
    Reading the Dobbs decision is informative on how the court has historically viewed abortion in relation to constitutional rights. Roe, Casey and Dobbs all use the same documents but read them differently. My argument about giving the weight to what historically have been viewed as divine rights is precisely the danger that without recognizing some authority greater than the governments we may be jeopardizing or protections from government infringement of any or all rights.
    .
    One of the reasons that we need to calm the divisions in our country rather than exploit them is that radicals can read any meanings they want if their thinking is beyond our own comprehension. The Soviet Union’s constitution was just as strong in protecting rights in it pages as the US constitution.
    .
    Dobbs: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

  345. Russell, I can just picture a king in the middle ages saying, “I wish I had a Stone of Destiny,” in Homer Simpson fashion, and sending his army out to get him one.

  346. Ron

    ucia, I don’t think I said the Declaration is the Constitution …

    You wrote

    Lucia says the Constitution does not mention God. She is technically correct but Constitutional scholars include the Declaration of Independence as part of the Constitution

    That puts the claim in someone elses mouth– but you brought it foward. And you are specifically claiming I am only “technically” correct. Which implies that you are saying I am substamtively incorrect.
    .
    It amounts to you claiming the Declaration of Independence is “part of the Constitution”. You’ve brought forward no scholar and no evidence for that claim.
    .

    And later you write:

    … entitled to all of the Bill of Rights and Declaration”

    Which suggests one is “entitled” to something because it is in the Declaration. We aren’t entitled to anything based on the Declaration is not “The Constitution” and doesn’t entirle us to anything. And you’ve brought nothing forward to suggest we are entitled to anything because it is mentioned in the Declaration.
    .
    Moreover, it we were entitled to rights based on the Declaration, no-one would have pushed for the bill of rights (which the Anti-federalists did. And got.)
    .

    …

    but if I did what I actually meant is that the Supreme Court weighs the principles of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as if they are written into the Constitution.

    Sure. They get to consider inalienable rigths not mentioned specifically. Read the 9th amendment. (Note: it does not mention “God”.)
    .
    But this has nothing to do with your initial claim of “God given” being the under pinning of our constitutional rights. The constitution– a legal document— states the underpinning. And that document specifically avoids the mention of “God”. And the fact that they follow what the constitution actually says (including the 9th amendment — even not mentioned specifically) does not mean the “Declaration of Independence” grants us rights. Nor does it grant the Federal government powers over the people or states. Nor does it mean our laws are dedicated to, nor based on, the notion that the King of England was a bad guy who did bad things.

  347. Tom Scharf (Comment #220402)
    April 28th, 2023 at 10:19 am

    Tom, to be clear here, I am very much in favor of documented or contractual agreements that would greatly limit the power of government. On the other hand, I do not see the current Constitutional process as having fulfilled my requirement or avoiding future corrosion of the remaining limitations.

    The feature of the Constitution being what 5 justices say it is, becomes rather obvious when so much consideration and emphasis is put on who can nominate justices and who those justices are. It puts the governing system very much back towards a democracy as opposed to a republic.

    Much of the future of government limitations will be, in my mind, determined by the views of the intelligentsia and how much influence they will have on the general population. Questionnaires of the public on Constitutional matters are not very satisfying in their comprehending the need for a limited government. Combine that circumstance with an intelligentsia that promotes increases in government power and the future of reigning in government power is rather bleak at this point in time. In fact, the current political situation with the Republicans on a suicide mission could easily bring about the above noted circumstances.

    I can visualize, from historical considerations alone, under the current Constitutional system and without any amendments that a few appointed judges in agreement that the need of more government power holds sway over any original views of limited government could in effect make cases for a socialist or fascist government. Regulations run amok and without restraint can readily devolve into fascism, while a wealth tax (which I believe a majority of voters might support) could lead eventually to socialism. Both forms of government lead to (in order to function) the diminishing of those rights that are supposed to be protected in the Bill of Rights. (Remember the exemptions to Constitutional considerations when government interest is involved.)

    I am not one to point to our current Constitution as a foolproof document guaranteeing my freedom or to standby when government’s powers are increased clutching a copy of the Constitution to my chest.

  348. The Stone of Destiny has me intrigued.
    It has no intrinsic value but is priceless. It has no intrinsic power but has been used to instill great power for over a thousand years. It is a worthless, ugly, 335 lb, breadbox-sized piece of ordinary rock but is revered as magical by tens of millions of people around the world.
    It is a symbolic allegory for the British monarchy, which only exists because tens of millions of people around the world believe in it.
    [some of you non-engineers correct me if symbolic allegory is the wrong term]
    Image of St. Edward’s Crown and the Stone of Destiny: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1652273735003430914?s=20

  349. Lucia:

    We aren’t entitled to anything based on the Declaration [it] is not “The Constitution”…

    .
    The reason I had brought up the Declaration a few days ago as being relevant is that I remembered news of a Supreme Court decision that was based on the pursuit of happiness found in the Declaration. I can’t find it, but is seems the Declaration’s famous line about God creating all men equal and being endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights is used in many SC cases through history, including the Dred Scott Decision (by the losing side).
    .
    It took more than a few seconds but here are more references:

    Professor John Eidsmoe writes: “The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America. “The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading ‘The Organic Laws of the United States of America’ along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution ‘shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.’

    https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-declaration-of-independence-part-of-american-law
    .
    That article also goes into the divine roots of Jefferson’s quote as well the following page:

    Laws Of Nature And Nature’s God, a phrase first used in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776. But the concepts embodied in the phrase didn’t originate with Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration. The “law of nature” was a common term used by historic legal writers. The “laws of nature’s God” refers to the divine law, or the laws of God revealed in the Bible.

    https://lonang.com/
    .
    Also the US has a long history or recognizing the rights of people regardless of whether they can vote. So the question comes back to what is a human life, and how strong are its rights simply based on its being alive versus the rights of liberty of its guardians or carrier. I just think it is a complex issue that if all are willing to respect other points of view there is room for compromise without one being compelled to invest all their voting capital. I agree I was rude in shortening this idea down to: “You say you are likely willing to flush America down the toilet on many fronts as long as we have something like Roe.” That was bad. I apologise.
    .
    I also will let you have the last word and let my case rest on the point about legal doctrines.

  350. Ron

    The reason I had brought up the Declaration a few days ago

    I don’t and can’t to your underlying unstated reasons. I’m responding to what you wrote.
    .

    I can’t find it, ….

    Geehh…You can’t find the evidence you think exists to support your claim? Go figure.
    .
    Gotta go tutor. Have fun.

  351. Ken: “I am not one to point to our current Constitution as a foolproof document guaranteeing my freedom or to standby when government’s powers are increased clutching a copy of the Constitution to my chest.”
    .
    It’s true that the Constitution, like the royal family, rely on tradition that is maintained by the public consensus and teachings to the next generation. But if one were discarded the Constitution would be missed more.
    .
    Republicans are very late to the awareness of our educational system’s potential for use for indoctrination. But I suppose you and I were also indoctrinated to believe liberty and limited governance are valuable.
    .
    I just hope the political middle see that an electorate that votes in a Joe Biden or a John Fetterman is not voting in people based on merit or ideas but for power, by method of defamation of their opponents.
    .
    I cringe when I see Trump’s anti-DeSantis ads and also fear DeSantis will go negative. If only they could meet and work something out to not self-annihilate.

  352. Ron Graf (Comment #220421): “I can just picture a king in the middle ages saying, “I wish I had a Stone of Destiny,” in Homer Simpson fashion, and sending his army out to get him one.”
    .
    I think that is pretty much what Edward I did. It is also known as the Stone of Scone since it was kept at Scone Abbey in Scotland until Edward hauled it off to England.
    .
    Some say the Scots tricked him into taking a copy.

  353. Maybe I missed it. Has lucia said from where she think our rights originate? Or what is the basis for the principle of the equal dignity of each person? If so, please remind me.
    .
    If you asked the Framers, they’d have said “from God”.
    .
    It is absolutely certain that our rights do not derive from the Constitution.

  354. Ken Fritsch (Comment #220423): “I do not see the current Constitutional process as having fulfilled my requirement or avoiding future corrosion of the remaining limitations.”
    .
    Of course it doesn’t. No document can.
    .
    As Ben Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall, he was asked what sort of government we got. He replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

  356. MikeM

    Has lucia said from where she think our rights originate?

    I haven’t. But I think they originate from “We the people”. “We” who form a government decide at the time the government is formed. Then “we” have a right to change what those are, which is why amending was provided for.
    .
    The framers called this out in the first words of the Preamble.
    .
    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.””

  357. Back to tutoring…. (APs start tomorrow. Next kid’s mom looked for an “emergency” tutor and is paying $180/hour.)

  360. Mike M:

    If you asked the Framers, they’d have said “[our inalienable rights came] from God”.
    .
    It is absolutely certain that our rights do not derive from the Constitution.

    .
    I remember saying it was a non trivial question. Although I understand the religious point of view of our founders, because it takes away any legitimacy to government infringement, I agree with Ken’s, and I think Lucia’s, assessment that they come from whatever “we” are willing to settle for. Whether they come from God or the Constitutions and laws, they are all open to interpretation. The legal doctrine of stare decisis is to maintain settled interpretations. It is not absolute, and Alito explained in Dobbs all of the reasons why decisis should be overruled, as it was in Plessy vs Ferguson and Dred Scott.
    .
    Here is Lauren Boebert’s answer: https://twitter.com/i/status/1652005647771156498

  361. Human rights to be rights in the sense of natural rights that individuals possess have to be more than what some super majority of people say it is.

    In a practical sense what Lucia says about those rights and the Constitution is unfortunately correct. It is the weakness of the Constitution in maintaining rights. If most everyone understood and affirmed natural rights the problem of documenting and maintaining them would be less daunting.

  362. “ Then “we” have a right to change what those are, which is why amending was provided for.”
    .
    I would point out that this is not absolute. Not everything can be revised by amendment
    .
    Article 3
    Section 4
    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”

    .
    Article 5
    ‘ that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.“

  363. Lucia,
    But probably worth every penny. When I was doing consulting (10+ years ago), I was paid $1,200 per day (maybe equal to $1,800 today). It was a bargain for the companies, since I could usually solve problems, saving them hundreds of times what they paid.
    .
    If the kid is doomed without your help, $180 per hour is cheap.
    .
    When I was a senior in college (1972-1973), I used to tutor a couple of pre-meds on organic chemistry; they were trying to score high enough on the MCAT to get accepted somewhere. They paid $15 per hour, roughly equal today to $120….. and I was still an undergrad.

  365. Ken Fritch

    If most everyone understood and affirmed natural rights the problem of documenting and maintaining them would be less daunting.

    Well…. and if everyone agreed on which things are “natural rights” and which are not. They don’t.

  366. lucia (Comment #220432): “I think they originate from “We the people”. “We” who form a government decide at the time the government is formed. Then “we” have a right to change what those are, which is why amending was provided for.”
    .
    That can not be since no such decision was made at the time the Constitution was drafted. The Constitution does not provide for any rights. None.

  367. Steve, been quite a bit of ink expended on this topic over the years.
    .
    The issue of equal Senate representation for small states in particular. The small states did not want to be dictated to by the large states. The compromise that led to the adoption of the constitution was that this issue of Senate representation could not be changed without specific agreement by the individual states.
    .
    Good luck with that

  368. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

    That is the foundation on which the Constitution was built. Not a legal foundation, but the philosophical foundation without which the Constitution can not be properly understood.

  369. Mike M

    That can not be since no such decision was made at the time the Constitution was drafted.

    You think the decision to include “We the people” in the first words in the Preamble was not made at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified? Wow. I was unaware they were put in at a later date!

  370. Mike M,
    Besides that you asked this:

    Has lucia said from where she think our rights originate?

    That’s asking where I think they emanate from. It is certainly the case that I can think what I say I think. When the constitution was written is pretty irrelevant to that.
    .
    In any case: our legal rights stem from the constitution. And the legal question vis-a-vis abortion is our legal rights and where those spring from. Where “natural rights” “spring” from: the legal answer is, “irrelevant– but don’t talk about ‘God'”

  371. Mike is correct
    .
    The US constitution is a process document. It details the relationship between the federal government and the states. It also details what the federal government can / cannot do and what the state governments can / cannot do.
    .
    Quite a bit of ink in the Federalist Papers go into this issue and “rights” in general. Reading the Federalist Papers is required for any meaningful discussion about this.

  372. lucia (Comment #220445): “You think the decision to include “We the people” in the first words in the Preamble was not made at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified?”
    .
    I said nothing remotely resembling that.Not even a tiny bit.
    .
    lucia (Comment #220446): “That’s asking where I think they emanate from.”
    .
    I never said otherwise. I said that what you think is wrong.

  373. lucia (Comment #220446): “In any case: our legal rights stem from the constitution.”
    .
    Nonsense. The Constitution as ratified said NOTHING about rights. Nothing. Does that mean there were no individual rights? Of course not. EVERYBODY at the time agreed that people had fundamental rights. The debate over the Bill of Rights was over the best way to protect those rights.
    .
    And where did “we the people” get the power to “ordain and establish this Constitution”? From the same place we get our rights:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

    Not from the words that Jefferson wrote. From the truth that Jefferson described.

  375. Ed Forbes,

    Lots of ink? Maybe, but it would be good for someone to point out where the provisions for amending the constitution prohibit amending specific parts.
    .
    in practice, the small states are unlikely to ever agree to change the provisions that protect them from being dominated by larger (population) states. So as a practical matter, any such amendment is unlikely to be approved.
    .
    Which is why there are endless calls among those on the left to add DC and Porto Rico as states….. ensuring Democrat control for a long while.

  376. mark bofill (Comment #220450): “Do you believe in God?”
    .
    Depends on how you define “god”. But I don’t think is relevant to any discussion here.

  377. Mike M,
    No. That’s not where “We the people” ‘get’ our power. We get it by our own agreement and shared values. There is no God. Clearly we don’t get it from God.

  378. MikeM

    But I don’t think is relevant to any discussion here.

    Whether one believes in God sure as heck is relevant if someone wants to claim rights come from God! If God doesn’t exist, rights can’t come from God. And even if they come from God, which God you believe in affects which rights you think he gave us!

  379. Mike M.

    he Constitution as ratified said NOTHING about rights. Nothing.

    Which was why the anti-fedralists complained and insisted their ratification was contingent on amending it to include them. So– if you prefer, from “The Bill of Rights” which, after amending the constitution became part of the constitution.
    So, they are part of the constitution, us later amendements are part of the Constitution. They just aren’t part of the original document.

  380. Mike M

    I never said otherwise. I said that what you think is wrong.

    So you are saying you don’t think I think they came from “We the people”? If my answer to your question– where do I think they came from– is wrong, where do you think I think our legal rights came from?

  381. Mike,
    It seems relevant to the discussion here in my view. You appear to be arguing that we have rights because they are endowed by God.

    Not from the words that Jefferson wrote. From the truth that Jefferson described.

    I mean, if you think Jefferson described a ‘truth’, it seems to me you are agreeing that the source of our rights is God. If you are going to argue this, I don’t believe you have room to equivocate on your belief regarding God. Otherwise you are just playing games here.

  382. I don’t see how my views on god are relevant to the Founder’s views. I think that is what the issue was, but maybe I lost the thread.

  383. Mike,
    You didn’t ask me what I thought were the founders views. You asked me where I think the come from.
    .
    But if we turn to the founders who were multiple people and each of who had different views: I think the relevant issue is the basis for government the founders collectively agreed to give when they wrote the constitution, which was ratified. For the US constitution, they chose “We the people” and chose to omit God. And for the Bill of rights– they also did not add God.
    .
    The basis for our legal rights is not “god”, but rather the shared agreement of the people of what rights were foundational. What specific rights were in the shared agreement could not be fully inumerated. They had a basis in things like Magna Carta, British common law and so on. (None of which had their basis in God, but shared values which created traditions.)
    .
    The constitution itself is a compact among people entered into for the purpose of government. And rights are those powers that the people specifically do not delegate to the government. The enumerated rights (in the Bill of rights) are those that are specifically listed. But unenumerated rights also exist because people have not given those up merely by virtue of not enumerated.
    .
    But everything in the legal framework springs from a compact “We the people” make collectively with ourselves.

  384. “Natural rights” sounds like just another form of “the Bible told me so” to me. One could call the foundations of the Constitution religion, it’s basically pulled out of the ether. Philosophical ramblings.
    .
    People could decide to not follow the edicts of government at any time, then end of government, and all their sacred texts. That’s why there are police and armies, to keep all the bozos in line. The trick is forming the foundations of a government that is acceptable enough to an enduring majority. It needs to have foundational rights that cannot effectively ever be touched and allow the rest to be modified. Protection from the tyranny of the majority and all the rest. They did a pretty good job IMO.

  385. “ Ed Forbes,
    Lots of ink? Maybe, but it would be good for someone to point out where the provisions for amending the constitution prohibit amending specific parts.”
    .
    Steve, as l said, this is discussed in detail in, among other legal sources, the Federalist Papers.
    .

    Senate representation was explicitly protected in Article Five of the United States Constitution:
    .
    …no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
    .
    An amendment to change suffrage would be unconstitutional on its face as such a change without consent is forbidden. See last part of Article V
    .
    Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

  386. Ed Forbes,
    I stand corrected. All that matters is the last phrase in Article V. Federalist Papers, Declaration of independence, etc matter not at all. Were there an effort to eliminate equal Senate representation, the only option would then be succession.

  387. Ed Forbes,
    Interesting that change in State suffrage is not allowed. But how does that make MikeM “right” and what does it make him right about?
    .
    Strikes me that not being able to eliminate State suffrage makes it even more about “We the people” and very much less about “God”. And it certainly doesn’t turn the Declaration of Independence into the foundation of our rights.

  388. The US is currently broken. Our leaders are hopelessly embroiled in battles over day to day minutia. They can’t see (and apparently don’t want to see) the big picture problems. Esoteric discussions about the intentions of the founding fathers and their instruments of steering the fledgling nation are way above the cognitive powers of our current leaders. We are doomed.

  389. SteveF (Comment #220463): “Federalist Papers, Declaration of independence, etc matter not at all.”
    .
    They matter for understanding and interpreting the Constitution.

  390. Lucia: “Strikes me that not being able to eliminate State suffrage makes it even more about “We the people” and very much less about “God”. And it certainly doesn’t turn the Declaration of Independence into the foundation of our rights.”
    .
    Your original point was that God was not part of our legal foundation because our legal foundation was the Constitution and God was not in it. Mike M did a better job than I articulating my point of the cascade.

    “That is the foundation on which the Constitution was built. Not a legal foundation, but the philosophical foundation without which the Constitution can not be properly understood.

    .
    This reconciles the claim that nothing in the Declaration is law at the same time its famous foundational phrasing has been cited by the Supreme Court many times in its decisions.
    .
    I think Jefferson used God as his foundation because he could not articulate what the true foundation was but knew it was self-evident.
    .
    Perhaps the foundation is simply in the ability to logically articulate principles. For example, SteveF pointed out that it is hard to see the pivotal principle of a right to life hanging on the fetus being located inside versus outside the mother’s womb. And, we had much stricter laws against crack cocaine than powdered until enough people argued that there is no particular principle that makes the crystallization process so much more criminal.
    .
    Our rules of litigation and trial are based on providing the best opportunity for two sides to argue the application of agreed principles of law. The law is simply a more detailed version of the basic natural rights in how they filter down in competitive society. We can see they can be twisted by the disparate application of the laws against the Trump family and associates versus the Clinton and Biden families and associates, for example.

  391. Mike M,
    The thing speaks for itself. Drawing ‘understandings’ from outside information (like the Federalists papers, or ‘it’s not practical for today’s problems’) to determine what the Constitution says, regardless of the plain words, seems to me to only weaken it and make it so malleable as to cease protecting the governed from an overreaching government. A desire for that protection of the governed seems to me to have been the dominant theme (a lot of ‘Congress shall not’ in the document).
    .
    I’m more comfortable reading the words and taking them at face value.

  392. Ron

    Your original point was that God was not part of our legal foundation because our legal foundation was the Constitution and God was not in it. Mike M did a better job than I articulating my point of the cascade.

    “That is the foundation on which the Constitution was built. Not a legal foundation, but the philosophical foundation without which the Constitution can not be properly understood.

    .
    This reconciles the claim that nothing in the Declaration is law at the same time its famous foundational phrasing has been cited by the Supreme Court many times in its decisions.
    .

    No it doesn’t reconcile the claim that the Declaration is part of the constitution. Because the Declaration of independence is not the “philosophical foundation” for the constitution. And Mike M making that bald unsupported claim doesn’t turn it into the “philosophical foundation”.
    .
    No one suddenly said: “Oh. Let’s turn the Declaration of Independence into a legal document! “

  393. Mike M

    They matter for understanding and interpreting the Constitution.

    Which does not make any one of them either (a) the philosophical foundation nor (b) a part of the US Constitution.
    .
    Many philosopical and political writings that time, British Common law, the Magna Carta and so on matter for understanding and interpreting what the Constitution means in situations where it might be vague (which isn’t really all that often.)
    .
    So do dictionaries written near that time. But no one would make the spurious claim Noah Websters dictionary is part of the foundation of the constitution merely because it explains the meaning of words an close as possible to the ratification on the Constitution!

  394. Ron

    I think Jefferson used God as his foundation because he could not articulate what the true foundation was but knew it was self-evident.

    Jefferson did not write the constitution. He was abroad and not even present at the constitutional convention.

  395. Lucia, in answer to how I consider Mike right
    .
    Mike “ That can not be since no such decision was made at the time the Constitution was drafted. The Constitution does not provide for any rights. None.”
    .
    Me “Mike is right “

  396. Ron Graf

    The law is simply a more detailed version of the basic natural rights in how they filter down in competitive society.

    The right to a trial by jury is juts a “basic natural rights”?
    .
    The right to a trial by jury was hard won by the Barron’s who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That created a legal right. Prior to that King John and other kings dominated courts.
    .
    Of course the Barons had the idea this should be a legal right. But it was hardly recognized as a “right” that everyone had and which couldn’t be set aside. If it had been, they wouldn’t have needed to include it in the Magna Carta and force King John to sign the document.
    .
    And the Barrons didn’t delude themselves that god gave Englishman that right. They got it by forcing an agreement in a governing document!

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/trial-by-jury.html

  397. Lucia, I think you missed my point that all of the law and how it’s applied comes down to “philosophical foundation.” The Dobbs decision is 200 pages to say, “the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion rights.” It was 200 pages of philosophical arguments that build the strength and legitimacy of the decision.
    .
    SteveF, the Federalists Papers actually are very relevant to constitutional scholars, whom we invest the responsibility to interpret the Constitution properly.
    .
    The foundational idea comes down to how we determine truth because truth of fact and truth of principle is our foundation of determining justice. Where does truth come from? Where do principles come from? Jefferson said God. Anyone have a better source?
    .
    Lucia: “No one suddenly said: “Oh. Let’s turn the Declaration of Independence into a legal document!.”
    .
    It took them to win the war first to prove their truth in the Declaration before they said let’s create documents to codify our truth.

  398. Here’s the text to the magna carta btw:
    https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation
    .
    I like that John grants things to God, not the other way around. He does pledge “under god”. But nothing in that document is given to anyone by God!
    (“WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free” )
    .
    We know the Barons forced him to sign this. But, formally, at that time, the king granted these rights. Not God. Not nature. Nothing.

  399. Lucia “ Which does not make any one of them either (a) the philosophical foundation nor (b) a part of the US Constitution.”
    .
    I beg to differ.
    .
    The Federalist Papers are very much part of the philosophical foundation of the constitution. It can be aggressively argued that the constitution would have failed ratification without these papers written to support ratification. These papers explained the rationale behind the constitution as perceived by the writers.
    .
    The courts routinely refer to legislative debate for “intent” when ruling on case law. Nothing comes close in regards to finding the “original intent “ in the constitution than the Federalist Papers.
    .

  400. Ron

    Lucia, I think you missed my point that all of the law and how it’s applied comes down to “philosophical foundation.”

    So your point is you are changing your argument from the Declaration of Independence is the foundation, to it “has” a foundation? No one ever suggest there was no philosophical foundation. So you seem to be making a point everyone has agreed with along. And perhaps have retreated from your previous one.
    .
    I’m also feeling a bit of whiplash. Are you moving away from making points about the foundation of the Constitution back to abortion– and to the number of pages in Dobbs? Yes. Dobbs is lengthy. And says things. Let me know when you find the part where the justices say “The Declaration of Independence is the foundation for the Constitution” in Dobbs.

  401. I was late in doing my war surveillance today. It was 5.30pm Sunday afternoon in Romania when I tuned in. I found a US drone spy bird over Romania. But I also found but also something curious; A Polish military turbojet flying a mission over the Western Black Sea, not far from where the Ruskies crashed a fighter jet into the US drone a few weeks ago.
    Poland – Border Guard Let L-410 UVP-E20 Turbolet, callsign SN61YG
    Iive track:
    https://www.flightradar24.com/SN61YG/30199567
    Screenshot:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1652687445710848000?s=20
    I didn’t know anything about the plane, but Google tells me:
    “The patrol version of the L 410 aircraft is designed for patrolling and monitoring traffic on land, sea and in the air. Modern surveillance equipment was supplied by the German company Aerodata AG. Its most important parts are the 360° Osprey 30 radar and the MX-15 EO / IR camera. The Medusa system allows operators to visually analyze signals from individual devices. Radars are used for initial identification of objects on the surface of water, land and in the air, then the remote sensing system allows operators to accurately identify objects at a distance of up to 15 km. In addition, the crew has a satellite communication system that can transmit real-time data in the form of short films and images and provides communication over vast maritime territories.” http://www.let.cz/en/post?id=32
    US Drone….
    FORTE12
    United States – US Air Force (USAF)
    Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk
    Live track:
    https://www.flightradar24.com/FORTE12/30188911

  402. Ed

    The Federalist Papers are very much part of the philosophical foundation of the constitution.

    The arguments in the Federalist, Anti-federalist and some other papers represent discussion among “we the people”. As do drafts, debates about wording and rewrites. As such, they can clarify what can be meant and not meant in cases of ambiguity.
    .
    As such they influenced what would and would not be included in the contents. But contents are not the “foundation”. Thinking they are is like believing a church alter, stained glass window or roof is “the foundation”.
    .
    The other things may be important. But they are not “the foundation”.
    .
    With respect to the constitution: “We the people” making a compact amount ourselves is the “foundation”.
    .
    Yes. Without the Federalist papers, the constitution might not have been ratified. And without the Anti-Federalist papers we might not have had the bill of rights. “We the people” debated a lot before deciding what the contents of the constitution should be.
    .
    That’s precisely because it’s “We the people” who are the foundation who had to decide among ourselves what sort of government we should have ans what sort of rights we should have.

  403. Ron Graf,

    Where does truth come from? Where do principles come from? Jefferson said God. Anyone have a better source?

    A better source for what? What Jefferson said?
    .
    May I remind you once again: Jefferson did not write the Constitution. And he was not even present. He didn’t even write a letter telling Madison or those at the constitutional convention that they should include the word “God”.

  404. “Granted”, used to admit that something is true, before saying something else about it. Not “granted” as in giving someone something.

  405. Ed,
    And before I get back to tutoring: returning to Ron’s position that “God” is the foundation of the constitution: The Federalist Papers were certainly not written by “God”. They were written by people who were debating what form of government we should have, what details needed to be included and thought the views of people mattered.

  406. Dave JR,
    Are you refering to magna carta? King John clearly “granted” in the sense of giving those rights.

    I mean, one of the things on the long list of things “granted to” is

    “The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.”
    He’s not saying 25 is the correct and true right number. Nor that this number is ordained by God or natural law.

    He is clearly using “grant” to mean “give”.

  407. The point of “natural rights” is they were not given by one person to another, because what a person decides to give, they can decide to take away. Like the divine right of Kings and Pharoah’s, they were proposed to be derived from a higher power, and therefore above the paygrade of the hoi pelloi to take away.
    .
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
    .
    You think this line of thought disappeared after the revolution? It need not be explicitly stated because it was implicitly understood.

  408. Lucia wrote: He is clearly using “grant” to mean “give”.
    .
    King John granted things to people by his power which was granted by god.

  409. My comments here on rights and just prior are not about the Constitution per se but directed at the concept that individuals have rights originating by their very nature of being human and above what the state says the rights are. My view of natural rights is in line with a very limited government. The Declaration of Independence was worded with natural right concepts in mind and related to dissolving a state relationship while the Constitution was building a state relationship. My perception of natural rights precludes the view of the Constitution as a be all and end all document.

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/natural-rights-liberalism-from-locke-to-nozick/introduction/611FB58FC3621A6875975FD1D3FB38BA

    Natural rights theory holds that individuals have certain rights–such as the rights to life, liberty, and property–in virtue of their human nature rather than on account of prevailing laws or conventions. The idea of natural rights reaches far back in the history of philosophy and legal thought.

    https://fee.org/articles/natural-rights

    The concept of natural rights no doubt has its origin in the Roman Stoic idea of a “law above the law,” of an unwritten law which precedes and is superior to manmade law. Christian philosophy, in the persons of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, developed and refined the natural law idea, and it was a significant tenet of the eighteenth century Enlightenment. The doctrine has come down through the centuries as one of the major arguments against arbitrary and unrestrained governmental power.
    In much the same way is the belief in the natural rights of man a belief in “rights above rights.” Likewise, natural rights have been used in the resistance to unjust authority. Natural rights were partial justification for the Glorious Revolution of 1688, for the American Revolution (the Declaration of Independence cited man’s “unalienable rights”), and for the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. All of the revolutions since the eighteenth century have drawn at least some of their power from appeals to natural rights.
    The connection between natural rights and natural law is instantly recognizable. Both exist prior to the State, and both transcend it. Natural law, like the law of the State, provides protection for the individual’s rights from violation by another individual, or — and this the State does not do — by the State itself. Natural rights and natural law are the final arbiters of liberty. Finally, natural rights and natural law are both denied by those who exalt the State over the individual citizen. those who make the State all and the individual nothing. It is to this, as it is to all forms of Statism, that natural rights make a direct and implacable challenge.
    The common delusion of the defenders of unlimited governmental dominion is that the State confers upon the individual whatever political and economic rights he may enjoy. This was certainly the view of Thomas Hobbes, the defender of absolute monarchy and the author of the Leviathan. Hobbes, in 1651, argued for the complete sovereignty of the king as ruler and lawmaker. Hobbes sought to repudiate natural law by placing it on equal terms with the civil law. He states in the Leviathan, “The law of nature and the civil law contain each other, and are of equal extent.” In other words, natural law (and by extension, natural rights) is as high as, but no higher than, civil law. The sovereign makes civil law, and in Hobbes’ kingdom there can be no law higher than the decrees of the sovereign. He, in effect, is the law.

    The link below has a good verbal description of the modern libertarian view of natural rights.

    https://mises.org/library/4-natural-law-and-natural-rights

  410. DaveJR,
    Sure. But he granted them to the people. God did not grant them to the people. Had god granted them to the people, he would not have been able to grant them because those rights would be “god given”. Hence: as far as they saw it: God did not give them those rights. God only gave rights to the king who could then decide as he wished. (Well… unless owing to force majeur of the Barons…. The philosophical system doesn’t really make sense since clearly force majeur matters.)

  411. DaveJR

    You think this line of thought disappeared after the revolution?

    I didn’t say the “line of thought” disappeared. I said (a) the declaration of independence is not the foundation of the government, (b) many, many, many lines in the declaration of independence clearly have nothing to do with the constitution (e.g. the gripes about the king, (c) that particular line was one of the many, many lines that not make it into the constitution, (d) not putting “god” into the constitution was an intentional consideration and (e) as a God is not the foundation for the rights that are guaranteed in our constitution.
    .
    With respect to (e) the people entering into a compact are the foundation for of constitutional form of government (and for later amending). And the words of the the constitution explain the compact the entered into.
    .
    In so far as other documents (including dictionaries) clarify the meaning of the words or ambiguities, they can be used. But other documents are “included” in the Constitution. That doesn’t mean lines of reasoning “disappeared”. It only means if the founders had wanted them included in the constitution they would have put them in. When they intentionally left them out, they are not included. It’s not an oversight, omission or some sort of “secret code” for “we really want that in there, but just thought it should be left unsaid.”
    .
    They had very lengthy discussions of what to put in. They. Left. God. Out.

  412. Lucia
    At no time did I reference “God”. I chimed in supporting Mike with the constitution not specifically granting “rights”. At no time did I support any view that any such rights come from God.
    .
    That said, writings of the period would support such a statement regarding God and rights.
    .
    One MUST acknowledge the historical background that formed these, in general, very highly educated and intelligent mens view of the world.
    .
    In general, they were deeply religious, though skeptical of autocratic forms such as the Catholic Church.
    .
    Both the 30 years war and the English civil war were both fairly recent to them in time and these horrible examples of both sectarian and religious overreach formed a major factor on their spending more ink on what specifically government was allowed to do than anything else. All rights were reserved to the people unless specifically granted to the government.
    .
    This is why the constitution didn’t specifically list “rights”. The framers believed they were covered by limited government. The critics that wanted a number of rights specifically listed didn’t trust the government to not overstep and wanted them fixed in the document. The framers shrugged, said it didn’t matter, and agreed to have the amendments added later.
    .
    The critics were correct
    .

  414. In addition, to supporting Ed’s last comment, the implied influence of natural rights is seen in the constitution of Virginia and several other states who put the ideals of the Declaration’s at the top of their state constitutions specifically to guard against infringement by a compact of the governed. In other words, natural rights are not subject to amendment.

    That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionfull/
    .
    God appears in the Virginia constitution only in the oath of office, “so help me God.” But the concept of “inherent rights” is believed a great number of people, then and now, to emanate from God. Personally, I think God is used as a marker for things we currently lack explanation for. Origins is a typical domain for God.

  415. Ken Fritsch (Comment #220487): “My comments here on rights and just prior are not about the Constitution per se but directed at the concept that individuals have rights originating by their very nature of being human and above what the state says the rights are.”
    .
    Thanks. Your post clarifies what I thought obvious and was too lazy to argue in detail. Our rights are pre-existing and do not come from government or contracts between people. Whether they come from the “very nature of being human” or “endowed by their creator” are just different ways of saying the same thing. The Founders’ understanding of natural rights was rooted in Christianity. But religion is not required to believe in natural rights.
    .
    The Constitution can not be properly understood without recognizing that it is based on the concept of natural rights. Loss of that understanding has undermined the Constitution.

  416. The root of all these rights is likely in our DNA programming. Survival of the individual and survival of the tribe. In exactly what order this should happen is a bit of a dispute. We are programmed to protect ourselves from all outside threats, which has now morphed into primarily threats from other human tribes because we have reached apex predator status here on earth. But the deep programming and fear of outsiders remains in tact anyway.
    .
    We libertarian types tend to view other tribes (including and perhaps primarily our own government) as a threat to the individual, while the socialist types tend to view their own local tribe as the primary * defender * against threatening individuals (aka our own citizens). Government structures are designed accordingly.
    .
    I’m sure the US government structure was heavily, heavily influenced by the tyranny of the British government at the time, so leans heavily toward protection from oppressive local tribes and will not grant a pack of local do-gooders absolute authority to control individuals under any circumstance.
    .
    Most of the socialist types are true believers they are benevolent authoritarians (see all their science fiction fantasies, socialism works great on other planets). They just require you to take the knee first to prove it, and if that involves forcing you to take the knee then it is just in the service of a better world.

  417. Basically we know we need government as a force for good, but we also know that government will always trend towards authoritarian control. Powerful non-negotiable guard rails must be put in place.
    .
    If that means sometimes we can’t force all people to take vaccines “for their own good”, that is a price worth paying. As Ken has pointed out several times whenever we grant government emergency authority they receive an inch and take a mile. They very grudgingly give up that authority.
    .
    I don’t see this as some existential philosophical debate about natural rights, I see it as a practical exercise in optimizing outcomes knowing the inherent flaws of human nature.

  418. Ed

    At no time did I reference “God”. I chimed in supporting Mike with the constitution not specifically granting “rights”. At no time did I support any view that any such rights come from God.

    We all agree that before they added the bill of rights the constitution did not grant rights. So you were chiming in to agree with everyone on that. I (and others) observed there are granted in the bill of rights which now is part of the constitution. So they are granted by the constitution, which includes the bill of rights. (And does not include the Declaration of independence– even if someone else might suggest it does.)
    .
    But I’m happy to hear you don’t think the rights come from God– which has been the position Ron has been advancing. And his argument is they come from God because that’s what the Declaration of independence says.
    .

    One MUST acknowledge the historical background that formed these, in general, very highly educated and intelligent mens view of the world.

    Of course. I’ve said we do acknowledge the historical background. But that doesn’t mean every bit of “background” is part of the actual constitution.
    .

    All rights were reserved to the people unless specifically granted to the government.

    That’s the idea–When “We the people” formed and entered into a compact, “we the people” reserved our rights.
    If you are saying we were right to insist many be written down– I agree with that.
    .

  419. Lucia:

    But I’m happy to hear you [Ed] don’t think the rights come from God– which has been the position Ron has been advancing. And his argument is they come from God because that’s what the Declaration of independence says.

    .
    I have a thick skin but I didn’t read anyone stating that our natural rights hinge on the existence of God. I do read a fair consensus that natural rights do not come from compact, which is why the Virginia constitution felt it necessary to get that straight right off the top.
    .
    So, regardless that our founders believed in God and felt natural rights came from God to the individual, and not through a king or queen, I think the only reason the US Constitution does not mention natural rights is that the Declaration was assumed to accompany the Constitution as a founding document, one that carries legal weight.
    .
    I just listened to Bret Stephens of the NYT on CSPAN say that he believed that American conservatism was unique in the world because it was not about “blood and soil,” as is common typical international conservatism, but was about conserving the liberal notion of natural rights. And then he recited the Declaration’s famous paragraph.
    .
    In an authoritarian order equity is distributed by merit defined by the serving of the desires of the supreme leader. Everything makes sense in the societies order except who gets selected to be the supreme leader, and why their particular whims matter. This was answered historically be divine ordination. Magna Carta and Mayflower Compact, and enlightened writings provided America’s founders a way to take back God’s authority.
    .
    Tom, I agree that much of our perception is influenced by evolutionary instincts, including tribalism for self-preservation. My beef is the exploitation of this by the fanning of wedge issues for political gain. I see it as a form of corruption, a sort of soft psy op.
    .
    Taking a stab at the universal perception of natural rights, I think that intelligence develops by recognizing causes are connected to effects. Babies and children develop and learn logic and to attach principles to those logics and come to understand fairness. It’s just logically fair that no sibling or playmate innately has more rights than another. And no worker can understand inequality based upon their position at birth, at least within the bounds of their country.
    .
    Progressives, taking this logic one step further, might contend that one has no right to inherit property or wealth from family, or that equality expands beyond arbitrary national border to the whole world, or that equality extends beyond human animals to all animals, or that it expands beyond living things to the Earth’s resources or artificially cognitive robots. So we better figure this out.

  420. lucia (Comment #220496): “We all agree that before they added the bill of rights the constitution did not grant rights.”
    .
    Yes we agree on that. But those rights nevertheless existed and were indirectly protected by the Constitution in that the government was given no power to infringe those rights.
    .
    lucia: “I (and others) observed there are granted in the bill of rights which now is part of the constitution.”
    .
    That ‘observation’ is wrong. The Bill of Rights does NOT grant any rights. It only protects pre-existing rights. That is the reason for phrasing like “Congress shall make no law …” and “the right to … shall no be infringed”. The Ninth Amendment even protects additional rights not mentioned.
    .
    Our rights are not granted by the Constitution. They exist independently of the Constitution and are protected by it.

  421. Mike M

    That ‘observation’ is wrong. The Bill of Rights does NOT grant any rights. It only protects pre-existing rights. That is the reason for phrasing like “Congress shall make no law …” and “the right to … shall no be infringed”. The Ninth Amendment even protects additional rights not mentioned.

    That’s a distinction without a difference.

    Our rights are not granted by the Constitution. They exist independently of the Constitution and are protected by it.

    Or legally enforceable rights are granted by the Constitution. This includes the “inalienable ones” granted in the 9th amendment.
    .
    Those arguing we need the Bill of Rights knew this was so– that’s why the argued we needed the text in the Bill of Rights.
    .
    Rights that are not given legal force can be squawked about. You can say we have that “right” all you want. But they aren’t legally enforceable. The Constitution provides the legal framework for giving them force– which is, for all practical purposes, the only way legal rights are granted. “God” can’t do that.

  423. Ron

    So, regardless that our founders believed in God and felt natural rights came from God to the individual, and not through a king or queen,

    Many believed in God. Some didn’t. (Or possibly believed in a watchmaker god– who wouldn’t be granting any rights.) They didn’t all think natural rights came from god. Some may have. And the notion everyone thought rights like trial by jury all came from God is anhistorical.
    .

    I think the only reason the US Constitution does not mention natural rights is that the Declaration was assumed to accompany the Constitution as a founding document, one that carries legal weight.

    You can continue to think this. It remains untrue.
    .

  424. DeSantis is definitely a man of action.
    .
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/florida-legislature-passes-public-sector-union-reforms-over-progressive-backlash
    “It ends the practice of automatically deducting union dues from public employees’ paychecks. Currently in Florida, public employees have their dues deducted by the state government. Now, union members will have to make those payments themselves — just like every other worker does for voluntary organizations that they join.

    Public employees who wish to be union members will be required to sign a form authorizing the union to deduct dues. The form notifies workers that Florida is a right-to-work state and makes clear that union membership is not required to be employed. The employee will be permitted to revoke his or her membership at any time, and the union must comply. Unions must hold on to these forms and have them ready for inspection by the state government.”
    “The bill says public-sector unions must register with the state government and provide an audited financial statement every year. The financial statement must be provided to its members as well.”
    .
    All of this is reasonable in my view. Some the union stuff was getting wildly out of control.

  425. Tom,
    I’d seen that when someone on /r/Teachers reddit complained about it. I think unions are district by district. The bill requires 60% of employees elliglbe to join the union pay dues to avoid having to recertify. Recertifying can sometimes require voting again.

    I don’t know the current fraction of union members in Florida schools, but it looked to be about 55% in 2007.

    https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_043_t1s.asp

    This is 2015-16 but national 69.9
    :https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/Table_TeachersUnion.asp

    Across the country (public sector)
    “The union membership rate of public-sector workers (33.1 percent)
    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

    Might see some unions dissolve.

  426. Lucia, if you grant that in my previous Columbia Law link Justice McReynolds in the 7-2 Meyer decision said US freedoms entitled one “generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and, Chief Justice Warren echoed the Meyer in his majority opinion in Loving that it was “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and Justice Kennedy cited Loving in Obergefell, where do you think they were citing that legal principle from? Pursuit of happiness never made in into the Constitution, only life and liberty made it into the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
    .
    The real questions are do you grant our founders believed in natural law? And, do you think it’s a valid principle? If so, what is it based on?

  427. Teacher’s unions have done more damage to the reputation of teachers than any other factor by far recently. I keep hearing about the Chicago teacher’s union over and over for reasons I can’t understand and it rarely has much to do with educating children. The places with the strongest unions tend to have the highest pay and the worst outcomes. They can organize if they want but they sure could use a little help with messaging lately. There has also been some revisionist history on covid school closures from the unions. I guess I should expect them to be solely interested in their members, but teacher’s unions have veered far off even that course. They can scream all they want if they fulfill the basic education of the kids. As a taxpayer I don’t want to be effectively subsidizing political parties through unions.

  428. Ron,
    Ok… and I can ask you real question too: Some real questions to you are:

    (a) Do you not know that the answer from “where does the notion that the pursuit of happiness in these cases come from? is different from the answer to “Do rights emanate from God?”, or “Is the Declaration of Independence part of the constitution?” (Because we were arguing about your claims about the latter two, but you keep wanting to conflate that with people discussing the right to pursue happiness. So please answer this so I can begin to see how your questions about this are remotely relevant to your claims, rather than being another one of your tangents.)
    .
    (b) Do you think all the founders thought the same thing as each other? Or is it possible that some thought one thing about natural law and other’s thought another thing? And do you think I’m required to think they all thought the same thing and answer as if they all thought the same thing? Cuz I don’t think I’m requred to answer a question that is based on a false premise. Moreover, it can’t be accurately answered because it is ill-defined and, ultimately, incomprehensible.
    .
    (c) When you ask “it’s a valid principle”, what do you refer to with the pronoun “it”? Same with the follow on question?
    .
    ‘Cuz even though you claim those are “real questions”, they seem like questions that are either incomprehensible (see (c)), ill posed, or beside the point. And I’d rather not stray from the point at hand, or answer questions that are so illposed as to mean nothing.

  429. Tom

    Teacher’s unions have done more damage to the reputation of teachers than any other factor by far recently.

    Teachers unions pursuing so many political issues that don’t touch on education has been a PR problem. And their rhetoric of using “children” and pretending that a demand is “for the good of the children” has hurt their reputation. If they stuck to negotiating contracts, wages and work conditions, based on “fair wages for work”, there would be no reputational damage. Though, perhaps using “for the children” works to get better wages. Dunno.
    .

    There has also been some revisionist history on covid school closures from the unions.

    Which parents ain’t buying. The story affected them while it was unfolding. They remember. The news paper articles remain online and goggle-able.

  430. It turns out that the Russians had diving support ships in the area of the Nord Stream sabotage in the days before the explosions. They also had a submarine rescue vessel (apparently well suited to supporting the sabotage operation) in the area, operating with its transponders off.

    https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/04/30/photos-place-russian-submarine-rescue-vehicle-and-mini-sub-near-nord-stream-explosion-sy-hersh-hardest-hit-n739037
    .
    The author gives nice summary of why it makes sense that the Russians did it. He includes something I did not know: The sabotage was done at the deepest part of the pipelines, where the degree of difficulty was maximized. Why? Because that minimized flooding, making the damage easy to repair. I wonder who would have cared about that.
    .
    He also gives a good summary of why the Seymour Hersh report is complete rubbish.

  431. Lucia: “Do you not know that the answer from “where does the notion that the pursuit of happiness in these cases come from? is different from the answer to “Do rights emanate from God?”, or “Is the Declaration of Independence part of the constitution?”
    .
    I do see different questions there. And, since I’m assuming they’re not rhetorical, I will answer them. I say the Declaration is a founding document and holds a place at the pinnacle of the fabric of our system of jurisprudence. This is evidenced by a concept, the pursuit of happiness, being cited as doctrinal verbiage for default rights in deciding cases. And, since the pursuit of happiness is not found in the Constitution, the justices must be citing the Declaration. Now, the declaration references God twice as the source of certain unalienable rights, often referred to a natural rights or God given rights. There is no record of any objection of referencing God by the 56 signers. And, there is a detailed chronicling of that event. If there were some secret atheists among our founders they kept it to themselves.
    .
    Today’s atheists are left with a need to explain natural rights if not God given. I proposed one answer. I am wondering if anyone else concurred or has their own answer. The reason I said I felt this was important is that without the principle of natural rights being seen as a valid one it could (or should) evaporate. Thankfully the doctrine of decisis (legal precedent) should delay that, but the eventuality is inevitable (as atheism becomes the consensus).
    .
    What will hasten the fall of natural rights, IMO, is the introduction of new competing rights of all the special interests that the progressive movement is catering to. I think just as politicians can hand out our treasury to buy constituents (think student loan forgiveness or reparations), they can also hand out rights (think women’s rights, then minority rights, gay rights now trans rights). The sucker conservatives are stuck saying, sorry, nobody is special except humans per se.
    .
    The left can delegitimize that argument by asking, “What’s so special about humans? Fish have feelings too. And they are more developed than your 12-week-old fetus.” To which we say, “Well, it’s a good thing God is not around to hear you say that.”

  432. The overwhelming Russian missile attack never developed. Information coming in from reliable Ukrainian sources:
    “No Missiles are remaining in Ukrainian Airspace; the Attack appears to possibly be over and much smaller than was Initially Expected.”
    “that each bomber only fired 1-2 cruise missiles.”
    “The Ukrainian Air Force claims to have downed 15 Kh-101/555 cruise missiles out of 18 launched by Russian bombers overnight.”

  433. Ron,
    Vis. a. Vis The constitution. You’ve retreated to “holds a place at the pinnacle of the fabric of our system of jurisprudence”.
    .
    As for the rest: I’m not interested in that discussion. We were previously on the topic of abortion, which I think matters. Your insights into “natural rights” and their origin don’t interest me, I’ll leave that to others to discuss with you.

  434. I didn’t think it possible but someone is even more cynical about AI than me….
    Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
    “Before AI, if I didn’t know the answer to a question, and Google couldn’t help, I was stuck. Now, with AI, I can spend all day trying to find the right AI app that isn’t a bait-and-switch situation and then I can sign up for a class to learn how to do super prompts and then AI lies.”

  435. Russell.

    and then AI lies.

    I’ve been forcefully told by fans of things like ChatGPT that it doesn’t “lie”. It just hallucinates. 🙂

  436. Lucia: “We were previously on the topic of abortion, which I think matters.”
    .
    My original point was that the abortion issue shouldn’t matter more than other issues, like government corruption, which I think threatens everyone’s rights and in a lot more direct way. My overall point was that abortion should be solved by a legitimate compromise between the natural rights of the mother’s liberty to do as she pleases with her body and the rights of a developing fetus, whom is gaining rights with each passing week.
    .
    In any place else in society we recognize competing rights and look for reasonable compromise based on what’s least intrusive point between them. For example, I think Leah Thomas being barred from women’s sports is a small slap on her liberty since being a biological male she is qualified to compete in male sports and dress in the men’s locker room, as she did for years. By Democrats supporting Thomas’s position to take an NCAA title from Riley Gains the Dems gained 99% support among the growing trans movement, who will vote on their identity alone. The GOP ends up defending women but not in a way that nudges any votes other than women athletes competing against men for titles, a comparatively small voting block.
    .
    I believe the Democrats learned this by evolution, seeing the political benefits from not giving up being the champion for black people once the Kennedy-Johnson civil rights passed. The Dems moved from civil rights seamlessly to affirmative action. They don’t want to talk about MLK’s dream of equality promised in the Declaration. They want payback. I think the negative aspects of this for the striving for harmony and a perfect union are obvious. But that does not in actuality produce as many votes as a 90-98% party loyalty regardless to performance.
    .
    My personal experience is that women and minorities have equal opportunity today, even if the effect of that is not yet equal outcomes. Women are getting degrees at a higher rate then men, for example.
    .
    Women, blacks, gays and the disabled started with a legitimate grievance of being harmed by obsolete traditions in an advancing society. But there needs to be also a call for a broader responsibility for the success of civil society in order to protect the collective rights of “we the people”.
    .
    I think it’s admirable that the GOP is standing up for the rights of a block that votes less than dead people. Such a politically knucklehead position can only be for the protection of the collective.
    .
    Today RNC chair Ronna McDaniel blames the abortion issue for the failure of the red wave in 2022.

  437. Ron Graf

    My original point was that the abortion issue shouldn’t matter more than other issues, like government corruption,

    I am aware of your opinion that it “shouldn’t matter” relative to other issues. (You’ve previously included trans in sports as one that should matter more and now bringing it up again. Presumably, you’ve figured out you better trim your list of things it should matter less than.)
    .
    I disagree with with your position. Moreover, I think your position is irrelant to the discussion of abortion rights because we are not required to treat political positions as “either this is important or that is important enough to discuss.”
    .
    We’ve gone over this several times. You keep wanting to repeat it. Your memory must be very short. And know you are veering off into tangents like what the Democrats have learned or want to talk about and your notions about Women, blacks, gays etc.
    .
    Look, if you don’t want to talk about the circumstances when abortion should be legal or illegal because you think it’s unimportant, fine. But don’t expect everyone not to notice these paragraph long digressions into your bugbears– all of which are irrelevant to the topic we were on.

  438. US and Iran engaged in tit for tat highjacking of oil tankers.
    .
    The US is finding that “interdiction” of oil tankers on the high seas is a very profitable exercise.
    .
    I was aware of US theft of oil in Syria, but was unaware of the scope at sea.
    .

    Tit For Tat Tankers – Iran Seizes a Tanker After US Seizes a Tanker
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XMNXPgl3cQ

  439. Lucia,
    My son and I go back and forth on AI, with my disdain and his fascination. This AM he sent me this…
    “Last week I asked AI to give me a tour of the Enterprise from Star Trek the next generation, and it assigned me quarters and gave me directions to my room”
    I rest my case.

  440. I have been looking at the plan for the Coronation this Saturday and have discovered a glaring omission… they forgot to designate an area for tailgating.

  441. “Update on Russian Offensive: A massive missile and drone strike was launch across Ukraine in the early morning of May Day, as up to 50 Geran 2 suicide drones was reportedly launched, along with missiles from up to 7 ships from the Black Sea Fleet and at least 17 Tu-95 bombers.
    .
    Russian forces finally broke the Ukrainian lines at central Marinka, as the areas around Druzhby Avenue is now confirmed to be under Russian control.
    .
    Wagner Forces also continue to make progress in Bakhmut as pressure continue to be piling on the Ukrainian defenders at the final stronghold in the city.”
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp70cNHVpkY
    .
    .
    Lots of secondary explosions reported , so Ukrainian ammunition dumps got hit hard.
    .
    Ukraine news reports that “the Ghost of Kiev “ personally shot down almost all of the entire strike. 🙂

  442. Ed Forbes, Comment #220521
    That YouTube organization you cite as the source of your Ukraine war information is a fraud. It is produced by Defense Politics Asia, a media company located in Asia (Singapore). The video reporter and managing editor is Wyatt Mingji Lim.
    His military training was as a Sergeant in the Singapore Armed Forces. His college education was Digital Media Design, Specialisation: Games Design.
    His previous occupation for 13 years was Director of Joji, a business consulting firm.
    I personally have no military credentials, but I pride myself on my BS detection abilities. Wyatt Mingji Lim’s military acumen is BS.
    Link:
    https://youtu.be/dp70cNHVpkY
    PAVLOHRAD EXPLODES WITH MASSIVE RUSSIAN MISSILE+DRONE STRIKES – Russia attack Avdiivka from the East

  443. Russell, by fraud, you mean Ukraine doesn’t like him.
    .
    I notice quite a bit of your information comes from ISW, which is a mouthpiece direct from the Ukraine government.
    .
    As he quotes sources from both the Ukraine and Russian military, I find it hard to accept your, obviously, unbiased statement.
    .
    I tend to disregard military analysis from just about all of these sources, but as they give both sides claims of what is happening on the ground, I find them quite useful.
    .
    But if you want to stick your head in the sand and only listen to one side’s view, good luck with that.

  444. Russell,
    I’m curious , what sites on the Ukraine war do you follow? I follow a number of sites that tend both pro one-sided of either and neutral.
    .
    Here are my main sites, though I will admit ISW is a very infrequent one. Looking at sources from both sides is required if one wants to get a realistic view of the issue.
    .
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt-N187DyDg
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_rNCZM7Ne8
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp70cNHVpkY&t=254s.
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzxRjnnKDb4
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcZ9ArPFKY
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYQ4oIod2g0

  445. Basic but well done primer on intelligence for both sides for the upcoming offensives. It goes into the different facets of the problems of intelligence in planning for offense/defense operations.
    .
    Well worth a view if you have an interest in operation planning.
    .

    “ Intelligence is a key to victory in any war, including the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia. This video explores its role in the upcoming Ukrainian spring counteroffensive. Basic theory of military defense says to shore up all weak points until they have the same level of vulnerability. That being the case, the secret pieces of information are what gives one state the edge. Maintaining those secrets is therefore critical.”
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzZBthCvFE

  446. The Russian missile attack appears to have had minimal success. The NASA FIRMS 24-hour fire map shows numerous fires [50+] in agricultural areas, but only three in urban and surrounding areas. Most of the agricultural fires are probably set by farmers since farm areas in Belarus, Poland, and Romania are also dotted with fire sites. The three fires in the urban and surrounding areas may be from missiles or something else. The previous 24-hour period had two fires in the built-up areas which also may have been from the previous day’s missile attack. There is no way of telling at this resolution what was actually hit.
    Screenshot:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1653194927444983812?s=20
    NASA imagery:
    https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#t:adv;d:2023-05-01;l:landsat,noaa20-viirs,viirs,modis_a,modis_t,country-outline;@30.7,48.7,6z
    Russia claims a great victory: “Russia’s defence ministry said its forces had struck using high-precision long-range air and sea-based missiles against Ukraine’s military-industrial facilities”.
    Ukraine says they shot almost all of them down and the ones that got through hit civilians:
    “Zelenskiy also said a 14-year-boy was killed near his school when it was hit by a bomb in the Chernihiv region”,
    “A huge crater had been blasted in the backyard of a house that was strewn with debris on the outskirts of Pavlohrad”
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/air-defence-systems-repelling-russian-missile-attacks-kyiv-region-officials-2023-05-01/

  447. Ed Forbes (Comment #220523): “I notice quite a bit of your information comes from ISW, which is a mouthpiece direct from the Ukraine government.”
    .
    That is ridiculous. ISW does seem to be pro-Ukraine (they sure are not pro-Russia) but they do not work for the Ukrainian government. And they use many other sources of information.
    .
    Experience has shown ISW to be a much more reliable guide than Ed Forbes when it comes to what is happening or might be about to happen in Ukraine.

  448. I noticed on my news feed that there was on confirmed secondary explosion in a Ukraine missile propellant factory in Pavlohrad I think. There was also an explosion in the Crimean port city Sevastopol, and also a Russian train derailment after an explosion on the Russian border. It is definitely a slug fest. The questions is who who will run out of critical war material or the appetite to continue first.
    .
    Also

    Ukrainian President Zelenskyy told AP that in the counteroffensive, Ukraine would seek to reclaim the Crimean Peninsula.

    .
    Is that a faint or is that the real objective? Where does everyone put their guess of where the real objective is? Do they try to cut off supply lines in the Russian speaking Donbas, where war damage is away from Ukrainian speaking areas? Or do they try to take Zaporizhzhia to cut off Russian lines to Kherson?
    .
    Putin in failing to take Bakhmut last winter lost the initiative to call for negotiations. Now he has to wait to prove Russia can hold their line until the Ukraine offensive is exhausted before he can have China come in and broker a settlement.

  449. 5/1/23 NASA Black Marble shows Kyiv and other major cities in Ukraine with the lights on last night and no blackouts from Russian missile attacks on the grid. The image is blurred by high cloud cover, but clear enough to show my point.
    NASA Black Marble:
    https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=25.83205976743427,47.609332798094236,34.98060753617131,51.73332659697024&l=Reference_Labels_15m,Reference_Features_15m(hidden),Coastlines_15m,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_At_Sensor_Radiance,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_AtSensor_M15(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden)&lg=true&t=2023-05-01-T00%3A00%3A00Z
    If you have trouble loading NASA GIS here is a screenshot:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1653271104625029121?s=20

  450. You may have less trouble if you go to the NASA Black Marble home page and navigate to May 1, 2023 Kyiv on your own. [Note you may have to copy the entire link and paste it into your browser]
    https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-174.96200873547545,-62.40013458682887,144.66181223583268,81.68029096039362&l=Reference_Labels_15m(hidden),Reference_Features_15m(hidden),Coastlines_15m,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_At_Sensor_Radiance,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_AtSensor_M15(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden)&lg=true&t=2022-02-06-T00%3A00%3A00Z

  451. Admiral John Kirby, National Security Council, The White House:
    “Russia’s attempt at an offensive in the Donbas, largely through Bakhmut, has failed … Russia has been unable to seize any really strategically significant territory,”
    Staggering losses:
    “More than 20,000 Russian soldiers have been killed and more than 80,000 injured in just five months of fighting in Ukraine, an acceleration in already heavy losses for Moscow”
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-believes-russians-ukraine-have-suffered-100000-casualties-5-months-2023-05-01/

  453. SteveF,
    Well… we do know it’s taking a long time for Russia to “take” Bakhmut. Ed Forbes has been reporting Russian advances and how Ukraine is breathing their last gasps … gonna fold any minute. And Ed’s been feverishly reporting this sort of thing for months now.
    .
    I’d expected Russia to roll over Ukraine quickly when they first invaded. This has been a big surprise to me.

  454. Yes, that Russia has taken so long and continues to take so long to deal with Ukraine surprised me. I was one of those who thought the war was essentially over on day one. Now I believe Russia will eventually grind Ukraine down over some lengthy period of time. Years perhaps. I also acknowledge that for whatever reason, Russia might give it up somewhere down the road and abandon the effort. I don’t think that’s likely, but I know of no reason to rule it out as a possibility either.

  455. mark bofill,
    I think Russia will grind down Ukraine also. Taking lots of losses on the way. But as you wrote: Who knows? Maybe they’ll finally decide the candle is not worth the stick and abandon the effort.

  456. Lucia,
    Yes, the Ukrainians, especially outside the Crimea and Donbas, have resisted far more than most people expected, bolstered (of course) by NATO material and intelligence support.
    .
    But I take any pronouncement on any war (from any source) with many grains of salt… people who actually know simply will not tell the truth about what is happening. Too many benefits for lying.

  457. My comments here are from my own thoughts on the Declaration of Independence (DI) and the Constitution (Co) without reference to authoritative sources. Both documents must be considered based on their originality and the historical settings of the time they were written and made official. Having said that I judge that it is still a productive effort to look at the weaknesses that were embodied in these documents – and especially in the Co – that arose primarily from compromises that were made to get the documents accepted on an accelerated basis.

    The DI and CO were written and published for two obviously different purposes. The DI was justifying ending a governmental relationship while the Co was the basis of forming a new government. That natural rights would play a much larger role in the DI than Co would reasonably be attributed to the fact that something outside an existing government is needed to justify dissolving the relationship.

    The DI was primarily from the effort of the lead author, Thomas Jefferson, but the final document had changes to make it more acceptable to the general public and not necessarily to Jefferson’s liking. As a whole, there was much less compromising in producing the DI than the Co. The American colonist were not that unhappy with the British rule until the King needed revenue from the colonists to finance war efforts. That started others like Thomas Paine in Common Sense to make the case for independence, government as a “necessary evil”, and the distinction between society and government. Link below is to Jefferson’s rough draft of the Declaration of Independence
    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html#:~:text

    The Constitution was the result of the American leaders wanting a stronger more centralized government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation. There were differences among the leaders concerning how strong the new federal government should be and thus a large number of compromises were made after many proposals were voted on and rejected. I believe that the developed urgency of the Co proceedings led to compromises that were not necessarily well thought through and resulted in language that was sufficiently vague to bring about compromise. That equivocal wording is in my view what has led to some of the interpretations of the Co that have in turn increased to power of government. Perhaps the founders could have done better by insisting on more concise language while pointing to the amendment process as a better remedy for changes to the Co than by interpretation of vague wording.

    Specific issues such as slavery, which even in those times contradicted the basis of the DI, could have been handled better. It could have at least had a formula for phasing slavery out and some details on compensation and a timeframe of reference. The general welfare phrasing is an open book to a powerful government. That Bill of Rights did not make it into the unamended Co, makes the idea of natural rights influence on the Co a bit of an afterthought. Though secession was not mentioned in the Co, there were thoughts about it in that historical period. Jefferson thought secession could be allowed, but he was in France when the Co was written. Anyway, thinking ahead in writing the Co, and particularly with regards to slavery and secession, a civil war might have been prevented.

  458. There is speculation on Twitter that Tucker Carlson got fired at Zelensky’s request. Also, there is talk that Fox is continuing to pay him 20MM salary to contractually be on permanent paid vacation, a new form of capture and kill. At the same time, according to Megyn Kelly, Fox is leaking negative stories and tape to Media Matters to hurt Carlson’s employment offers from Newsmax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmowm48yzxY

  459. Ron,
    Carlson is clearly not on a permanent vacation. He’s made videos from his basement.
    And of course, one might expect contradictory stories out on twitter. Fox wouldn’t need to leak negative stories to prevent Carlson from taking a job with Newsmax if they have a contract to keep him on a permanent vacation.
    .
    In any case, I would expect that if Newsmax wants to hire him and he’s free to do so, they’ll ignore the stories and hire him.
    .
    Can’t say I’m following the story about Carlson– but it does appear on various feeds. So I’m aware of he’s broadcasting from his basement.

  460. Ken, that’s an excellent historical synopsis of America’s founding. The one thing the I questions is this: “That Bill of Rights did not make it into the unamended Co, makes the idea of natural rights influence on the Co a bit of an afterthought.”
    .
    I think that after fighting a war based on natural rights everyone thought that the concept was implied. Certainly they were mindful of not creating a government that could evolve into the tyranny they just fought to be released from. That was famously on George Washington’s mind in him not allowing the president to be addressed as “your excellency” or similar exhalation.

  461. mark bofill (Comment #220536): “Now I believe Russia will eventually grind Ukraine down over some lengthy period of time.”
    .
    Maybe. I remind you that last summer, the war was a stalemate. Then in the fall Ukraine made significant advances on two fronts. So the current stalemate might or might not last. Russia’s winter offensive failed to break the stalemate. Ukraine is preparing a major offensive, likely beginning this month. If it fails, then a continuing stalemate will seem extremely likely. But if Ukraine breaks through, things might be very different.
    .
    A long lasting stalemate is not in the interest of either side. It is not just a matter of blood and treasure wasted. Both sides have serious supply problems; so both sides will be risking having their shortages being the first to become critical. A long war will be economically devastating to Ukraine. It would be economically very damaging to Russia, with the possibility of political unrest. That could be literally fatal to Putin. So both sides will have an incentive to make peace.
    .
    So either way, I think there is a reasonable chance of a major change this year. Unless Biden blocks it out of a desire to endlessly bleed Putin and Russia.

  462. Ken Fritsch (Comment #220539): “I believe that the developed urgency of the Co proceedings led to compromises that were not necessarily well thought through”.
    .
    They spend something like three months drafting the Constitution. Hardly a rush job. I doubt you can give more than one or two examples of important things that were not thought through (the most obvious being the initial form of the Electoral College).
    ———–

    Ken Fritsch: “Perhaps the founders could have done better by insisting on more concise language while pointing to the amendment process as a better remedy for changes to the Co than by interpretation of vague wording.”
    .
    I have never before heard anyone say the Constitution was not concise. Or that it is vague. And *only* remedy for changes was amendment.
    ———–

    Ken Fritsch: “It could have at least had a formula for phasing slavery out and some details on compensation and a timeframe of reference.”
    .
    No it could not. No such remedy was available at the time.
    ——–

    Ken Fritsch: “That Bill of Rights did not make it into the unamended Co, makes the idea of natural rights influence on the Co a bit of an afterthought.”
    .
    Nonsense. The concept of natural rights was the foundation on which the Constitution rested. The issue with the Bill of Rights was how best to protect rights.
    ———-

    Ken Fritsch: “thinking ahead in writing the Co, and particularly with regards to slavery and secession, a civil war might have been prevented.”
    .
    The Framers were well aware of the contradiction regarding slavery and of the danger it posed to the Republic. There was no ready solution and they could not predict the future.

  463. A comment on the western narrative that Russian losses must be higher than Ukraine losses.
    .
    It is a false western narrative that attackers must be taking higher loses than defenders.
    .
    It is false western narrative that attacking forces must outnumber defenders at least 3:1 to succeed.
    .
    It is a false western narrative that Russia is using human wave attacks in order to successfully attack.
    .
    It is a factor of the availability of force multipliers that overwhelmingly determines the force ratio between the two forces. Force multipliers are items such as the disparity in artillery, ammunition supply, close air support, the ability to destroy supporting infrastructure, and the ability to interdict supplies transported to the front.
    .
    The US WWII campaign in the Pacific is a prime example of this. US combat deaths were almost always much less than the Japanese in the campaign to push toward Japan. This was due to the overwhelming firepower and logistical supply that could be brought to bare.
    .
    Russia has several times the force multipliers than does Ukraine. These multipliers have only been increased as time has past by.
    .
    Russia has consistently enjoyed a minimum of 3:1 advantage in artillery. This disparity has increased over time as Ukraine pre war stockpiles were expended and western resupply from stocks were also depleted. The west is unable to produce artillery ammunition in the required quantities to support Ukraine. With the expenditure of Ukraines irreplaceable air defense systems and ammunition, Russia is now able to preform close air support with stand off glide bombs out of the range of short range anti air defense.
    .
    The human wave attack narrative has been disputed many times in interviews with Ukraine personnel. Their view of the war on the front line was always of artillery. They almost never saw their enemy. Casualties were over 10:1 by artillery, not small arms.
    .
    With Russia able to now use directed close air support, this disparity in force multipliers is only increasing.

  464. Ed,
    No one here said Russian’s losses must be higher than Ukraines. But clearly, they are taking losses. That’s not a “false narrative” western or otherwise.
    .
    You’ve been telling us about how Russia is going to overwhelm Ukraine any minute now for over a year. All of us think they are going to grind down Ukraine. But it’s rather amazing you can seriously keep telling us how it’s any minute now for over a year and not recognize you’ve been rather off the mark in your reporting and predictions.

  465. I agree Russia is the heavyweight in this fight and might prevail in the long run [They have nuclear weapons for goodness sake!]. BUT, Ukraine has some things going for it.
    Russian military command has proven to be a mess. It reflects the Russian government as a whole. A corrupt oligarchy is a poor way to run a war. Who knew!
    The Ukrainian soldiers are better trained, better disciplined, better equipped, and much more inspired than the Russian soldiers. Many of the top Russian divisions have been decimated and the replacements are often prisoners and drunks.
    Both Ukraine and Russia are struggling to replace war material. The economies supplying Ukraine are twenty or thirty times larger than Russia’s economy and the material supplied to Ukraine is far superior.
    Finally, I have said from the start that the fall of Putni’s government is a possibility. That is still on the table. Also, Russia is not a monolith. It is made up of the Commonwealth of Independent States, many of whom are kept in line by a heavy hand from Moskow. My hope is that a weakened and distracted Russian military leads to civil unrest in Russia.

  466. Mike,
    Maybe, yes. I don’t see certainty much of anyplace in the situation.

  467. Ron Graf (Comment #220528)
    “Is that a faint or is that the real objective? Where does everyone put their guess of where the real objective is?”
    Last year I fell for the misdirection orchestrated by Zalenskyy. So did Russia. He had everyone preparing for an attack in the South, at Kherson Oblast. Russia diverted mush resources to counter it. The first attack came in the North, at Kharkiv Oblast.
    I pass on predicting this year.

  468. lucia (Comment #220546): “All of us think they are going to grind down Ukraine.”
    .
    Not me! Russia might grind down Ukraine, but it is by no means certain. For much the same reasons as given by Russell Klier (Comment #220547).

  469. I think I still said that unclearly.
    I think Russia will grind down [] Ukraine. AND: I am not certain that Russia will grind down [] Ukraine. BUT STILL: I think Russia will grind down the Ukraine, even though I am not certain that Russia will grind down [] Ukraine.
    I hope this clarifies unambiguously.

  470. Ron Graf,

    The left can delegitimize that argument by asking, “What’s so special about humans? Fish have feelings too. And they are more developed than your 12-week-old fetus.” To which we say, “Well, it’s a good thing God is not around to hear you say that.”

    I have said I don’t want to talk with you, and that remains generally true. Still, since you are apparently aren’t going anywhere, I would like to ask a question to see if I understand what you are saying correctly. If you don’t care to answer, that is perfectly acceptable and understandable to me.
    You’ve said you don’t believe in God. Are you advocating making a political argument that rests on the idea that God exists despite this? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean when you say ‘Well, it’s a good thing God isn’t around to hear you say that” above.
    I don’t need a lengthy explanation, a simple ‘you’ve misunderstood’ or ‘you’ve understood correctly’ is perfectly sufficient.
    Thank you.

  471. The April ground captured analysis is in…. “Over the month of April, the area assessed to be occupied by Russia reduced by approximately 25km².”
    https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1653169425749508100?s=20
    Reduced territory held by Russia! During the Russian offensive! This guy has been making meticulous maps of the battle for a year. He does extensive truthing by satellites and ground OSINT. He has proven to be dead right for the year I have followed him.
    He keeps a running tally and the Russians have been in retreat or at a stalemate since March 2022.
    “These additional graphs show how changes each month compare to one another and what the scale of these changes looks like when compared to the country as a whole.”
    NOTE click on and expand each chart separately:
    https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1653169429461467136?s=20

  472. The Constitutional Convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation and more specifically to push Madison’s proposal for federal regulation of commerce. By the middle of June Madison had turned the discussion to forming a new government. The proposals for a new government went from states maintaining most of the power they had under the articles, to Madison’s strong federal government where the federal government ruled over state laws and to Hamilton’s very strong central government with executive rule for life.

    The convention was debated in secrecy with many disagreements well into the hot summer months (without AC). With delegates anxious to return home the convention produced a final document in September.

    https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/more-perfect-union

  473. Even the Russians will get tired of dying for the Ukraine cause eventually. The longer this drags out, the more likely Putin will see domestic pushback. It’s still an existential fight for Putin, but not for anyone else.

  474. Ed,
    Once you break through your own immunity to being continuously wrong for over a year then perhaps I will listen to what you say but there is very little sign of that happening. You make unfalsifiable claims about current events and then ignore the fact that almost all of these turn out to be proven vast exaggerations and / or wrong later. And always wrong in the same direction. What is the point? I don’t know.

  475. Ed Forbes, Since you have enjoyed following the exploits of the Ghost of Kiev in the air…. Here is a YouTube video about the Ghost of Bakhmud, a sniper.
    https://youtu.be/CftBpew6an4
    It actually is informative about Bakhmud and snipers in general.

  476. Russia last year moved to a war of attrition where taking territory in general was not a priority. The priority is the destruction of the Ukraine army, which is proceeding.
    .
    Ukraine started with a large mechanized force. Russia destroyed it. .
    .
    NATO rearmed Ukraine with large numbers of Soviet equipment supplied by the NATO members who were x Soviet members. Russia destroyed it.
    .
    NATO is again rearming Ukraine with small numbers of NATO main battle tanks, small numbers of obsolete T-55 tanks, armored cars, obsolete armored transport, and small numbers of infantry fighting vehicles (Bradley).
    .
    Once this latest rearmament is expended, the NATO weapons cabinet is empty. Russia has effectively disarmed NATO of conventional weapons and artillery ammunition. It will take many years for NATO to rearm.
    .
    Much has been made of the fact that Russia dug in and was not focusing on territorial gains. Using WWI as a guide, one might look at how much of Germany was occupied by the allies prior to the German surrender. Answer, almost none.

  477. Ed Forbes (Comment #220558): “Using WWI as a guide, one might look at how much of Germany was occupied by the allies prior to the German surrender. Answer, almost none.”
    .
    That is the perfect capstone to Ed’s bloviating. WW1 ended with an armistice, not a surrender.

  478. What is notable to me is how little we find out from our media about the progress of the Ukraine war that is accurate. What the latest leaks of classified documents show I think is that Ukraine is suffering heavier losses than previously acknowledged or reported.

    The international press seems to be doing more reporting on the increasing difficulty Zelenski is having getting Ukrainians to serve in the armed forces and is being forced to adopt draconian punishments for desertion, sending out agents to track down draftees etc.

    It is clear to me that the American media and most politicians are cheerleaders for Zelenski and cannot be trusted to tell us the truth about the war which like most wars is very bloody and costly for all involved.

  479. Mike M,
    “Unless Biden blocks it out of a desire to endlessly bleed Putin and Russia.”
    .
    That could well be the real problem with ending the war. The Biden administration thinks that punishing Russia for not following ‘the international rules” is extremely important. I believe the Biden administration will never work to end the war via negotiations; they have always insisted on conditions the Russians will never accept, like leaving Crimea. The fighting is likely to drag on for a very long time, perhaps ending in a permanent stalemate, like Korea.
    .
    I wish it were different, since may thousands of men on both sides (and some Ukrainian civilians) are dying for what seems to me only a modest difference in quality of government.

  480. MikeM

    Ed Forbes (Comment #220558): “Using WWI as a guide, one might look at how much of Germany was occupied by the allies prior to the German surrender. Answer, almost none.”

    I’m also a bit mystified about what Ed’s point might be. Germany invaded Belgium, Luxomberg and France. They weren’t able to take France, eventually most of the battles were on French soil.
    .
    And then Germany did not win.
    .
    Is Ed trying to explain why Russia might want to give up the figth? ‘Cuz Germany seems like an analog to Russia in that story. But somehow, given Ed’s usual position, I can’t imagine he’s explaining why, given things we’ve seen in history, Russia is about to cave and try to end the war.

  481. I’m afraid SteveF might be right. Probably only a new US and/or Ukrainian President will make a serious effort to end this war. The issue here is that our elites are almost unanimous that this war is a holy crusade. It is not. Ukraine has always been a country that is as corrupt as Russia. The US in fact made a significant effort to ensure regime change there I think in 2014 or so, about the same time the Biden crime family started getting bags of cash from Ukrainian interests for doing nothing. This was a dress rehearsal for the current election interference regime that censors information here in the US about the Biden’s corruption and the fact that Biden is a senile old man who can’t enunciate more than a single sentence per minute of speaking and who has been captured by the far left wing of his party. The same election interference machine that amplifies anything negative about “Maga” Republicans using smears and lies invariably involving “racism sexism, and Jim Crow.” The FBI and DOJ have really erected a Maginot line to prevent any information about the Biden investigation from becoming public.

    The recently leaked documents assert that both sides have suffered well north of 100,000 military casualties. We really should be making a serious effort to end this war through some kind of compromise. Kissinger’s compromise could be a starting point. But the war hawks need this war as a way to legitimize their power at a time when the legitimacy of our institutions is indeed being questioned, and rightly so.

  482. I also think Ed is wrong. The military situation seems like a stalemate to me and that seems likely to continue as long as the West continues to pay the bill and supply the munitions for Ukraine. Russia likewise can continue indefinitely given the massive failure of Western sanctions. I read somewhere that Russia is now making more money from oil and gas than before the war.

    The fantasies about achieving regime change in Russia are delusional. The goal of taking back all Ukraine including Crimea is also delusional. These are quite dangerous too as they act to provide an irrational and emotional basis for not trying to end this now.

  483. Mark B: “I have said I don’t want to talk with you…Still,…”
    .
    I gave up grudges about the 2nd or 3rd year in business, in the mid 1980s. It paid off with decades of beneficial relationships with which I would have sacrificed. As an aside, I think this can be seen as a difference in Trump’s style from Obama and Biden’s. He can call a leader “Little Rocket Man” initially but then form a personal repour of respect to find common ground. Reagan went from calling USSR an “Evil Empire” to a friendship with Gorbachev. The key is to acknowledge that the other has a point even if you disagree with it. That opens the way they can trust to acknowledge your point.
    .
    “You’ve said you don’t believe in God. Are you advocating making a political argument that rests on the idea that God exists despite this?”
    .
    I acknowledge their point even if I don’t accept the premise because I’m not sure I have a better premise. I am in a state of interest rather than certainty of how to preserve human dignity and respect for human life.

  484. In fact Biden’s foreign policy has been a disaster. The failed sanctions on Russia have in fact driven Brazil, China, and Russia to start to find an alternative to the dollar for trade. Right now, the only reason the USA isn’t in receivership to the IMF is because the dollar is the world’s de facto currency. If that changes, austerity is unavoidable. Also, Saudi Arabia, which was our strongest ally in the Middle East outside Israel is now cozying up to Iran, the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. I’m sure everyone living outside the US media bubble realizes that Biden is a house plant and that his weak Secretary of State (who has aided the Biden corruption coverup) is pulling the foreign policy strings.
    Biden’s crusade against fossil fuels ensures that world prices continue to be high which is what allows Russia to continue the war. From memory, natural gas prices at present are at least twice what they were when Trump was in the White House.

  486. Ask the Germans if WWI was a surrender or not. The terms for a full peace and unblocking ports for trade were full capitulation itself.
    .

    “ Even after an armistice ended World War I, the rapacious victors continued a devastating blockade of Germany.
    .
    If one word could describe Germany during the immediate aftermath of World War I, it would be “starvation.” And yet, while some 900,000 German men, women and children were starving to death, the American and British public knew nothing about the reason for this holocaust, deliberately caused by the continuation of a wartime British naval blockade.”
    https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html

  487. Mark, thanks for asking.
    .
    Does anyone think that it is too late to program AI to believe in God and that God wants humans to live free and pursue happiness, (as defined by humans)?

  488. One factor driving the Ukrainian response to the Russian invasion is never mentioned. The Ukrainians hate the Russians. The hatred is deep and the hatred is pervasive and it is entirely appropriate. The Russians have been brutalizing the Ukrainians for a hundred years. There is probably not a Ukrainian alive today without family stories about ancestors who were molested or killed by Russians. They are united as a people in their will to not let it happen again. As long as there is a Ukrainian alive who is able to swing a shovel at a Russian invader, this will not be over.

  489. Not so sure about that Russell. The reports of growing resistance in Ukraine to the draft and desertions from the army seem credible to me. They are in the foreign press.

  490. Ron,
    Are those supposed to be one question or two entirely different ones?
    I don’t think it’s “too late” to program an AI to act like it believes in god. We can then debate whether that means it does believe in God.
    .
    I doubt God exists. If God does not exist, it doesn’t want anything. But to the extent I think God exists, I don’t think God gives a hoot about people — or at least doesn’t care about us any more than about ants or fleas.

  491. Last night the atmosphere in Kyiv was nearly clear. Here is a screenshot with side-by-side comparisons of the electric grid light from 2023-5-02 and 2021-5-02:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1653552610320736256?s=20
    Here is a link to NASA’s Black Marble for 2023-5-02:
    Remember: CLICKING ON THE LINK DOES NOT GET THE WHOLE PICTURE! Copy the entire link and paste it into your browser.
    https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=28.821366767484317,49.605303607831985,31.780306198568862,50.939138023250564&l=Reference_Labels_15m(hidden),Reference_Features_15m(hidden),Coastlines_15m,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_At_Sensor_Radiance,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_AtSensor_M15(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden)&lg=true&t=2023-05-02-T23%3A21%3A10Z

  492. David Young (Comment #220571)
    “desertions from the army seem credible to me. They are in the foreign press.”
    I only saw that reported in the Kremlin mouthpiece TASS. Do you have more references?

  493. Lucia,

    I doubt God exists. If God does not exist, it doesn’t want anything. But to the extent I think God exists, I don’t think God gives a hoot about people — or at least doesn’t care about us any more than about ants or fleas.

    I’ve always thought this as well, in pretty much the same terms.

  494. Thanks Lucia, I agree with your opinion but it just make’s me think that our being and civilization is all the more amazing (and fragile) for it being true.
    .
    I asked ChatGPT the natural rights and abortion questions and it came to the conclusions we did in about 3 seconds but with much more tact and respect. It acknowledges all sides and and emphasizes the sensitive nature of the moral and ethical questions.
    .
    I then asked: “Please define what a wedge issue is. And can a wedge issue be politically exploited for the purpose of indoctrination of voters to unreasonably weigh their own rights as being more important than other’s rights?”

    Wedge issues are typically controversial and emotionally charged, and they often involve deeply held beliefs or values that are difficult to reconcile. Examples of wedge issues include abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, immigration, and healthcare.

    While wedge issues can be used to mobilize support for a particular candidate or political party, they can also be used to manipulate and indoctrinate voters. In some cases, politicians and interest groups may use wedge issues to manipulate public opinion and to create an us-versus-them mentality that pits one group of people against another.

    This kind of manipulation can lead to voters unreasonably weighing their own rights as being more important than other people’s rights, which can have negative consequences for democracy and society as a whole. It is important for voters to be informed and critical of political rhetoric and to engage in constructive dialogue about important issues, rather than being swayed by emotionally charged messages that exploit their fears and prejudices.

    .
    I may have been too leading, I realize.

  495. Ron

    I may have been too leading, I realize.

    Well… since you seem to thrive on trying to use wedge issues to get support for the political party you prefer, while complaining that others try to do as you do, it’s not to suprising you asked what you asked.

  496. Lucia, I don’t know what in my writings makes you think that I was trying to exploit people’s sensitivities rather than expose them. In fact, calling out something as a wedge issue is the opposite of exploitation.
    .
    I heavily lean to the GOP currently because I see their policy views in general as more beneficial to society. There are maybe a couple of issues that I would join on the Dem’s side but not enough nearly to sway me. I was never big on the war on drugs, for example. Nancy Reagan’s “just say no” campaign was I think more effective, as Mother’s against Drunk Driving was more effective than any legal restrictions in changing societal behavior.

  497. And Ron, I can ask ChatGPT questions too. As you know, you’ve periodically resorted to explaining that the topic of abortion is not as important as countless others. (Trans-women in sports, government corruption, yada, yaa.)

    How about this question

    Do people sometimes use the claim that a political topic is “less important” than another topic because they lack a rational basis for their political position?

    Yes, people can sometimes use the claim that a political topic is “less important” than another topic because they lack a rational basis for their political position. This is a common tactic used by individuals or groups who are trying to minimize the importance of an issue that they either do not agree with or do not want to address.

    By claiming that one issue is “less important” than another, they can try to divert attention away from the issue that they do not want to discuss. This tactic can be used for a variety of reasons, such as to avoid taking a difficult position on a controversial topic, to distract from a negative aspect of their own platform or candidate, or to simply discredit the opposing viewpoint.

    However, it is important to remember that different political issues can be important to different people for a variety of reasons. What may seem like a “less important” issue to one person may be critically important to another. It is important to have open and honest discussions about all political issues and to respect the opinions and concerns of others, even if we do not always agree with them.

    Do people sometimes use the claim that a political topic is “less important” avoid open and honest discussion of the “less important” topic?

    Yes, people can sometimes use the claim that a political topic is “less important” to avoid open and honest discussion of the topic. This is a common tactic used in political discourse, particularly when there are contentious or controversial issues at play.

    By claiming that a topic is “less important,” individuals or groups can try to diminish its significance and discourage others from discussing it. This can be done for a variety of reasons, such as to avoid taking a difficult position on a controversial topic, to distract from a negative aspect of their own platform or candidate, or to simply discredit the opposing viewpoint.

    However, it is important to remember that different political issues can be important to different people for a variety of reasons. What may seem like a “less important” issue to one person may be critically important to another. It is important to have open and honest discussions about all political issues and to respect the opinions and concerns of others, even if we do not always agree with them.

    Ultimately, it is up to each individual to determine the importance of a political topic for themselves and to engage in open and honest discussions with others about the issues that matter most to them.

  498. This is a fun new debate feature. Unfortunately my workplace has blacklisted ChatGPT, doubtless because of too many engineers spending valuable time playing with it. Otherwise I’d quote ChatGPT’s supporting argument on why it is valuable to quote the AI in discussions. ~grins~

  499. mark

    Otherwise I’d quote ChatGPT’s supporting argument on why it is valuable to quote the AI in discussions. ~grins~

    Yes. And if you didn’t quite get the answer you want in the first try, you can pose the question lead a little more.

  500. Lucia,
    Yep. I think that might become something of an art form eventually. Instead of carefully crafting surveys to produce a desired result, we’ll carefully frame our questions to our AI systems to find the truth we are looking for.
    [Edit: I forgot the sarc tag. As we’ve established, these bots are quintessential BS’ers and whatever intersection their answers have with actual truth is largely coincidental.]

  502. Hmm… gotta go ask ChatGPT what “would” happen if Budlight decided to market by linking itself to a trans-influencer.

  503. I’ve asked

    The Bud lite marketing team is thinking of promoting Bud Lite by making custom beer cans embossed with the likeness of a trans-woman influencer and sending the cans for them to promote. The cans will comemorate the anniversary of the influencers transitioning from male to female. The influencer will make videos of themselves in a bubble-bath celebrating the arrival of the cans and post a number of other tiktok videos associating themselves with the beer.

    How will this affect Bud Lite sales during the first two months after the tik-tok videos appear? Specifically, how much do you think sales might rise or fall? And would there be other strong favorable or unfavorable reactions?

  504. Walmart in Sarasota out of 12 ounce PBR, still has 16 ounce. They had both sizes last week.

  505. Examples of exploitation of groups is telling immigrants that border enforcement is rooted in racism, telling black people “they want to put y’all back in chains,” and telling gays ” they want to put you all back into the closet.” It’s a form of rationalization by vilifying the motives of the opponents. I would never call abortion doctors murderers and I don’t agree with conservatives to use such language.
    .
    I am not sure why ChatGPT found gun control to be a wedge issue except that it is an indirect way for Dems to blame death and violence on the GOP and away from Dem urban crime policies.

  506. I’d guess ChatGPT would think that a fine idea that would probably boost sales, but you never know. This might instead be one of those cases where we bump into a limited spark of AGI.

  507. Ron,
    DeWitt Payne famously tells us that irony obeys the same laws as entropy. It behooves me to warn you that you are increasing the amount of irony in the universe at a catastrophic pace, once again essentially demonizing your opponents even as you protest the practice of demonizing opponents. If you don’t stop soon, something catastrophic may happen. An irony black hole might rip apart the fabric of the intertubes. I implore you to exercise caution.

  508. Answer so far

    As an AI language model, I do not have access to current market data or consumer sentiment about the potential Bud Lite marketing campaign. However, I can provide some general observations about how this campaign might be received.

    First, the use of a trans-woman influencer and the commemoration of her transition may be seen as a positive step towards inclusivity and diversity by some consumers. This could result in a boost in sales among those who view Bud Lite as a brand that is supportive of the LGBTQ+ community.

    However, there may also be some negative reactions to the campaign. Some consumers may see the use of a trans-woman’s image as exploitative or as an attempt to profit off of someone’s identity. Additionally, some consumers may view the use of a trans-woman’s image on a beer can as inappropriate or insensitive.

    Can you provide your best estimate of the upside and downside potential of this marketing campaign in terms of percent increase or decrease in sales?

    As an AI language model, I cannot provide an estimate of the upside and downside potential of the Bud Lite marketing campaign in terms of a percent increase or decrease in sales because it is impossible to accurately predict consumer behavior and market reactions to such a campaign.

    The success of a marketing campaign depends on a variety of factors, such as the target audience, the messaging and branding of the campaign, the competitive landscape, and current market conditions. Additionally, consumer attitudes and behaviors can be unpredictable, making it difficult to accurately forecast the impact of a marketing campaign on sales.

    However, it is important to note that marketing campaigns that are seen as inclusive and socially responsible can often have a positive impact on a brand’s reputation and sales. Conversely, campaigns that are seen as insensitive or exploitative can have a negative impact on a brand’s reputation and sales.

    Ultimately, the success of the Bud Lite marketing campaign will depend on how it is received by the target audience and the broader market.

    User
    Would a sales drop of 26% in less than a month be a plausible outcome to this marketing campaign?

    It is not possible to definitively say whether a sales drop of 26% in less than a month would be a plausible outcome to this marketing campaign without knowing more about the specifics of the campaign and the market conditions at the time.

    However, a sales drop of that magnitude in such a short period of time would be considered very significant and highly unusual. It would suggest a major backlash against the campaign, likely due to some perceived insensitivity or offense on the part of the target audience.

    It is important to note that any marketing campaign can have both positive and negative reactions from consumers, and the impact on sales will depend on the balance of these reactions. While a significant sales drop is possible, it is also possible that the campaign could have a positive impact on sales if it is well-received by the target audience.

    Ultimately, the success of the marketing campaign will depend on a variety of factors, including the execution of the campaign, the attitudes and behaviors of the target audience, and the competitive landscape at the time.

  509. Clearly, ChatGPT couldn’t be said to predict the outcome of this campaign. It’s first prediction is very “on the one hand on the other hand”. It all depends on “the target audience”.

    Who is the target audience for inexpensive (non craft) beer sold in grocery stores and places like Walmart?
    waiting… waiting…

  511. I think that ChatGPT might emerge as a reference on blogs, like Wiki. Willard did a post at ATTP on his asking it what Climateball was, (probably hoping his name would come up).
    .
    ChatGPT:

    By claiming that one issue is “less important” than another, they can try to divert attention away from the issue that they do not want to discuss.

    .
    I thought I discussed all angles with gusto.
    .
    Lucia:

    As you know, you’ve periodically resorted to explaining that the topic of abortion is not as important as countless others. (Trans-women in sports, government corruption, yada, yaa.)

    .
    Government corruption should always be near the top of the list. I think our founders would agree with that as well as our decendents 200 years from now. As for trans women in sports, I did not use that as an example of an important topic. If you remember I was using it to demonstrate that the Dem position on abortion rights was calculated and not based on the protection of women.

  512. Ron,
    I’m sorry, I made an error there. Being a chat bot, I have my limitations. 😉 My word pattern was correct, but I should have said ‘exploit wedge issue’ instead of ‘demonize’. Here at Bofill GPT we apologize for any inconvenience the errors promulgated by our systems may cause.

  513. While waiting for ChatGPT…
    Naturally, I looked up the male/female demographics of beer drinking. Not surprisingly, it skewed male (about >60# <40%). I'd say about 2 males for 1 female. (And I bet the men drinking more beers per day.)
    .
    Googled more:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/theres-no-game-plan-bud-light-sales-collapse-26-percent/

    Beermance: Why Men Fall so Hard for Beer

    .
    Two of the reasons were male specific

    Male Bonding: One of the most common reasons that men love beer is that it plays a key role in male bonding and creating a sense of community. This socializing has been shown to release endorphins, which improve mood. Mood improvement is so powerful that one study showed that smiles are contagious in a group of men sitting around drinking alcohol. Interestingly, beer did not have a similar effect on women.

    .

    Masculinity: If you ever wondered why men prefer beer over a wine spritzer, the answer is that beer is seen as “masculine” and “manly,” especially when compared to “girly drinks.” Do you think most men want to hold a strawberry daiquiri or a fruity drink with an umbrella? This masculine aspect of beer can be so compelling that some men will drink beer even if they don’t necessarily like the taste, in order to be perceived as “real men.” This link between masculinity and beer is reinforced in popular culture in any number of ways, but especially in advertising which often depicts men enjoying beer while at or watching a sporting event. A popular beer commercial circulating now stars rugged “Jurassic Park” star Chris Pratt.

    .
    Honestly, I’m astonished a person in marketing wouldn’t know that this is the reality of “beer” as a consumer product. Beer is a product whose current sales to their current customer base are based on the customers view of himself as “a manly man”. The downside risk of what turned out to be a very visible marketing move to associated it with a trans-woman was ginormous.
    .
    The upside? Not really so much. The transcommunity itself is too small to make the tiniest upward move in beer sales. And most women aren’t all going to say “Hey! Forget about Chardonay! This Bud is for me too!! ” They like their Chardonay. (Or in my case, red wine.)

  514. Now ChatGPT on the market

    The target audience for inexpensive (non-craft) beer sold in grocery stores and places like Walmart can vary, but typically includes consumers who are price-sensitive and looking for affordable options. This can include individuals who are:

    Budget-conscious: People who are looking for ways to save money and cut down on expenses may be drawn to inexpensive beer options.

    Casual drinkers: Consumers who do not have a strong preference for beer brands or styles, and who primarily drink beer as a social beverage, may be more likely to choose inexpensive options.

    Young adults: College students and young adults who are just starting out and may not have a lot of disposable income may be more likely to choose inexpensive beer options.

    Everyday consumers: Individuals who enjoy beer as a part of their regular routine, such as after work or on weekends, may be more likely to choose inexpensive beer options.

    Overall, the target audience for inexpensive beer sold in grocery stores and places like Walmart is generally those who are looking for affordable and accessible beer options, rather than those who are seeking high-quality or craft beer. This can include a wide range of consumers, from budget-conscious shoppers to casual beer drinkers to young adults, and may vary depending on the region and demographics of the area.

  515. Plain vanilla BS, looks like to me. It made up what sounds plausible. Not saying it’s wrong necessarily, but I wouldn’t accept that without some fact checking.

  516. Ron Graf

    I thought I discussed all angles with gusto.

    No. Actually, you usually failed to engage things. Like, for example, after I responded to your question about knowing that pregancy tests can detect preganancy in two weeks, I explained that wasn’t the relevant time frame– giving reasons. You just moved on– and later once again mentioned the rapidity of pregancy tests, and availability of birth control.
    .
    You actually systematically avoid argument that are actually presented and prefer to introduce ones someone somewhere might have brought up and argue against those.
    .
    Also: you very frequently start a paragraph reminding us you think the topic of abortion is not as important as other topics, and then launch off into multiple paragraphs of how important those other topics are.
    .
    What you do is not discussing ‘all angles’ with gusto. It’s ignoring angles other people bring up and repeating your ideas over and over. And trying to change the topic to your bug bears. (BLM, the evils of the democrat, transports etc.)

  517. Mark bofill,
    I think ChatGPT has no particular insight. Consumers of low priced things tend to be price sensitive for a range of reasons. That’s obviously true. Its answers to further questions are equally wishy-washy. It certainly would not have predicted Kid Rock making a video lining up cans of beers and shooting them, some people vandalizing beer delivery trucks, and a sales drop of about 26% in less than a month.
    .
    It definitely didn’t grasp the magnitude of the possible downside potential of a brand attaching itself to a political issue that is currently super divisive. I don’t think it’s training quite allow it to graphs how divisive the issue is nor how that could affect sales.
    .
    Maybe the marketing team at Bud used ChatGPT, and so wasn’t able to see what should have been obvious. (The only way for the “Dylan Mulvaney” thing to not have a huge downside was for the gesture to remain invisible. Invisible gestures are not worth the expense of printing special purpose cans.)

  518. Lucia,
    Yup.

    Maybe the marketing team at Bud used ChatGPT

    Heh. The weakness in the Turing test is that sometimes being indistinguishable from a human doesn’t really indicate all that much about intelligence.

  519. Looks like the “ignore it and pray it goes away” plan for Anheuser-Busch isn’t going to work. That was the plan I would have tried. Now they have a big problem, they are going to need to address the situation, but I have no idea how they are going to do that. They need to publicly say they made a mistake.
    .
    Heads are going to have to roll, and the damage will need to be rebuilt slowly I guess. It could go as high as the CEO at this point.

  520. I would suggest that somebody(s) on the Bud Light executive team suggested a diversity initiative (perhaps their highly compensated DEI team) and nobody had the guts to shut it down, because willful blindness to obvious potential blowback. What Harvard grad in the C-Suite is going to speak up against that? Nobody.
    .
    It was a pretty tepid initiative in reality, at least the Clydesdales aren’t non-binary … yet. I’m pretty sure one can tell if they are designated male at birth or not by simple observation.

    What a mess for them, and yet I have little sympathy.

  521. Tom
    I have very little sympathy for the higher echelons. They were just idiots all around. The ones whoa are very high up were also probably making a lot of money. Their lives will probably be fine.
    .
    The people who I do have sympathy for are distributors and their employees who have to deal with vandalism on the “front lines”.
    .
    I’d feel a little bad for Dylan Mulvaney actually. They are just a person who is (mostly) trying to live their life — in some sense. But s/he put themselves in the limelight to make money. So getting slammed was a calculated risk when you decided to be in the limelight. S/he seems to have gotten a lot of endorsements out of it, which is a sort of cushy way to make a living.

  522. Tom–
    Oh, the Anheiser Bush is just making things worse. This article says “five hours ago”?!

    https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/a-b-responds-to-bud-light-controversy-one-single-can-sent-to-one-influencer/article_12db8c52-e90f-11ed-be5d-338d88dc3a41.html

    ST. LOUIS — Anheuser-Busch is now telling retail customers that a recent controversy is just a tempest in a pint glass.

    In a letter to wholesalers that was forwarded to some local bars and restaurants, the brewery addressed the backlash to a marketing campaign featuring transgender social-media influencer Dylan Mulvaney, which led to a steep decline in Bud Light sales over the last month.

    “This was one single can given to one social media influencer,” the letter states. “It was not made for production or sale to the general public. This can is not a formal campaign or advertisement.”

    Ackkk!!!!
    They don’t have the good sense to shut up!

    Also

    Grey Eagle included a cover letter. “Anheuser-Busch did not intend to create controversy or make a political statement,” it said.

    Doesn’t help! Doesn’t help!!!!

    Oh… wait… they are trying to push someone under the bus.

    “In reality, the Bud Light can posted by a social media influencer that sparked all the conversation was provided by an outside agency without Anheuser-Busch management awareness or approval,” Grey Eagle continued in its letter. “Since that time, the lack of oversight and control over marketing decisions has been addressed and a new VP of Bud Light marketing has been announced.”

    (and now I gotta go!)

  523. Sounds like “Anheuser-Busch management” is heroically engaging in standard CYA and not trying too hard to resolve the customer problem. They can likely earn their existing customers back by throwing a single trans-influencer under the bus. This will alienate the progressive crowd who aren’t really their customers anyway. I’m not sure there is any other way out, but based on the courage shown so far, that is unlikely. They are cornered, perhaps they can get some ideas from some astute Yale graduates.
    .
    The Redneck University graduates say “Tell people you are a beer company first and foremost and this behavior will stop immediately, additionally starting next week for a limited time you get 50% off Bud Light cases emblazoned with an AR-15”.

  524. Russell, I recall one was in the Economist but it was a couple of weeks ago.

  525. Lucia wrote: “They are just a person who is (mostly) trying to live their life — in some sense.”
    .
    Not so sure about that. I’m of the opinion Mulvaney is a fake. A new spin on Mrs Doubtfire.

  526. Tom Scharf,
    This FUBAR is causing a lot of negative publicity, but so far at least, the impact on An-Busch stock price looks small. The company’s markets are international, and only about 25% (IIRC) of profits come from US sales. Unless the stock price slips significantly (15%?) I don’t expect many heads to be rolling.
    .
    Still, it has to be one of the all-time dumbest marketing moves evah! How could they not know their primary demographic was unlikely to embrace…. ummmmm…. want to be associated with a trans-gender ‘influencer’? It is like they were all inside a hermetically sealed bubble. I kinda doubt they brought in panels of typical bud light drinkers from construction sites and asked how much they liked the trans-gender promotion idea.
    .
    The whole thing is about as smart as a US car company marketing a car called the ‘Matador’ (literally ‘Killer’) in Spanish speaking countries.

  527. Dave,

    I’m of the opinion Mulvaney is a fake.

    Oddly, I’m not sure what you mean. By traditional measures of course Mulvaney is not a real woman, being a genetic male who still swings his original equipment between his legs. But by modern progressive orthodoxy, Mulvaney is as real as they come. There is no mechanism for rejecting anyone as fake as I understand it. Ryan Webb has come out as a black indian lesbian in Indiana, and demonstrates this well – I read that local media finds no recourse but to treat his claim seriously.

  528. I suppose that David Young is referring to this article:
    https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/02/26/ukraine-finds-stepping-up-mobilisation-is-not-so-easy

    But that does not seem to live up to his claim in Comment #220571.
    .
    And then there is this:
    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/04/27/patriotic-ukrainians-are-rushing-to-pay-their-taxes

    One explanation is that firms and taxpayers, eager to support their country’s defence, are paying more tax than required.

  529. Lucia,
    I notice you gave Mulvaney his preferred pronouns. I would never want to imply that I thought this was anybody’s business but yours. But this is your blog, and I elect not to do so, and it occurs to me that this might be considered rude behavior on my part. I prefer to be rude only deliberately, and I’m certainly not trying to be rude to you or to the regulars here. Mulvaney has stated that he believes referring to him by his actual traditionally proper pronouns should be criminal (link here) which is to me a compelling reason to continue to use masculine pronouns to refer to him at every opportunity. Otherwise I might avoid the issue in this case.
    If I have given you offense in doing so, I apologize for it – it wasn’t my intent.

  530. Mark wrote: “By traditional measures of course Mulvaney is not a real woman,”
    .
    I mean a fake in the vein of Ryan Webb, in this case so they can do the Mrs Doubtfire comedy routines while also cashing in on the social credit of “trans” to increase their influence.
    .
    “There is no mechanism for rejecting anyone as fake as I understand it.”
    .
    Apart from political support, I suspect. This is usually where the line is crossed. Of course, when you’re trying to cultivate a new victim group to offer empty platitudes in exchange for power, it’s beneficial not to be too fussy on membership.

  531. Lucia:

    No. Actually, you [Ron] usually failed to engage things. Like, for example, after I responded to your question about knowing that pregancy tests can detect preganancy in two weeks, I explained that wasn’t the relevant time frame– giving reasons. You just moved on– and later once again mentioned the rapidity of pregancy tests, and availability of birth control.

    .
    I said I was going to give you the last word on our abortion discussion but since you are bringing it up with a very different memory than I have I need to correct you. (I have no idea why. It’s a type of insanity I guess.)
    .
    I pointed out that women today can find out if they are pregnant with 99% certainty in 10-14 days in the privacy of their bathroom with a home test setting they back $8. And then I added this a day later on the 26th:

    Balancing the above and other things we have mentioned I come down with the belief that the optimal policy is a compromise giving the mother ample opportunity to responsibly act as she wishes while time is of the essence. With today’s technology and social circumstances I would come down with the optimal compromise being a restriction (while allowing the exceptions) somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks. Each state should decide and amend as seen fit.

    .
    The following day you responded with posting my above quote with:

    Ok. We agree on the time window. And we both prefer states rights.
    .
    But you want sometimes to explain that by providing abhorent views…

    [All of which turn out to be twisted ad homs imagined by you.]
    .
    The next day you explained your feelings in detail for the first time:

    The balance between the woman’s rights to guide her life, and the moral issue of ending a not-yet fully human but developing into-humanness life.

    * that being pregnant has very large social, economic, moral, emotional and physical impacts on the pregnant woman. They are typically life changing. Many can be very negative when the pregnancy wasn’t planned. (It impact the father’s to, but less. ) For this reason, it must be allowed for a reasonable period.
    .
    * for timing on the “short” window: people need time to make appropriate decisions about issues that are life changing. Mulling over the many, many things to consider and people to consult (including the father), twelve weeks seems just sufficient to me. Shorter time windows are unreasonable.

    .
    We ended up in the same place except I have abhorrent views. (sarc)

  532. Dave,
    Do you mean that they are insincere and are deliberately speaking something they know to be false when they speak of their identities? If so (and I think that’s what you’re saying) fair enough.
    [Edit: I don’t think my daughter would call them fake even so. I’m not sure in Webb’s case! I’ll ask her sometime if I dare…]

  533. Although I’m sure Mulvaney probably got some Twitter abuse, all this exposure should be solid gold for a “social media influencer”. I don’t think much of the heat is focused in that direction anyway, it’s almost entirely and appropriately at Bud Light.

  534. David Young (Comment #220608)
    “Russell, I recall one was in the Economist but it was a couple of weeks ago.”
    Similar to Mike M. I found nothing about increased Ukrainian desertions in the Economist or anywhere else. Perhaps you are mistaken. Other publications indicated Ukraine did increase the penalties for desertion, but not increased incidence.

  535. You often see posts from me citing OSINT [Open Source Intelegince] to verify claims of daily battle minutia. If you are interested in how it works here is a long thread discussing in detail the two drones that attacked the Kremlin last night. The methodology they used is explained with graphics. It’s quite fascinating how it works. Note: This is a lesser-known source, I cannot verify them but their methods in this instance seem to be sound.
    Link:
    https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1653836377891414040?s=20

  536. Well Russell you may be right about what the article said. But I’ll bet you that there would have been no need to increase penalties if there wasn’t a growing problem. I do think the one thing that is very clear is that our media cannot be trusted on anything they report, particularly about Ukraine where the elites are unanymous in their thinking, i.e., that this is holy crusade. I had gotten the impression that Russian losses were many times those of the Ukrainians. The recent leaked documents make it clear the DoD does not believe that to be true. In a country of 40 million, over 100,000 casualties is a lot. Most Ukrainians problem know of someone who is among them. If you can point me to any sources that are trustworthy I would like to take a look.

  537. Ron

    The next day you explained your feelings in detail for the first time:

    At which point you dropped the issues I raised vis a vis the lower 12 week limit — which I’d answered specifically in response to your question (My answer is in (Comment #220350) )

    In your next comment, you decided to move onto making allusions to Nazis and complaining about democrats. (#220355)

    You clearly don’t want discussion of the heavy impact on women’s lives — which you have trivilalized by bringing up other thing s we could weigh when deciding to curb womens rights. That is–

    Also: I’m puzzled why you keep referring to my thought as feelings.

    All of which turn out to be twisted ad homs imagined by you.

    Calling a view you expressed abhorent is not an “ad hom”. And the views you expressed weighing the major impact of unwanted pregnancy on woman as “light” and suggesting we consider the dreams of childless trans couples into consideration when impairing her liberty is abhorrent.
    .
    And you keep wheeling back to statements trivializing the impacts of the actual preganancy:

    Ron Graf (Comment #220372)

    But first, I want to also remind all that my overall point that got me into the dog house was suggesting the entire topic is artificially amplified out of proportion to what it’s actual impacts are in young people’s lives today. In fact, if one looks at the historical line there was a time before the pill, and before that contraception, when the issue was paramount in a young girl’s life. She had to remain celibate to be safe. The situation for her improved continually from then to now, and should continue to improve until the issue of unwanted pregnancy is insignificant. Therefore, policy should be flexible to adapt with the times. I’m not sure there was even over the counter pregnancy tests when Roe was decided, for example.
    .

    (Highlight mine.)
    .
    So, earlier having seemed to ignored what I wrote financial, economic, and social impacts on the pregnant woman, and the need for time to make a decision, you keep return to the notion that somehow technology can make the issue of unwanted pregnancy insignificant. Or that somehow the over the counter pregnancy tests make much of a difference in light of the actual factors that make the pregnancy and the decision about it difficult and worth of being given time..
    .
    So yes– when you seemed to ignore my response to you about how the time for over counter pregnancy tests was not limiting by changing the conversation to one about Nazi’s, you did indeed ignore that.

  538. SteveF, In my post at Climate Etc. I go into some of the reasons why woke is taking over elite institutions. Basically, these elites (and insecure corporate executives are quite vulnerable really) see that the internet and populism is undermining their credibility. They grasp at woke as a desperate way to try to preserve it. It’s the same reason why the FBI has gotten so corrupt and political. These people are scared that someone like Trump might get elected and fire half the organizational leadership.

  539. Mark

    I notice you gave Mulvaney his preferred pronouns. I would never want to imply that I thought this was anybody’s business but yours.

    Where? I thought I was mostly writing like this

    Oddly, it exploded the marketing manager was right in the sense that Dylan Mulvaney is a talented ‘influencer’. S/he got right out there, showed how happy she was with the can, got it in front of his/her audience. Made the gesture very visible.

    I’d feel a little bad for Dylan Mulvaney actually. They are just a person who is (mostly) trying to live their life — in some sense. But s/he put themselves in the limelight to make money. So getting slammed was a calculated risk when you decided to be in the limelight. S/he seems to have gotten a lot of endorsements out of it, which is a sort of cushy way to make a living.

    I usually try for “they” as more ambiguous. But it’s clunky. Socially, I’m fine with using pronouns people prefer. I don’t really care what other people do. This is a dicey thing.
    .
    Someone above said Mulvaney still has male tackle. Do we know? (I don’t. )

  540. Ron

    We ended up in the same place except I have abhorrent views. (sarc)

    To be clear: what is abhorrent is what you raise as considerations to elevate above a woman’s rights to autonomy– e.g.: the dreams of childless couples. The window itself is not the issue. It is your reasoning.

  541. Lucia, it is only you that is saying I want to “raise as considerations to elevate above a woman’s rights to autonomy– e.g.: the dreams of childless couples.” I never said that and, I am frankly tired of refuting it, and I’m sure everyone else it too. What I said was that every issue is a complex mix of positive and negative outcomes. What makes the best policy is very difficult to determine by prediction. That is one good thing about the 50 states being able to conduct the experiment as to what is the best policy. I threw out a few examples of real life situations to underscore the different possible outcomes. I think that is valid and not at all changing the topic. I notice also that you never once in the last week mentioned the moral consideration of the killing of a human fetus. I said that I am not sure how to weigh it or even the full implications of that might affect other our framework on natural rights. But to acknowledge there is two legitimate sides, and not just men trying to control women’s rights, is a more moderate and rational view. I know you said she should tell the father but that is under her control. In fact, a woman wanting to keep the child could tell the father that she suspect’s doesn’t want it that it’s too late, she has to keep it now because of the legal deadline has passed. In this example the law empowered the woman. Anyway, I hope there was something productive from having an open debate.
    .
    I wonder if Trump and DeSantis have there abortion talking points ready. They’ll need them.

  542. Lucia,
    Sorry, my mistake. Well good then, in which case I wasn’t being rude. Thanks!
    [Edit: It was me claiming Mulvaney still has his penis. I don’t know this of my own first hand knowledge, but I’m under the impression that he has tweeted this information (I cannot supply a link, so there is that). On the one hand, it’s none of my business and I don’t even really want to know, but on the other the info is available. Ugh. Forget I mentioned it.]

  543. Ron,
    Here:

    …but it is a very small issue because in modern day people now have the tools to deal with even an unreasonable ban. If a women is going to carry the baby into the third trimester I think it would be thoughtful of her to carry it a little longer and provide a childless couple the dream of their life.

    We can read and grasp what you’re saying here just fine, so spare us. If talking with Lucia here at her blog annoys you, why don’t you just take a hike? That’d be my recommendation.

  544. Ron,
    I suspect you are right that I have not specifically discussed the morality of killing a fetus. I have stated multiple times that my upper window is set by viability.
    .
    As you can see, mark found the place where you “raise as considerations to elevate above a woman’s rights to autonomy– e.g.: the dreams of childless couples.”
    .
    You obviously can’t refute it because you said it. Moreover, you haven’t backed off that.
    .
    In fact, you want to double down and justify making those sorts of positions. You characterize it as “What I said was that every issue is a complex mix of positive and negative outcomes. ” And you persist in suggesting we “consider” these very minor issues.
    .
    I mean…. If we were debating killing “Joe” and Joe was against it pointing out that dying was a pretty big burden to him, but I kept bringing up “positive” outcomes like “it would cure his toe nail fungus” or “Someone poor deserving man could be given his shirt”, I think people would know perfectly well that I didn’t give a hoot about the burden to Joe in giving up his life.

  545. David Young (Comment #220620)
    You wrote: “Most Ukrainians problem know of someone who is among them. If you can point me to any sources that are trustworthy I would like to take a look.”
    I don’t know what you are asking of me with this statement. Please elaborate.

  546. Another place where Ron elevates fairly trivial things above a woman’s right to autonomy

    Lucia, how can restriction of killing nearly viable human babies be the biggest women’s rights infringement of our time while in the same breath the stealing of women’s college and Olympic sports titles be supported? The answer is that the actual fairness or personal right is not the issue, it’s only how one can frame the issue that matters. If political opponents can be smeared it’s a win.

    .
    Sure… it’s done by “rhetorical question?”. And leaves the right being taken from the woman unstated But clearly, given his answer he is decreeing that a woman’s right to autonomy— which affects all women — is less important than some women winning athletic trophies. And he’s even saying abortion– an issue that heavily affects a woman’s emotional, financial, economic and social well being– can “only” be framed as anything to do with a “right” if the abortion issue is not about rights.
    .
    And of course, the final sentence is a gem from someone who is persistently smearing others. It’s one of his “go to” tactics when discussing this topic.
    .
    I’m rather amazed Ron calls pointing out what he wrote and criticizing it is an ad hom. I thought he knew what the term ad hom meant. And I’m rather more amazed that he thinks he can convince anyone who reads this thread that his is not raising other issues like “women’s sports” and “dreams of childless couples as being more important than women’s right to autonomy.

  547. mark,
    I am always curious about whether XY persons have had their tackle removed in the quest to appear XX. It is a horribly invasive procedure; have read a bit, I can’t say I could advise anyone have a fake vagina created. On the other the other hand, the presence of the penis must be a constant daily reminder of their XYnes.

  548. Lucia,

    Sure… it’s done by “rhetorical question?”. And leaves the right being taken from the woman unstated But clearly, given his answer he is decreeing that a woman’s right to autonomy— which affects all women — is less important than some women winning athletic trophies.

    Yeah. I think the tactic of insinuating something that anyone other than an imbecile will understand and then denying intention or responsibility is in play here. It’s not helpful. Slimy lawyer talk, is my view on it. I prefer engineer talk; be as clear and direct [as] possible so we can figure out what the heck is going on.
    It’s one of the reasons I don’t really like talking with Ron. I asked a simple question earlier [‘Are you advocating making a political argument based on a belief in God you don’t actually have?’, more or less] and got more of the same.
    It’s all good, but then he complains about your replies. Well, WTF. If he doesn’t like talking with you, nobody is forcing him, AFAICT. I wouldn’t be sad at all if he’d quit the ‘open debate’ agenda he seems to be pursuing here.

  549. Lucia,
    I know I’m no genius, and part of that means there are views that other people hold that I cannot possibly begin to relate to personally. I suspect gender dysphoria is one of them. I’m me, this thing not some other thing. I’m not a ghost inhabiting a random body, I *am* this body and mind; this is me in total. So I don’t get any of it.
    But my failure is probably just my failure. Maybe other people can follow a little ways into the madness and make sense of it. Shrug.

  550. Good Morning Royal Family fans. Coronation day is nearly upon us [Saturday]. In the US you can watch live on BBC America:
    “BBC America will be screening the day’s events live between 6am and 10am EST. Coverage will begin with the ceremony itself, followed by the Royal Procession from Westminster Abbey to Buckingham Palace, and then finally the flypast, when aircraft from the British Army, Royal Airforce and Royal Navy will travel by the palace’s balcony.”
    https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230502-how-to-watch-king-charles-iiis-coronation-in-the-us
    Many of the large streaming services carry BBC America. Hulu, Sling Orange, Sling Blue, Philo, DirecTV Stream, YouTube TV, and Spectrum TV Choice all have it. I have seen the BBC stream major events live on YouTube proper so I expect it will be there also. If you still have traditional cable service the legacy US networks are also planning live coverage.

  551. mark

    I’m me, this thing not some other thing. I’m not a ghost inhabiting a random body, I *am* this body and mind; this is me in total. So I don’t get any of it.

    I also don’t get it. As long as an individual isn’t stepping on my toes or those of others, I don’t mind– I don’t need to “get it”. But some of the discussions do involve trans-gender people wanting to take away from others.
    .
    I do, for example, think “women’s” sports should be XX sports. There is a small group of people– those with truly ambiguous sex/gender issues — that present complicated questions. But those who clearly presented XY at birth, but think they are XX in their ‘brain’ — and need major invasive surgery to not present XY should not be allowed to compete in XX. Allowing them in makes the sport which has a large “entertainment” aspect “not a sport”.
    .
    Sebastian Coe made the right ruling https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-it-take-seb-coe-so-long-to-see-sense-over-transgender-athletes/ Swimming’s governing body has now come to the right decision. High level athletics are coming to their senses on this issue. You can’t just set some level of testosterone (which were, btw, actually above the top level of normal women because there were exceptions of women with identifyable maladies who had super high levels– and adverse symptoms along with those. So the trans were allowed levels that exceeded the other competitors.) The rule has to be as close to “XX only” as possible.
    .
    There remain some hard cases– Caster Semnaya is one such. But the hard cases don’t have the potential to ruin women’s sports the way the easy ones (e.g. Lia Thomas) do. The easy cases are people who no one thought were ambiguous until they decreed themselves women– and surgery and hormones are required to “make them women” (because they aren’t XX). I have no problem with people like Bruce/Caitly Jenner doing what they feel they must. But Bruce competed in the XY category, not XX. That’s as it should be even if s/he has transitioned in early adulthood.

  552. Russel,
    Starts at 6 am? Oh darn. I’m going to miss the broadcast. . . I suspect any and all “key moments” will be available on youtube.
    .
    I’m sort of hoping for rainy drizzle.

  554. Lucia,
    I agree with all of that. Boring, I know, but there it is. 🙂

  555. mark

    Yeah. I think the tactic of insinuating something that anyone other than an imbecile will understand and then denying intention or responsibility is in play here. It’s not helpful. Slimy lawyer talk, is my view on it.

    .
    Actually, I think most lawyers eschew this too. Judges can see it in anything written. Other lawyers see it and the tactic falls apart on cross examination. The person using the tactic usually ends up sounding like Amber Heard and some of her witnesses.
    .

  556. Lucia,
    “Oh darn. I’m going to miss the broadcast”
    And I am sure you will not fail to enjoy missing it. If you do don’t watch it, you can’t chat about it with the ladies at the beauty salon.

  557. Trans people who wish to hide their transition and appear as the opposite sex have a pretty big problem when dating. The don’t ask, don’t tell segment. At some point in that relationship they have to fess up. Although I’m not entirely empathetic to the trans issue (the political parts where they demand to be given special rights, compete in women’s sports, etc), I am empathetic to how privately difficult that would be for such a person. This may be why some wish to move to surgery to avoid such an agonizing engagement as long as possible, particularly with teenage hormones raging. I don’t really know the intricate details of such surgery and don’t think teenagers should do it, but do believe it’s mentally traumatic for many of them.
    .
    This issue was covered in the novel Middlesex about a teenager born with both genitalia.
    https://www.amazon.com/Middlesex-Novel-Oprahs-Book-Club/dp/0312427735
    .
    This isn’t my go to genre but I will say this book was very striking, well written, and memorable. It was also written in 2002 before this type of book would be elevated by critics solely due to its subject matter (there was some of that even then though). Now it’s viewed through the typical political lens in recent reviews.

  558. While we are on the subject of women get to decide under all circumstances, the other side of the issue is why should a man be saddled for life with child support payments for a child they didn’t want to have? If they are willing to pay for the abortion then I think they should have the option of not being responsible for that child for the rest of their life.
    .
    Men’s rights!

  559. Mark

    “Anheuser-Busch works with hundreds of influencers across our brands as one of many ways to authentically connect with audiences across various demographics and passion points. From time to time we produce unique commemorative cans for fans and for brand influencers, like Dylan Mulvaney. This commemorative can was a gift to celebrate a personal milestone and is not for sale to the general public,” an Anheuser-Busch spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

    It would be interesting to see their list of influencers who were given cans with their likeness printed on it, especially a likeness to celebrate a personal milestone. If the list of people whose faces were printed on cans was long, Bud’s defense might be a little stronger.
    .
    I can’t find such a list. Pity Bud’s team didn’t create a list and circulate it to show us all how long it is.
    .
    I can find commemarative cans for sale on ebay:

    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=bud+light+commemorative+cans&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-153677-346401-4&mkcid=2&mkscid=102&keyword=&crlp=645810704052_&MT_ID=&geo_id=&rlsatarget=dsa-1680301660446&adpos=&device=c&mktype=&loc=9021675&poi=&abcId=&cmpgn=18798642686&sitelnk=&adgroupid=146055075827&network=g&matchtype=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwr82iBhCuARIsAO0EAZwtUtQfJbbWsc0hQt65-h4vNWfWWorMXB2bwXoYox5MI-fuXRXZylEaAmAREALw_wcB

    For sale listings will clearly change over time, but I see sports teams (Superbowl 50, Ravens, Giants.). Mardi gras. Green Alien Storm Area 51.
    I added face to the search (“bud light commemorative cans face”) Spuds McKenzie– the dog shows up on a towel.

    OK! A face:
    “Post Malone Can Bud Light EMPTY Beer Tab Intact Posty Fan Present RARE Gif” (You can buy a six pack. No idea who this person is– google says rapper etc.)

    I googled more on this collab:
    https://www.influencerintelligence.com/blog/Xm/brand-collaboration-analysis-post-malone-x-bud-light

    Seems to have happened around 2019.
    https://www.influencerintelligence.com/blog/Xm/brand-collaboration-analysis-post-malone-x-bud-light

    Earlier this year, beer brand Bud Light announced a creative collaboration with American rapper, singer, songwriter, record producer, and guitarist, Post Malone. The partnership involved the artist creating a brand-new streetwear line in conjunction with the drinks giant. The line includes sweatpants, hoodies and printed T-shirts. As part of the collaboration, Post headlined a #DiveBarTour performance in New York on August 5, debuting new music. Of the brand’s newfound relationship with the 24-year-old musician, Shana Barry, Director of Experiential for Bud Light, said: ‘Post has such a unique style. He’s an artist who is truly comfortable with himself and that’s one of the many reasons so many people love him. We have always thought about launching a merch collection but doing it with an artist that we’ve watched grow over the years makes it so much more special. We love that Post and his team were able to take some classic and iconic Bud Light imagery and infuse it into the collection that we hope people love.’ Bud Light has previously worked with other musicians including Justin Timberlake, Afrojack and Lady Gaga. However, this marks the first merchandise collab for the brand.

    I haven’t found any Bud Light cans with their faces on it.
    .
    I’m rather doubting they have put hundreds of influencers faces on cans. But Bud could clear this up by showing a list (along with the cans.)

  560. Tom

    the other side of the issue is why should a man be saddled for life with child support payments for a child they didn’t want to have? If they are willing to pay for the abortion then I think they should have the option of not being responsible for that child for the rest of their life.

    Somehow I doubt anyone here is surprised you think this. 🙂
    .
    I disagree.
    .
    The issue in this case is that the child needs to be supported. And if it is not supported by those whose acts created it, then it must be supported by the rest of society. I don’t think taxpayers should be on the hook for the cost of raising a child merely because the father expresses a willingness to pay the relatively small sum involved in an abortion.
    .
    As it presently stands, once the child is born, if not placed for adoption, the burden of supporting the child falls equally on both parents. If the woman doesn’t want to keep the child, she can’t put it up for adoption of her own volition and neither can he. So that is gender neutral. I think this is the correct position relative to depriving the child of financial support or placing the burden on society.
    .
    If the father takes physical custody, the mother will be assessed child support. So that is neutral toward the obligation of the parents.
    .
    If neither wants physical custody, and they don’t wish to permit adoption, they can relinquish the child to the state. (In which case, I think the state may enter an assessment for support. I would think that fair because- one again, the state shouldn’t have to pay for the support if the parents can.)
    .
    There is admittedly an assymetry during the pregnancy itself, and that springs from the biological assymetry. But I don’t think this assymetry should mean one party responsible for pregnancy is dispensed with their obligation to support their offspring.

  561. Lucia,
    They’ve either forgotten the first law of holes or never learned it, as you [essentially] noted earlier.

    Tom,

    At some point in that relationship they have to fess up. Although I’m not entirely empathetic to the trans issue (the political parts where they demand to be given special rights, compete in women’s sports, etc), I am empathetic to how privately difficult that would be for such a person.

    Yes, I can empathize with the anxiety and fear a person can feel at the imminent prospect of being caught out in a lie. You know, I’m no moral paragon of virtue and I’m not trying to preach here. Still, the obvious solution is how ’bout we don’t lie to begin with. I get the raging teenage hormone thing and all that, I remember dimly.

  562. Heads I win, tails you lose, eh? Ha ha.
    .
    The father can’t take custody of a child he wants if the all powerful women decides to have an abortion even if he will take sole financial responsibility. This seems a bit one sided. Most of these pregnancies are unplanned and here the woman has a voluntary opt out but the man doesn’t. I think there needs to be some equity applied to this somewhere.
    .
    The state’s interests are best served with mandatory abortions for those financially and mentally unprepared for a child, but I imagine we won’t be going there anytime soon, comrade.

  563. Tom

    The father can’t take custody of a child he wants if the all powerful women decides to have an abortion even if he will take sole financial responsibility.

    That’s the asymetry imposed by biology.

    This seems a bit one sided. Most of these pregnancies are unplanned and here the woman has a voluntary opt out but the man doesn’t. I think there needs to be some equity applied to this somewhere.

    Biology is assymetric.

    The state’s interests are best served with mandatory abortions for those financially and mentally unprepared for a child, but I imagine we won’t be going there anytime soon, comrade.

    Well… I’ve never suggested mandatory abortions. But you seem to be suggesting the man who doesn’t want the child should be put in a position to be able to financially coerce the woman into an abortion.
    .
    I’m not seeing how giving the power to coerce to a single man is less coercive than allowing the state to coerce. I’m against both.

  564. Trans advocates want society to remove the shame of being trans so they don’t have to lie. Most teenagers will lie (mostly lie by omission) to defer public shame, especially in the hot box of high school social dynamics.
    .
    Advocates may want to program society differently, but society ultimately gets to decide. I’m sure there are lots of strange behaviors certain people wish were not shamed by society, but many of them are there for real reasons.

  565. The man is being given a decades long penalty for an unplanned pregnancy that can be avoided by abortion. If the woman wants the child she can either take full responsibility for it, or have an abortion and have another (planned) child with a man who will take responsibility for it.
    .
    It doesn’t have to be all or none, it just shouldn’t be completely one sided.

  566. Tom,
    I feel like I’ve lost the thread here. What is it we are supposing is being lied about? I thought it was that they’d be found out to be trans pre-op when they went to bed and the partner discovered the wrong genitals.
    I apologize if I’ve misunderstood (and indeed I strongly suspect I have). In the case I thought we were looking at, it’s not generally ‘shame of being trans’ that motivates the lie. It’s that the prospective partner in question is usually not open to, seeking, or interested in having a trans sexual partner.
    There are trans activists who clearly understand this issue I describe, and they go on about how ‘genital preference’ is bigotry. Well, it is certainly discrimination but I think it falls well within the boundaries of generally accepted discrimination (A.K.A. personal preference).
    Anyways. Sorry if I got lost. If you can spot where let me know.

  567. I think it was implied that the trans person wouldn’t have anxiety about dating if he didn’t lie (or hide the status) to the person he was possibly dating to start with, true enough. But they hide their status to avoid public shaming from a large segment of society.
    .
    In an office environment most people may not know the person is trans because that person probably doesn’t want to be treated like a trans, but like a normal human. They just have an extra burden when dating, which is of course that most people aren’t going to go for that. If they tell a potential romantic interest, then they might get exposed and that news would travel fast no doubt. If they broadcast to the office they are trans then they have to deal with prejudice. So they probably just avoid all romantic interests in that environment which limits their options.
    .
    I’m not implying at all that people shouldn’t have preferences. If I had a romantic interest in someone who ended being trans then that would probably freak me out a bit, ha ha. Not sure what I would think about that. No wonder they liked football so much!
    .
    I’m just making all this up, no special knowledge. Could be totally wrong about everything.

  568. Lucia,
    “they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later,”
    .
    Messy. Yes, that ought to solve most of the problem, but the reality is determining Tanner stage development long after the fact (after the start of hormone therapy and surgical modification) may not be so clear cut (pun intended) as we might hope. Lots of potential for dishonesty, gaming the system, and legal battles.
    .
    Better it think: No person born with an XY chromosome pair may compete against people born with a XX chromosome pair (AKA women). Clean and no gaming.

  569. Tom,
    I gotcha. I’m not sure people would dare try shaming a trans person too much in this day and age. But I could be wrong too. I live in Huntsville and I sometimes act like that’s super hardcore Southern. But it’s not really. We’re the biggest city in Alabama now and we’ll probably flip blue one of these days in the not too distant future. So what the heck do I know, maybe there are still plenty of places where people would feel free to shame a trans person.

  570. Tom

    The man is being given a decades long penalty for an unplanned pregnancy that can be avoided by abortion. If the woman wants the child she can either take full responsibility for it, or have an abortion and have another (planned) child with a man who will take responsibility for it.
    .
    It doesn’t have to be all or none, it just shouldn’t be completely one sided.

    You think that position is not “all or none”? Wow! It’s pretty much “guys have no responsibility and no burden for accidental pregnancy”.
    .
    The woman has that exact financial penalty too. After birth, she can’t give it up on he own the father can refuse to give it up for adoption, get custody and get child support. So men aren’t the only ones ‘stuck’ with this financial burden.
    .
    The biologically unique penalty is the 40 month gestation period and the recovery period afterward. That assymetry can’t be erased by law.
    .
    For the record: I’m also against allowing the man to enter into an after the fact agreement with the mother that she will carry the baby to term after which he will assume 100% financial responsibility with her having none. Because I also don’t think she has the right to drop her financial responsibility for a kid after birth. Even if informally one parent does carry the financial burden, that doesn’t release the other parent in the event of death, disability or financial loss on the other part of the parent. Once born, being fed, clothed, housed and so on is a right for the kid.

  571. SteveF

    Messy. Yes, that ought to solve most of the problem, but the reality is determining Tanner stage development long after the fact (after the start of hormone therapy and surgical modification) may not be so clear cut (pun intended) as we might hope. Lots of potential for dishonesty, gaming the system, and legal battles.

    Yes. It might have been better to say Tanner 2 or 12 years old– which ever is sooner. I looked at pages on the stages and it looks like inspecting the testes (if still present) would let someone know if they entered Tanner 2.
    .
    It’s pretty clear Lia Thomas was well past Tanner 2. And this law will effectively mean the kid is going to have to have been medicalized by 12 to be able to compete.

  572. Mark bofill

    I thought it was that they’d be found out to be trans pre-op when they went to bed and the partner discovered the wrong genitals.

    That’s sort of what I thought the motivation for the trans-person not revealing they were trans to someone they want to have sex with. I understand there can be other fears vis-a-vis those not in contention for being sexual partners.

  573. Tom

    In an office environment most people may not know the person is trans because that person probably doesn’t want to be treated like a trans, but like a normal human.

    Well….. people who transition visibly while still at the same job generally know the other people in the office know. I’ve known two or three people who transitioned, and people on the job didn’t shame them.
    .
    Whether other people somewhere might have I don’t know. Seems to me, most of the time, most people treat other people as human beings. Even in the Bud light thing, people aren’t criticizing Dylan, they are criticizing Bud light and their marketing team.
    .
    This likely is a bit difficult on Dylan– but Dylan did decide to be very visible and “the point of a spear” as it were.

  574. Lucia,
    Just goes to show my mind stays in the gutter I suppose. Sighs.. But more seriously, this surprises me a little. If things are more or less platonic, it doesn’t seem to me that there’d be that much left to get worked up about.
    [Edit: I’m probably setting myself up here. There’s possibly some vast space I’m overlooking between ‘platonic’ and ‘going to bed’ that will reflect poorly on me for not having thought about it in the first place, but. Oh well! LOL]

  575. mark bofill,
    I also think if people weren’t in a dating or romantic situation, they mostly don’t care if you are trans. And if the transition is successful enough that the transitioner appears to be the gender they feel they are, then the issue really doesn’t need to be raised.
    .
    The issues generally come up with what might be deemed “partial transitioners”. So, if you swing your dick around a ladies locker room, that’s going to make people uncomfortable. Or if people who see you just naturally call you “ma’am” even though, in your mind you are a “sir”, it’s going to come up.
    .
    The latter in particular is not hostility on the part of someone who say you– it’s just that people do take guesses at whether you are a man or woman and the guess is based on how you present yourself. And that’s not merely on how you hope you are presenting yourself– it is how, overall, you present yourself.
    .
    People do get hostile about dicks swinging in women’s locker rooms.

  576. I can certainly understand that. I’d be quite irritated if my wife or mom or daughter was subjected to that. Heck, it’d irritate me if one of my female friends were subjected to that.
    …
    Something totally insignificant that I’m having a hard time letting go of. You said this:

    I mean…. If we were debating killing “Joe” and Joe was against it pointing out that dying was a pretty big burden to him, but I kept bringing up “positive” outcomes like “it would cure his toe nail fungus” or “Someone poor deserving man could be given his shirt”, I think people would know perfectly well that I didn’t give a hoot about the burden to Joe in giving up his life.

    Of course I understand your examples were only intended to illustrate the specific point you were making, but.. DOES dying cure toe nail fungus? It doesn’t seem like it would. But maybe it does. I have the question stuck in my head and I can’t seem to discover the answer via the internet. Do you happen to know one way or the other?
    I know, I’m strange.
    [Edit: Once the corpse dried out, if it dried out, yeah. The fungus might die. They require moisture. I think…]

  577. mark

    DOES dying cure toe nail fungus? It doesn’t seem like it would. But maybe it does.

    Well… maybe I should say “He would no longer be bothered by this horrible malady.”

  578. The mythical “gender affirming care” was up until 5 seconds ago considered malpractice especially for minors. These procedures are very painful and don’t really enable sexual functioning. They make the victim/patient into a lifelong patient and dependent on a lot of medical drugs and subject to lots of serious side effects. The fact that this type of medical treatment has any credibility is beyond me. Gender confusion is indeed a disorder and these people need counseling and compassion. But why have they gotten so entitled that they think they deserve quite costly life long medical intervention.

  579. Oh noo….
    https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/new-anheuser-busch-ceo-blames-bud-lights-drastic-decline-on-misinformation-mace/
    “NEW: Anheuser-Busch CEO Blames Bud Light’s Drastic Decline On ‘Misinformation’”
    They’re really going that route!

    attributing it to what he calls “misinformation” surrounding a single social media post.

    Doukeris told investors there is “misinformation” spreading on social media about the company’s team-up with Mulvaney.

    “We need to clarify the facts that this was one can, one influencer, one post and not a campaign,” Doukeris said.

    Well….. how is thisclearing up “misinformation”? No one has claimed it was a superbowl ad, a long running campaign, yada, yada.

    https://www.inquirer.com/news/bud-light-transgender-can-dylan-mulvaney-boycott-20230411.html
    It appears Bug also announced an upcoming line.

    The can with Mulvaney’s face is not for sale, but the company announced an upcoming line of Pride-themed cans featuring different pronouns.

    I suspect that upcoming line was canceled.
    .
    People reacted in a way Bud Light doesn’t like. And they reacted so quickly that astonished Bud Light. But they didn’t react to “misinformation”.

  580. Lucia
    Re: toe fungus and death: oh. got it.
    Re: misinformation,
    Well, to persuade me of that, they’d have to persuade me that the VP they hired was a Russian operative, or at minimum a former KinkyBeverages intern. I’d need to see the dossier. I could manage without a pee tape but I think I’d need to see video of beer being chugged at least. I’m somewhat skeptical. Is it really misinformation? Disinformation? It seems more like legitimate malinformation.
    If Nina Jankowicz hasn’t weighed in yet, I don’t know how we can be sure. How about our 19 intelligence agencies, we might wait for their report.
    [ SILLY tag ]
    Now that I’m done with that: They just keep digging. Insulting people’s intelligence isn’t going to help.

  581. Shame is probably the wrong word, maybe just conscious or unconscious prejudice. Some subset of people who transition probably don’t want to go around broadcasting the fact because it’s a hassle socially and some people are going to treat you differently. Either hostilely or overly empathetic. Objectified by their trans identity. The best way to avoid this is to transition and change jobs and/or move somewhere else so the locals don’t hassle you, or perceive to be hassling you. Maybe most of them don’t care and just deal with it, I don’t know.
    .
    It can just be awkward sometimes I expect. One of your friends starts chatting up somebody who you know is trans, what do you do? Send them a text under the table? Do nothing. Enjoy a humorous moment? Berate them for thinking it matters later?

  582. David,

    The fact that this type of medical treatment has any credibility is beyond me.

    First, I generally agreed with what you said, to get that out of the way.
    I suspect but do not know that the grain of truth (or virtue) of this type of treatment stemmed from an honest attempt to prevent or reduce suicide among legitimate sufferers of gender dysphoria. Fair enough, I get that. My impression is that for some disorders we can’t do very much. I believe that for people with dementia [for example], it’s pointless to try to disabuse them and often best to play along to whatever degree is practical and reasonable. So – trying to prevent mentally ill people from killing themselves is laudable. Honestly, I think the idea has spun a little out of control though. The unforeseen consequences are yuge.

  583. Yes Mark. There is actually some research on this in Europe that shows that “gender affirming care” actually increases suicide rates. Perhaps that’s why a number of European countries are putting the brakes on this kind of treatment. There is also some good evidence that gender dysphoria spreads by social contagion especially in young women and girls. Of course the scientist who did this work was cancelled but now has an independent web site and an institute.

  584. Everyone in their teenage years undergoes a lot of self doubt surrounding sex and sexuality, I certainly did. It’s easy for people who are confused and anxious to be exploited by adults with an ideological bent who are not clear thinkers.

  585. Tom, I feel nothing but compassion for those who are sexually confused. It’s the adults and so-called professionals who steer people to undergo destructive and painful and life altering “treatments” that deserve our condemnation. But for adults who undergo these treatments, reality doesn’t care about your feelings and you shouldn’t expect special treatment.

  586. No arguments there for most of that. Could you link me something supporting this part?

    There is actually some research on this in Europe that shows that “gender affirming care” actually increases suicide rates.

    I’d be much obliged if that checks out.

  587. Tom,

    One of your friends starts chatting up somebody who you know is trans, what do you do? Send them a text under the table? Do nothing. Enjoy a humorous moment? Berate them for thinking it matters later?

    Sure, but awkward situations happen. One of your friends starts chatting up somebody who you know is married. Or a lesbian. Or a nun (I know, nuns are rarer than trans people these days. It’s a mad world).
    Try to keep a sense of humor about it would be my usual approach.
    [Edit: I should add, some people might not mind. I don’t think a majority wouldn’t mind, but. There are all sorts of preferences in this world. I’m sure there are people who find trans people attractive as romantic partners. If my friend was that sort, more power to them I suppose.]

  588. Tom/Mark,
    I can’t imagine berating them later.
    .
    I’d pretty much stay out of it as I would in most instances. I think the trans-identity issue would sort itself out at some point. I really doubt I need to proactively intervene to let them know.
    .
    I think in most cases, trans people pass imperfectly. At best, the xy->woman trans look like women when they are very made up and very decked out. They can look womanish when they have taken a lot of trouble to dress up. But take the make up off, pull on some sweat pants and a baggie shirt…. XX women still look like women in those outfits. XY women tend to not look like women then.

    The xx-xy very, very rarely look like actual men and certainly not attractive ones. They usually look sort of like teddy bears or something. Very soft for male. Not that no men look like that– but… really not quite.

    So the issue of being truly misled is rather a non-issue. But it’s true some trans people pass pretty well.

  591. Lucia,
    Did you watch the video? I don’t have TikTok but it played in my Chrome browser. I don’t think it was staged. It shows the game at the end.

  592. mark bofill,
    “They just keep digging. Insulting people’s intelligence isn’t going to help.”
    .
    Yes, they are being very stupid…. not at all a surprise considering that they were dumb enough to have beer cans printed with a trans social influencer’s face. My experience with CEO’s who are paid multi-millions per year is that they tend to think of themselves as incredibly smart (they are the smartest person in every room they walk into), and uber competent. They don’t easily accept they did something incredibly stupid (whether approving of the scheme of just hiring someone who did).
    .
    A pinch of humility and shutting up would be best. That is probably outside the comfort zone of most highly compensated CEO’s.

  593. The TikTok Red Sox Bud Lite video has gone viral… you can watch it on a lot of sites…. NY Post, Outkick, Newsweek. Now the copycats will start.

  594. My wife watched that game on TV and said it looked like the beer being offered in the stands by walk-around venders was almost all Bud Light… so anyone who wanted Bud Light didn’t have to go to the concession area, and anyone who wanted something else did. If that is something being pushed by An-Busch to sell more Bud Light, then I think they are making a mistake. Rule 1 for marketing: don’t piss off potential customers by making them miss part of a game they probably paid $150 to watch.

  598. Russel,
    Do you think Prigozhin’s threat to withdraw from Bahkmut is sincere? Or does he do this all the time? Or is it a trap for Ukraine?

  599. SteveF

    A pinch of humility and shutting up would be best.

    Even shutting up without humility!! I just keep rolling my eyes. I mean ….. ‘explaining’ that it’s “just one X”. People know that.
    .
    All this explaining does is remind people they
    * picked someone to put on the can for reasons.
    * had their designers design a special can,
    * their production people create a special can,
    * arranged for that person to very visibly show the can.
    * had that person promote something. (There was some drawing? Or something. Yeah.. googling, it was some March Madness contest.)
    * it was a “partnership”.
    * no one cares if it was a “formal” or “informal” campaign/partnership yada, yada.
    * everyone knows that “informal” campaigns are to ‘test the waters’– there are plans in the making.
    * Mulvaney is now “out there” on the Rosie show discussing their side of the story. (S/he as a perfect right to do so. But not helping Bud Light.)

    *** And, now that I watch the add…. Oy!!!! The tiktok video strikes me as tone deaf vis-a-vis the *existing customer base* for Bud Light.
    https://www.instagram.com/p/CqgTftujqZc/
    .
    She uses irony to…. well… make fun of the idea someone would be interested in sports. “I’m not sure which sport”. (So… a March Madness promotion aimed at people who don’t give a shit about sports? Brilliant!!)
    .
    This from a beer that is sooooo associated with people who love sports. People have loved Bud’s perpetual appearance during the SuperBowl . There is probably no brand more associated with the notion that “I am a sports lover!”
    .

  600. Mark,
    Here’s a source about Mulvaney’s penis: It’s in a spat with Caitlyn Jenner.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pop-culture/dylan-mulvaney-responds-caitlyn-jenners-tweets-rcna54800?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&utm_source=NBC&utm_medium=iframely

    “Not you calling me a he! That is just … terrible,” Mulvaney said of being misgendered. “But then you didn’t stop there.”

    Mulvaney then pulled up a screenshot of a different Jenner tweet, in which she wrote, in part, “Dylan…congrats your trans with a penis.”

    Mulvaney said the tweet made her sound like a “creeper flasher exposing myself.”

    “I’m just curious if you can think back to your early days of transitioning and remember being embarrassed about your body, or having strangers give you dirty looks, that’s why I made that video,” Mulvaney said. “Because I was embarrassed and I wanted to reclaim my body in a positive way. Now you’ve taken that and turned it into something really ugly.”

    Later

    Mulvaney said she currently is unable to get “bottom surgery,” or genital surgery, because she hasn’t been on hormones long enough.

    Mulvaney went on to say that Jenner’s comments have made her not want to share the surgical part of her transition with her followers.

    “There are so many trans women who don’t have access to it or they don’t want it, and it doesn’t make them any less of a woman,” Mulvaney explained

    So presumably the bottom surgery is planned for sometime in the future.
    .
    This is sort of funny actually.
    .

    In the video, Mulvaney said the experience made her realize that transgender women should not feel compelled to avoid wearing tight pants or tuck their penises. Mulvaney said society should, instead, normalize and be understanding that some people have bulges in their crotch area.

    I laughed at the “normalizing”.
    .
    Not too long ago, I was discussing clothing choices by one of the pros competing with his Am’s at a competition. This guy was super muscular and wore some teensie-beensie gold shorts. The fabric was thin. And… while I couldn’t actually see his underwear below it, it was either very thin or non existent. I said…. you know, given the venue, he probably should have picked something a little less revealing. (Had it bee a gay pride show, fine. Bar? Fine…. Beach? ok…. But like it or not, there is a “certain” dress style at ballroom dance events. Some of the traditions are stupid– like all the white women and most the white men get spray tans. But the young pros do not show outlines of their dicks. Bulges are not prominent. Chests can be– shirts can be see through. But… no dick bulges or nipples.)
    .
    I know this dancer was not trans. He is gay. (He mentioned he was going to some gay event and he hoped one of the other pro-dancers would be there.)
    All in all: the outfit looked “cheap”.

  601. This seems to be a video about Dylan’s bulge

    https://www.papermag.com/dylan-mulvaney-caitlyn-jenner-misgender-2658576681.html#rebelltitem18

    He sings (rather badly) about normalizing the bulge.
    I don’t know if this is in response to Jenner or if it’s the one Jenner commented on.

    But look:. People comment if XX women show nipples outlines. Or too much cleavage. Or camel toe. Or they dress too frumpy. Or too fat. Or too thin. Of dressed wrong for your degree of fatness/thinness. Or your bod in general– boobs, legs what have you. And those commenting don’t consult with the women they are criticizing.
    .
    If you want to be treated like a woman, get used to the fact that people are going to comment on you fashion choices and what shows and doesn’t show. It comes with the “woman” territory.

  602. Lucia,
    The battle Prigozhin vs Shoigu and Gerasimov has been raging almost as long as Ukraine vs Russia. I have no ideas as to the veracity of this threat. One of the Ukraine warriors I follow on Twitter surmised that he may be covering his arse in case a Ukraine offensive aims at Bakhmut and his guys get routed. By the way, there are still Ukrainian special forces operating in Bakhmut.

  603. Thanks Lucia. I was mildly curious about the source but not enough to run it down myself. Now I know.
    .
    Regarding the bulge thing, lots of unrelated responses come to mind:
    1) Normalize away. I’m not looking at your crotch in the first place, it’s no concern of mine if you’ve got a bulge. In fact, do advertise that you’re a biological male by all means. This may reduce the [frequency of occurrence] of unfortunate misunderstandings.
    2) I get it that people try to look ‘sexy’ or to look appealing to potential romantic or sexual partners. I think your dancer friend was dressed as he was for this reason? Maybe I got that wrong, but anyway. There are lines that are negotiated with society and I’m not sure what all the reasoning behind it is. For my part, I feel like people should be free to do as they please so long as they do not involve me against my will. There is some line somewhere past which I feel people are trying to involve me in their sexuality without my consent. Needless to say I don’t cooperate with that. People insisting that I call them by pronouns of their choice is something I think is near that borderline.

  604. I didn’t say that well. People should be free to do as they please so long as they aren’t involving other people against their will, is a little better. It’d bother me nearly as much to witness this as it would to be the target of it.

  605. Lucia,

    If you want to be treated like a woman, get used to the fact that people are going to comment on you fashion choices and what shows and doesn’t show. It comes with the “woman” territory.

    Exactly! There are lines. In our society we are even free to disregard many of those lines and damage nothing more than our reputation or social standing. But that there are lines and limits is a fact that is absolutely NOT unique to trans people. Or anyone really.

  606. mark bofill,
    “This may reduce the [frequency of occurrence] of unfortunate misunderstandings.”
    .
    I business acquaintance told me of a story from when he was chasing girls in his 20’s (before marriage). He was at a night club and met a very attractive girl. After a couple of hours of conversation and dancing, then went to his car for some heavy-duty kissing and hugging. After some minutes, he figured it was a good time to unhook her bra and then discovered she had quite a lot of hair on her chest! Said he:

    My heart started pounding so hard I thought I would have a heart attack… I though for sure ‘she’ was really a guy on hormones! I panicked and was about to jump out of the car, when she grabbed my hand, put it on her crotch and said ‘Don’t worry, I am really a girl’!

  608. Lucia,
    “It comes with the “woman” territory.”
    .
    Yes. But it isn’t completely clear to me why that is. Maybe it’s that men are a lot more interested in physical appearance than women are. Or maybe it’s that a man’s comments about a woman’s appearance are more acceptable among men than a woman’s comments about a man’s appearance are acceptable among women. Never really understood it.
    .
    I know that I automatically evaluate a woman’s appearance when I meet her more than I do a man’s, even though I would rarely say anything beyond something positive like “I think she is very pretty”. Maybe women do the same evaluation of a man’s appearance, but just don’t say anything. Donno.

  609. hmm. Am I blurrying different things together? I might be. I was sort of lumping ‘dress’ in along with attractiveness. They sort of overlap to some extent.
    I do think (without good evidence and I could well be wrong) that women are ‘judge-ier’ about each others appearance than men. But still, I think men judge each others adherence to appropriate attire / dress codes to some extent. Put it this way – if somebody comes to church or work in shorts and a tee shirt and flip flops, the men I know are going to remark on it.
    Who knows maybe I hang out with a bunch of atypical girly men. Heh.

  611. The royal rumor mill is in high gear.
    ….”another potential powder keg of coronation drama hiding in plain sight.”
    “This story begins in 2019, when the British tabloid the Sun reported that Kate had fallen out with one of her closest friends, Rose Hanbury, for unknown reasons. Hanbury, a 39-year-old former model who looks not unlike Kate herself, is married to David Rocksavage, 62, the Marquess of Cholmondeley (pronounced, of course, “Chumley”). This makes her the Marchioness of Cholmondeley, and she and her husband live in the storied Houghton Hall in Norfolk. Their home is just four miles down the road from Will and Kate’s country retreat Anmer Hall, and the couples reportedly socialize in an elite country circle in Norfolk called the “Turnip Toffs.”
    “Kate allegedly decided to “phase out” Rose from the circle for mysterious reasons. “No one understands quite how things have come to this,” a source told the tabloid at the time, referring to Rose as Kate’s “rural rival.”
    “Hopefully everyone does get along now, because David, Rose, and their children will be front and center at the coronation. King Charles has named David as his “Lord in Waiting,” which means he’ll have a key role at the ceremony (probably carrying a sword or something). On top of that, Charles has also named Lord Oliver, one of David and Rose’s twin sons, as an official Page of Honour for the ceremony. Oliver will walk right alongside Will and Kate’s eldest son, Prince George, who is also a Page of Honour.”
    https://www.thecut.com/2023/05/who-is-rose-hanbury-marchioness-of-cholmondeley.html

  612. You know certain identity groups are accepted equally by society when you can criticize them freely about unrelated things without reflexively being accused of an -ism of some kind. Women are almost to that point, other groups not so much.

  613. A case in which the mother could find out about the fatal abnormality only at 24 weeks
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/florida-abortion-term-pregnancy/index.html

    “They were “making sure he felt loved, and he wasn’t in pain, even though I knew he was in pain,” Deborah said.”

    “She said she knows it would have been emotionally wrenching if the pregnancy had been terminated when her baby’s birth defect was first spotted, at 24 weeks. But being forced to carry the baby for 13 more weeks, knowing that he would die, made it even more horrific.”

  614. SteveF

    Yes. But it isn’t completely clear to me why that is. Maybe it’s that men are a lot more interested in physical appearance than women are.

    Oh… I think there are a lot of reasons and it varies from person to person. Women are judged by their actual level of physical attractiveness somewhat more than men. (Men are also judged this way, though it is not talked about as much.) Some people are much more concerned with corralling women into “certain” behaviors– so choice of dress to different events gets monitored more. Some people judge a man’s social standing by how lavishly his wife or mistress dresses! Yada, yada.
    .
    Regardless, I think it’s a big much if a trans-woman complains she is being treated the same way cis woman are treated. Did they expect to be women but retain the few things they preferred about being a man?
    .
    Also: Realistically, someone has to understand that if you present an “unusual” or “unexpected” feature, people might stare. Got face tattos? People are going to stare. Got earthings that stretch your earlobes out to 2″ circles? People might stare. Present an odd gender mismatch with female hair/face grooming, washboard flat bust and male junk pretty visible through your pants? People are going to stare.
    .
    There are plenty of shorts choices that would not have shown the outline of the junk. It wasn’t merely “a bulge” — there was shape showing there. People’s eyes may pop. Gonna happen. Lecturing isn’t going to make it stop. Get new “junk flattening” under pants (“minimizers?”), and thicker less clingy shorts and no one will stare.

  615. RB,
    Thanks for the story.
    .
    Of course, that case is not at all representative of very late term abortions, which are, thankfully, relatively rare.
    .
    Of course, then there is this: “Philadelphia abortion doctor sentenced to three life terms in jail”. He was a guy who routinely did very late term abortions for no reason other than the mother wanted to end the pregnancy. Which I am sure you will say is “not at all representative” of late term abortions.
    .
    Under the law in PA, abortion is perfectly legal for ANY reason up to 23 weeks. And since the mother could fib a bit about her last menstrual cycle, the result is going to be some live born babies, or at least viable babies who are killed during the abortion. Do you understand that lots of people honestly find that morally unacceptable? (real question, not rhetorical)

  616. I’m not sure what to think about Prigozhin and his latest comments.
    .
    The feud is somewhat reminiscent of the feud between Patton and Monty in WWII, but is going way beyond. Prigozhin is a contractor and not in the chain of command, so is more able to speak out than would a military subordinate, but still…
    .
    Is the feud staged ? Suggested by some, but no way to say.
    .
    The one takeaway that strikes me on link at the bottom, Prigozhin goes off about their “extreme” losses and shows about 30 dead from the days fighting, implies this is a “very” unusual event and that these losses should have been much less. I would think that 30 dead in some of the most contested close combat of the war was extremely light. This has interesting implications.
    .
    As far as I can tell from other sources, its not that he is now getting less artillery support, but that he needs more due to the dense highrise buildings making up the area of the final Ukraine city strongpoints and the increasing Ukraine artillery support for the defenders. His relative artillery support is decreasing at the moment, not the actual amount.
    .
    Warning….link is explicit and shows dead personnel
    .
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/xFQ5jGYjvzzs/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

  617. “Do you understand that lots of people honestly find that morally unacceptable? (real question, not rhetorical)”

    Yes, I can understand that. I think abortion is a very complicated question.

  618. RB,
    “I think abortion is a very complicated question.”
    .
    On that at least we agree. Lots of countries around the world have settled on ~12 to ~16 weeks as a cutoff for abortion for “any cause”, most with exceptions for things like deformities, rape, incest, maternal health risk, etc. The Florida law is stupid, at least to the extent that it does not reflect the opinions of the majority of Florida voters (of which I am one). Do you think voters have the right, through their representatives, to set limits on abortion based on gestational age? (real question, not rhetorical)

  619. “Do you think voters have the right, through their representatives, to set limits on abortion based on gestational age? (real question, not rhetorical)”

    I have a full spectrum of views depending on the day of the week. I’d like to see how informed the electorate can be about a discussion people are not likely willing to have in any great depth. This should also be coupled with what kind of social welfare system the electorate is willing to support. My preferences are for a system largely determined by women, with discretion given to the medical establishment.

  620. RB,
    “I’d like to see how informed the electorate can be about a discussion people are not likely willing to have in any great depth. This should also be coupled with what kind of social welfare system the electorate is willing to support.”
    .
    I’ll take that as a “no”, voters do not have the right to limit abortion based on gestational age, unless you give them permission your personal permission, based on your evaluation of how ‘informed’ they are.
    .
    Thanks for giving an honest answer. Sadly, that answer tells me that you are something of a jerk. In fairness, I knew that from previous interactions. Cio.

  621. Another sign your company may not be handling the situation optimally:
    .
    Chicago Gay Bars Stop Selling Bud Light, Other Anheuser-Busch Beers After Brand Backs Down To Anti-Trans Critics
    https://blockclubchicago.org/2023/05/05/chicago-gay-bars-stop-selling-bud-light-other-anheuser-busch-beers-after-brand-backs-down-to-anti-trans-critics/
    “2Bears Tavern Group, which owns four gay bars from Uptown to Rogers Park, was the first to drop Anheuser-Busch InBev, posting on Instagram Thursday that its abandonment of Mulvaney amid controversy “shows how little Anheuser-Busch cares about the LGBTQIA+ community, and in particular transgender people, who have been under unrelenting attack in this country.”
    .
    Maybe … companies need to stay out of politics not related to their core business.

  622. SteveF/RB
    I definitely think voters have a right to make laws, including ones about abortion. And I think everyone here is aware I think I have a right to consider a politician’s position on abortion when deciding who to vote for.

  623. Tom
    YEP!! As I wrote wayyyyyy back: once Bud decided on this “not a formal” campaign, there was nothing the could do to fix it.
    .
    Of course Anheuser-Busch doesn’t care about the LGBTQIA community. They don’t care about any community. They had an idiot in charge of marketing who thought the appearance of being “associated” with a T would help drive sales.
    .
    The truth is: as a company, they should only care about selling beer. As individuals, they can each care about whatever they want to care about. But the “only one can”, “not a formal” campaign was a company act which was poorly thought out with respect to selling beer.

  624. And now more on the Bloomington Indiana bar….
    https://www.outkick.com/the-fairfax-bar-and-grill-new-customers-bud-light-dylan-mulvaney/

    Scrolling down…

    The bar then seemingly begged for new customers to replace the ones lost, and added, “Thank you to all of you for supporting our establishment. With the departure of some of our regulars, we have needed new clientele, and you have answered. I’m not gonna lie, we still need more of you right now. Please continue to consider supporting us. It’s gonna be a great year of friendship, food, drinks and live music!”
    .
    That post also now appears to be gone

    .

    Is this the Michael Scott school of business or something? It sounds like The Fairfax Bar and Grill, which is apparently a dive bar, had a lot of great customers. They were apparently given the boot for not loving Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney.

    Unsurprisingly, it now sounds like the business doesn’t have enough people coming in. Welcome to going woke. When you spit in the face of your regulars, it never ends well as a bar. That’s rule number one of the bar business. The regulars keep the world spinning.

    .
    Sigh…..

  626. Tom Scharf,
    “Maybe … companies need to stay out of politics not related to their core business.”
    .
    I don’t think that is what they are preaching these days at Harvard Business School. Going to cause lots of unnecessary business losses. Maybe this FUBAR will some day be a case study at famous business schools in what not to do in business, but no time soon.

  627. Having English breakfast tea, English muffins and watching the “B” on the telly.

  628. SteveF (Comment #220704): “Lots of countries around the world have settled on ~12 to ~16 weeks as a cutoff for abortion for “any cause”, most with exceptions for things like deformities, rape, incest, maternal health risk, etc.”
    .
    Indeed. A sensible compromise that people can live with even if they disagree.
    .
    I wonder how much of the dysfunction on this issue in the US and Canada is due to courts making rulings on that were none of their business. That short circuited political discussion and thus prevented people from reaching a compromise. Had normal political evolution been allowed, the result might have resembled the rules in Europe.

  629. There are things we aren’t allowed to vote on, equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. We can change that through the Constitutional process but that looks hopelessly unlikely (by design). Abortion referendums sound reasonable to me, but the counterargument is that a baby’s life is protected by the Constitution. It certainly is as of day one out of the womb. Same old argument about when those rights should start.

  630. The younger generation is definitely a different market than the older generation. It was when I was a younger generation as well. Bud Light was marketing to me when I was 20 to 30 years old. I don’t remember them intentionally alienating the older generation though.
    .
    I suppose the use of Rock and Roll (egads!) in marketing might be seen as abrasive to the oldsters back then when it was a big deal they were going to start putting explicit labels on albums.
    .
    I knew I was old when they played Led Zeppelin in a Cadillac commercial.

  632. Tom,
    Intentionally alienating the existing customer base doesn’t help sales. Especially since you can’t be certain you’ll capture the “new” base and certainly can’t expect to capture it quickly. In this step, they seem to have also managed to alienate at least some LGBT because once they moved in the direction, then subsequently didn’t stand firm.
    .
    We’ll see where this is in a few months. But it just doesn’t look like there is an upside here.

  633. Coronation impressions…..
    The stunner of the day was Kate, Princess of Wales. Princess Charlotte’s matching floral headdress was a nice touch.
    Image: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1654880557166215171?s=20
    I think Princess Charlotte is beginning to resemble her Great Grandmother, Queen Elizabeth. There was quite a bit of symbolism and homage in all of Kate’s regalia:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/king-charles-ii-coronation-kate-middleton-honors-queen-elizabeth-princess-diana-jewelry/
    The Prince of Wales looked very regal on bended knee pledging allegiance to his father, the King.
    Harry was stuck back in the cheap seats with Princess Anne’s hat plumage obscuring his face from the camera, by accident I’m sure.
    The service was long and tedious. It resembled somewhat a High Catholic Mass to me. [In deference to my past I wish there had been alter boys.]
    The military procession was grand, as only the British can stage. The RCMP on horseback were cool. Princess Anne following closely behind the newly crowned King was on horseback in military dress serving as the Gold Stick, protecting him from danger.

  635. Lucia,
    “I don’t know. I think Indians manage to have terrific processions. I mean…elephants?”
    Yes, there is something special about the aroma of an elephant parade.

  636. Congresswoman Nancy Mace, (R) SC, is calling to rein in the GOP on abortion. Her personal story, coupled with her strong conservative credentials, including a B rating with Pro-Life America on advocacy for the unborn, give her great credibility on the issue. She was raped at 16, which resulted in a pregnancy that she kept to herself and best friend only for weeks before telling her mom and no other. I could not find if she had an abortion but she must have to keep the secret. Regardless, she dropped out of HS at 17 and was shattered. She reconstituted herself when the Citadel announced they would accept women. She got accepted and wrote a book after being the first woman to graduate, “In the Company of Men: A Woman at The Citadel.”
    .
    She supported the 6-week fetal heartbeat cutoff before Dobbs but now believes that is too short for reaching the center, (suburban women), and is asking the GOP to modify their consensus as to be able to win in 2024. I hope they listen to her, especially DeSantis.

  637. Mike M,
    ” That short circuited political discussion and thus prevented people from reaching a compromise.”
    .
    I am sure that is part of it. But two other important differences are:
    .
    1) Unlike Europe, the USA has a large population (25%? 30%?) of extremely religious people who are opposed to any compromise on abortion, and
    .
    2) The USA is far more heterogeneous politically and socially than many of the countries that long ago struck compromises on abortion. What makes sense to people in South Dakota may not (indeed, does not!) make sense for people in Massachusetts.
    .
    The SC throwing the issue back to the states potentially enables compromises in each of the states, but there remain nearly half of the people (on opposite sides) who will do everything they can to keep reasonable compromises from being struck in the individual states.
    .
    It is a mess, and I don’t expect any real resolution for many years.

  638. Ron Graf
    Glad to hear some people who clearly think abortion is a wrong choice recognize that the electorate gets to decide, and ridiculously short time periods are not what the electorate wants.

  640. DeSantis probably doesn’t feel strongly on the exact time limit for a legal abortion and decided based on political considerations.

    Rep. Mace I think is not right on this. Like a lot of politics, outcomes depend on which issues are constantly brought in front of voters. AS long as we have a corrupt media that colludes with big tech and the Feds to control what appears on social media, Republicans will need new strategies to succeed. Folding on issues you feel strongly about will not work. There will always smears they can throw at you. Just look at what is happening to Tucker Carlson and Clarence Thomas. This is happening now because Chevron is about to be reviewed and the deep state (and their media scribes) are scared their power to “interpret” the law might be reduced. There is a great but long article in Tablet magazine by Jason Seigel titled “A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century.” He traces the censorship and disinformation state we are in back to the war on terror through Obama’s expansion of targets to include American citizens.

    Republicans need to keep immigration, inflation, freedom of speech and thought, out of control Federal spending, and an atmosphere of lawlessness and crime in front of voters to win. Democrats only “issues” are abortion, “racism”, “insurrection”, and smears like “MAGA extreme Republicans”. None of this mattered in Florida in 2022. DeSantis won in a landslide. SteveF, did abortion law play any role in 2022? Surely women in places like New York are smart enough to know that their state laws are not going to change on abortion. I doubt if abortion laws play much role in real world decisions such as whether to move to Florida which is a sane state as opposed to New York, which is an insane state.

  641. Tom Scharf,
    “He may come to regret the 6 week abortion bill though.”
    .
    I believe he will. It is completely disconnected from voter sentiment in Florida, which like most of the USA, could probably support something under 16 weeks as an “on demand” limit. He was in a position to strike (even force!) a very reasonable compromise on abortion in a diverse state. He didn’t.
    .
    Whether that means he is fundamentally opposed to abortion at all gestational ages, or that he is just trying peal off some of Trump’s support among the most religious on the right, I believe it reflects poorly on his judgement.

  642. David Young,
    “SteveF, did abortion law play any role in 2022?”
    .
    My guess: abortion absolutely caused the Republicans to lose lots of races they could have and should have won. Every other fundamental suggested a Republican landslide. Republicans could have finessed the issue in closely divided states by supporting moderate compromise positions. Instead, they mostly supported very unpopular extreme positions on abortion…. and that especially goes for most Trump endorsed candidates who all lost key races. It was foolish political suicide.

  643. David Young,

    BTW, yes, the political issues you suggest are what Republicans should keep front and center. But abortion is so divisive and so intractable that refusal to strike a compromise is always going to lose close elections in competitive states. I understand the desires among those who oppose abortion on strictly moral grounds to completely stop it. I plead with them to take a broader view of what is good for the country: a demented Biden and a Democrat majority in both houses, or a Republican president and Republican control of both houses? Realism should prevail; I fear it won’t. Which is why I was so disappointed with DeSantis supporting a 6-week ‘heartbeat’ ban on abortion.

  644. Tom Scharf (Comment #220643)
    May 4th, 2023 at 9:35 am
    While we are on the subject of women get to decide under all circumstances, the other side of the issue is why should a man be saddled for life with child support payments for a child they didn’t want to have? If they are willing to pay for the abortion then I think they should have the option of not being responsible for that child for the rest of their life.

    .
    Tom, I agree with you that men’s rights need to be part of the legislative picture. And, for that to happen they need to be part of the debate. But, politically, it is suicide for the GOP and the country. Remember, the left turned Hunter Biden taking money from countries where Joe was the point man, Ukraine, China and others into a Trump impeachment for having the gall to mention it. In the 2020 presidential debate Trump had Hunter’s laptop, a proof of Biden corruption and vindication of his unfair impeachment. But the left turned the tables on Trump by organizing in advance to paint the laptop as a Russian plant, reinforcing and vindicating their accusations of Trump-Russia collusion.
    .
    Considering those tactics I would not be surprised if the DCCC welcomed the Florida abortion law. They otherwise have no winning issues to talk about while they own the MSM.
    .
    Biden last week told us where his campaign is going.
    .

    In his announcement, the president said “MAGA extremists” are trying to take away “bedrock freedoms,” including “cutting Social Security that you paid for your entire life while cutting taxes for the very wealthy, dictating what health care decisions women can make, banning books and telling people who they can love, all while making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.”

    .
    While we are talking about whether a man (or 16-year-old boy) has any rights to parenthood we will talking about an issue that every grown woman can relate to an awkward or ugly incident in HS, an issue they will vote on above others, including:
    .
    Biden family influence peddling for cash from with China
    .
    USIC running psy ops on the American electorate, like the Russia collusion narrative.
    .
    Drag shows for kids, sexualization and grooming,
    Transgender insanity (pro-hormone therapy, genital mutilation)
    .
    Schools can transition kids w/o parents’ consent
    .
    Open borders.
    .
    Executive branch wars, international chaos in a nuclear armed world.
    .
    The rise of China as a power surpassing that of the former USSR
    .
    Big Pharma-government relationship and, Covid policy
    .
    Inflation, bank failures and fiscal cliffs
    .
    Soros-funded DAs fueling violent crime waves, and using whipped up urban mobs as political weapon standing by.
    .
    Political prosecutions of those on their ‘enemies list’
    .
    Big tech censorship cooperation with weaponized government and election interference.
    .
    Attacking election integrity, like voter ID laws

  645. David

    Folding on issues you feel strongly about will not work.

    Trying insist on your own when the electorate feels otherwise will not work.

    There will always smears they can throw at you.

    Sure. Smears go in all directions. The bigger problem with pushing for limits less than 12 weeks isn’t smears. It’s the electorate voting against you. (And that would include me and several other people in comments here.)
    .

    Just look at what is happening to Tucker Carlson and Clarence Thomas.

    The abortion issue is separate from and Thomas. Going off on tangents is not a great way to show that pushing abortion bans after 6 weeks is acceptable to the electorate. Plus:opponents don’t need to “smear” those who push for that to make those advocating for that sort of law unelectable. All oppontents need to do is point the position.
    .

    Republicans need to keep immigration, inflation, freedom of speech and thought, out of control Federal spending, and an atmosphere of lawlessness and crime in front of voters to win.

    I think they also need to not try to push through draconian anti-abortions laws. ‘Cuz that will lose them tons of votes.
    .

    Surely women in places like New York are smart enough to know that their state laws are not going to change on abortion.

    I’m in Illinois. We aren’t going to change our law. And I’m not going to vote for a candidate who is for a 6 week limit on abortion. Go ahead and insinuate that’s because I must not be smart. I can assure you that insinuation wouldn’t be a smart political move on your part.

  646. Steve, I was asking specifically about Florida. Nationally in 2022, the polls were not that wrong. Republicans won the national house vote by from memory 2-4 points. I think the house districts are so gerrymandered that it didn’t make much difference. Republicans racked up massive wins in Red areas and lost by smaller margins in Blue areas. I keep hearing about the “bad” candidate idea. If an ambulatory corpse like Fedderman can win, something else is going on. I also suspect that many blue states kept their mass mail in balloting from covid. The Carter commission in the 1980’s said this system was the very susceptible fraud. I know for a fact that voter roles are massively contaminated by the dead, those who have moved, and those who may not be citizens. If you are an activist, all you have to do is pick up ballots from empty houses, nursing home patients who don’t know which end is up, etc. You should not underestimate the panic and fear in the elites and what they will do.

    I still claim however that however important abortion may be to left of center young women, Republicans are facing something similar to what Putin opponents face in Russia but without the assassinations. Here they just let the corrupt FBI bankrupt you and if you are less well off throw you in prison. In the US, the strong power of states keeps the playing field a little more level. But the main sources of information for the public are actively being censored and cleansed of “misinformation” which includes anything that might “sow distrust in our institutions.” Check out Jason Seigel’s piece or Schellenberger’s video about the Stanford disinformation non-profit. This is a huge industry and its leaders are indeed totalitarians.

    This climate of censorship keeps issues like abortion in front of the public and ignores spiraling crime, a wide open border, high inflation, and of course covers up the very existence of this Disinformation Industrial Complex that is the biggest threat to our democracy.

    Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi as well as Schellenberger have some blockbuster pieces and videos over the last 6 months exposing how dangerous this is.

    Republicans trying to compromise won’t help until this is dealt with. They need to hammer these much more important issues at every opportunity.

    And Lucia, why is abortion more important to you than this massive censorship culture? Surely freedom of thought and speech is the foundation without which democracy dies.

  647. David Young (Comment #220726): “Folding on issues you feel strongly about will not work.”
    .
    I think that is right. At the national level, the Republican position should be that abortion is a state issue and the candidate should promise any federal abortion law that comes to his desk. State candidates should “read the room” in their states.
    .
    There is nothing that Republicans can do that won’t hurt them. The best hope is to limit the damage.
    ———
    SteveF (Comment #220730): “But abortion is so divisive and so intractable that refusal to strike a compromise is always going to lose close elections in competitive states.”
    .
    Taking extreme positions seems to work fine for the Democrats.

  648. SteveF (Comment #220723): “But two other important differences are …”.
    .
    So why has the left been willing to compromise in Europe? They sure won’t compromise in Canada.

  649. Just to say, I don’t recall saying what my position on abortion is or what Republicans should say about it. It’s not in the top 10 issues for me. I am happy with the current state of affairs. The people in each state can choose what they want to have on the books. It’s called democracy. I just think that Rep. Mace is very wrong about this. DeSantis has shown how Republicans win big and its not by compromising or trying to get the press to like you.

  650. A few other vastly more important issues.

    1. The growing dysfunction of our medical system. It has taken 6 months for my wife to schedule the removal of a thyroid nodule that is 4 cm in size.
    2. The growing opioid crisis worsened by the fact that cartel members are simply walking across the Southern border.
    3. The growing heavy usage of cannabis especially by young men. Several of our recent mass shooters were heavy users. A new Danish study blames the schizophrenia epidemic in young me on the rapidly growing prevalence of cannabis abuse.
    4. A mental health crisis especially among young women and girls.
    5. A social contagion of gender dysphoria. Thousands of young people and some teens are being talked into life altering and very painful genital mutilation surgery. Another way in which the medical system is broken. Up until 5 seconds ago, this was malpractice in every state in the union.
    6. The proxy war in Ukraine and the West’s failed sanctions regime that is causing the world to move away from the dollar for international trade.
    7. A looming banking crisis and a massive national debt. This scenario does not end well for us.

  651. Lucia:

    As you can see, mark found the place where you “raise as considerations to elevate above a woman’s rights to autonomy– e.g.: the dreams of childless couples.”
    .
    You obviously can’t refute it because you said it. Moreover, you haven’t backed off that.
    .
    In fact, you want to double down and justify making those sorts of positions. You characterize it as “What I said was that every issue is a complex mix of positive and negative outcomes. ” And you persist in suggesting we “consider” these very minor issues.

    .
    Lucia, I think I can refute I “raise as considerations to elevate above a woman’s rights to autonomy…” I have never said women do not have rights. In fact, in the sentence leading to the one’s Mark chopped out I said I align more with the Democrat party than GOP on balancing those rights against the fetus’s (and human life).
    .
    The difference between real life and rhetoric is complexity and balance. Legal policies should take into consideration as much as possible the complexities. However, this is at odds with political expedience of being able to influence the electorate and create wedges. For that one needs to isolate single most emotional narrative.
    .
    The best solution to unwanted pregnancy is sex education, which a matter of requirement in most states. The exceptions are some southern or western states, including AZ. Teaching boys and girls to be responsible with treating each other with proper respect is a place of common ground I would hope.

  652. Ron Graf

    Lucia, I think I can refute I “raise as considerations to elevate above a woman’s rights to autonomy…” I have never said women do not have rights.

    Mark has already described your communication style:

    Yeah. I think the tactic of insinuating something that anyone other than an imbecile will understand and then denying intention or responsibility is in play here. It’s not helpful. Slimy lawyer talk, is my view on it.

    And beyond that: no one said you said women do not have rights. You may want to look up the definition of “elevate”.

  653. Lucia,
    “The bigger problem with pushing for limits less than 12 weeks isn’t smears. It’s the electorate voting against you.”
    Abortion is illegal in Oklahoma unless necessary, as determined by a physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, to save the life of the pregnant woman. Since we live in a Republic, the voters in the individual states get to decide what a reasonable abortion law is.
    If I did my Googling right, Oklahoma voters are 51.2% female, and Independent and Democrat voters make up 55% of the electorate.
    Also if I did my Googling right Oklahoma Sent two Republicans to the Senate last November.
    The voters of Oklahoma believe 12 weeks is a very wrong number.

  654. Florida first signed a 15 week abortion plan in Apr 2022. The south is more religious overall so I think the 6 week abortion plan won’t hurt much locally, but it won’t help with some swing voters. This is a throw red meat to your base move, I think. It was unnecessary in my view.
    .
    The Democrats in Florida have tumbled hard and fast from DeSantis only winning by about 1% his first time around. They have had a disadvantage for a while in the state legislature. Apparently the national Democrats are not giving the locals much support either. Florida is definitely light red instead of purple now. It could all change again but it’s probably a 10 year horizon for the Democrats, although the Governor can still be in reach if some Trump candidate ended up on the ticket.
    .
    Usually the political plan is do almost nothing but pontificate for a presidential candidate, a bunch of legislation just broadens the attack vector. DeSantis went the other direction. DeSantis’s main strength IMO was summed up in his “Florida, where woke goes to die” move. Most people really don’t like that stuff and even the reliably left local media here only put up a tepid fight against those moves. He actually defunded DEI in the university system and it was met mostly with a yawn.

  655. David Young,
    Yes, all those are very important issues. But they only will grow worse as long as Democrats are in political power in Washington DC. Abortion is a divisive issue that can easily swing a couple % of voters. It is a loser for Republicans and keeps them from winning in swing districts. You can wish that were not the case and voters would only consider ‘more important’ issues, but voters will not listen. For the sake of the Country, Republicans need to stop being so extreme on abortion.

  656. I don’t live in Florida but it sure seems to me like DeSantis is channeling Trump in many ways (without the personality issues). He takes on the press and lectures them. He has turned Florida pretty dramatically away from Woke insanity and taken on powerful corporations to do so.

  657. Lucia, I did not intend to elevate any single issue above the woman’s right to choose abortion. I agree with you and Mark that I spent plenty enough words for a reasonable person to understand my position was that the issue is complex because there are competing rights. Considering the father’s rights and those of societies principles along with the woman’s is not to elevate any one above the other, but to recognize them all in order to find the most reasonable compromise. My difficulty was mainly that you were unwilling to acknowledge this or most any of my other points.
    .
    David Young, thank you for your comments. They were a summary of mine except that I disagree that DeSantis should have disregarded the GOP’s national vulnerability when he signed the 6-week law. I wish Nancy Mace could persuade them quietly.
    .
    Mike M, the Democrats get away without compromise because they have the mouthpiece of the entire MSM as well as control of big tech and social media. In many venues your views, mine and David’s would be attacked with censorship.

  658. Tom Scharf,
    I think Desantis went too far. I want strong pro-life laws, but not so strong that they endanger sending two Conservative Senators to Washington. Further, in 2024 I want Florida to cast its 29 electoral votes for a Republican [one who is not named Trump]. Roe was tossed out on a 5-4 vote. I want to keep it tossed out. Vast swaths of densely populated Southeast Florida have been Democrat strongholds for years. They will be helped in state-wide races by the six-week law in my opinion.

  659. I don’t think DeSantis is channeling Trump so much as learning from him.

  660. Ron

    Lucia, I did not intend to elevate any single issue above the woman’s right to choose abortion.

    You word multiple issues over and over to “consider”. That elevates those issues.

  661. Steve, I understand what you are saying. Republicans should run pro-choice friendly candidates like Dr. Oz so they can lose (I mean win). More seriously, Republicans can just say let the states decide and be done with it. In very blue states, I suspect they already do that mostly. Certainly in Washington state that’s the case so far as I’m aware. But abortion is simply not an issue in this state.

    As I say I just really doubt that abortion is a very powerful issue compared to the vastly more important ones that make people feel unsafe whenever they go out in public or massive inflation. Abortion is mostly an issue for people like my 20 something upper middle class nieces because they have been indoctrinated at University. Republicans are not going to do well with that demographic anyway. They need to attract working class people of all races just like DeSantis did.

  662. David

    In very blue states, I suspect they already do that mostly.

    I live in a blue state. Some GOP candidates run on strong anti-abortion candidates. Then the lose. They might have anyway, but there are districts where GOP candidates can win. If they don’t push anti-abortion laws. The place where being strognly anti-abortion kills GOP candidate are usually the collar counties where I live.

  663. Lucia: “You word multiple issues over and over to “consider”. That elevates those issues.”
    .
    Yes, pointing out the existence of complexity elevates less visible issues into the discussion. I suspect that is what you were hoping for when you created this site, the Blackboard.
    .
    Whether we agree or not on points, I think it always progresses thought when we acknowledge understanding of the other’s points. Not doing so makes the discussion a competition, me against you, rather than a collaboration.
    .
    I was surprised when you said you would not vote for a politician that would support limiting abortion to the first 6-weeks of gestation. It wasn’t that I support a 6-week limit, which I made clear. It was that I would not elevate the issue of where the line is drawn to be above all other issues facing the nation, the world and the future of freedom in America, which I strongly agree with David are on the line.

  664. The Week, a left of center news outlet, published an article looking down from the rational globalists’ viewpoint on Bud Light’s sales drop.

    [After all,] Bud Light is a beer owned since 2008 by the Belgian multinational Anheuser-Busch InBev, which also owns Corona, Stella Artois, Michelob, and Modelo.

    .
    Anheuser-Busch’s (thought bubble): “Just please be quiet.”

  665. Ron,

    Yes, pointing out the existence of complexity elevates less visible issues into the discussion.

    I think you just don’t grasp what the things you write really conveys. I’ve quoted several examples, including this one

    If a women is going to carry the baby into the third trimester I think it would be thoughtful of her to carry it a little longer and provide a childless couple the dream of their life. (Maybe it would even be that trans couple that voted for late abortions.)

    This is not “pointing out the existence of complexity.” A “little” longer? And suggesting that being “thoughtful” of childless couples is even on the radar of considerations relative to undergoing the physical, emotional, hormonal, financial and social burdens of the final two trimesters of pregnancy?
    .
    You may “think” you are just raising complexity. But you are not.
    .

    I think it always progresses thought when we acknowledge understanding of the other’s points.

    This is why it is so amazing that you don’t acknowledge other peoples points, don’t seem to understand them or don’t seem to remember them.
    .

    I would not elevate the issue of where the line is drawn to be above all other issues facing the nation, the world and the future of freedom in America, which I strongly agree with David are on the line.

    But way back you didn’t merely say you wouldn’t put that issue so high. You accused me of having a “religious view” and said all sorts of other nonsense.

  666. It cannot be emphasized enough that Republicans are going to get savaged in the media and on social media even if they are moderate on abortion. They are threats to democracy you see. That’s the story and the Disinformation Industrial Complex is sticking to it. They might require voter ID (which is Jim Crow), actually deport those crossing the border (which is racist), and arrest felons and put them in jail (also racist). They might vote to prevent genital mutilation of minors, to prevent killing a fetus as it emerges from the birth canal, you know all those radical things that we can’t have. They might vote to enforce the Civil Rights act of 1964 and keep medical schools from admitting people with melanin over more qualified people who are melanin challenged.

    Republicans need to wake up and fight to fire half the deep state, stop the political prosecutions and the protecting of Democrat criminals like Hunter and Joe Biden and end racial discrimination. That’s it. pound the important issues and attack the press when it is lying. Use alternative media to get the message out.

  667. I really think the Biden crime family and its kid glove treatment by the “DOJ” epitomizes the dual system of justice Biden and Garland are instituting. Hunter lied on a Federal Firearms form, a felony. You sign these under penalty of perjury. Hunter violated drug and prostitution laws probably thousands of times. He peddled influence abroad and kicked a portion back to at least 12 Biden crime family members including the big guy. He evaded income taxes and failed to register as a foreign agent, the same crime they “got” Manafort on. There are multiple witnesses to all of this and massive documentary evidence. Contrast this to what happened to Mike Flynn who was entrapped. The agents who interviewed him thought he hadn’t intentionally lied. There is evidence that Hunter sent classified assessments on Ukraine to his business associates, maybe from those boxes of documents in senile Joe’s garage. Sorry but this is 10 times more important than abortion law.

    The deep state lies about the laptop were consequential election interference. The media and social media collusion to suppress this totally true story is shameful. The FBI knew that the laptop was real and said nothing.

    The media have become little better than propagandists and publishers of unconfirmed leaks that the deep state uses to plant stories and narratives they find politically useful. This is of course similar to Russian media. We really do live in a time when our democracy is under threat. It is the racist Woodrow Wilson’s deeply unAmerican dream come to life, the “experts” rule and to hell with the Constitution.

  668. Something may or may not be happening in Melitopol.
    I’m seeing a lot of chatter like this:
    “Breaking, In Melitopol, the enemies are burning sacks of documents in a panic”
    Link to fake[?] map:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1655095051679158272?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
    But it’s all from bloggers that I don’t know. Also suspicious is my reliable sources are completely quiet on the issue. Often when there is misinformation spreading the reliable sites will expose it. But on a few occasions they went quiet to assist the Ukraine MOD in a caper. So this may be Ukraine government PSYOPs or the Russians may be bugging out.

  670. David Young,
    Yes all important issues. But you know what? If Republicans in swing districts and swing states advocate for very restrictive abortion laws, they will lose, which means all those other important issues are not going to be addressed when Democrats have power in Washington DC. Republicans can’t win close elections advocating for restrictive abortion laws, but they sure can (and DO!) lose close elections with that advocacy. Abortion is an issue which evokes strong feelings across the political spectrum and one of the few issues which can swing a couple % of votes…. or more… the difference between losing and winning in swing districts.
    .
    Dr Oz was not even a resident of PA, and I suspect that is mostly why he lost.

  671. David Young (Comment #220753): “It cannot be emphasized enough that Republicans are going to get savaged in the media and on social media even if they are moderate on abortion.”
    .
    Indeed. That is why I think that the best the Republicans can do is to try to minimize abortion as an issue and focus on real issues.

  672. David Young (Comment #220755): “Hunter lied on a Federal Firearms form, a felony”.
    .
    Can someone explain to me how that works? It sounds like the claim is that one must surrender one’s Fifth Amendment rights in order to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights. That can’t be constitutional.

  673. Lucia:” I think you just don’t grasp what the things you write really conveys. I’ve quoted several examples…”
    .
    Lucia, sometimes that happens. When it does I either say it another way or support it with more information. In the case of the quote that you and Mark are offended by, I followed up by saying that the point was not that the childless couple wanting to adopt had a right to force the mother to deliver the child unharmed. It was that aborting a fetus in the third trimester is a unnecessary with the current resources available to accidentally impregnated women and secondly, that abortion at that late point might be as traumatic or more so than childbirth, adding the factor that the latter served a productive purpose. When we do a thing that changes other’s lives for the better, like saving a child, we can feel good about that, or at least should. I also said that last point would be variable depending on society’s demand for adopted babies. If technology making it easier for childless couples to have children in other ways then that factor diminishes. It is not a primary factor. It is one factor. In China society’s needs would make it a primary factor, not in the west.
    .
    Another factor that I didn’t mention is the problem of giving mother’s the right of artificial selection for the sex of their children. This is an actual thing in countries like India. If it happened in the US that would also be a factor.
    .
    You never acknowledged that an earlier restriction line empowers women who want to have a choice to keep their child over being pressured the father or others to abort it. Do you think that is abhorrent? Or, is just mapping out these circumstances in emotionless fashion what is distasteful? I think it shouldn’t be unless a political message has been pounded for a decades by Democrats that men are not allowed to speak on the issue. This is the claim that Don Lemon made in parallels to the African American experience with his Vivek Ramaswamy interview.

  674. SteveF: “Dr Oz was not even a resident of PA, and I suspect that is mostly why he lost.”
    .
    Oz had exhausted a lot of money in a bruising primary in which he barely squeaked out. Fetterman, being largely unchallenged in the primary, did not have to spend or defend. Then he announced his stroke and became somewhat immune from attack. Then mail in voting by Dems was mostly complete before the single debate that we all saw the highlights of.
    .
    GOP practices democracy in the primary and is often destroyed by Dem machine which mostly chooses its candidates in a party competitive election.

  675. Ron

    Lucia, sometimes that happens. When it does I either say it another way or support it with more information.

    And the rewording generally conveys another different thing that is often also objectionable. Or is a vague evasive mealy mouth statement that could mean a huge range of things.

    It was that aborting a fetus in the third trimester is a unnecessary with the current resources available to accidentally impregnated women and secondly, that abortion at that late point might be as traumatic or more so than childbirth, adding the factor that the latter served a productive purpose.

    First: you want to say you are not saying anyone should be “forced”. But the context is: deciding on laws that would forbid abortion of existing pregnancy. So yes: in context saying this should be considered when deciding on whether abortion is legal or illegal is a suggestion in favor of forcing for that reason. You can’t make that into not a suggestion of forcing by saying “I didn’t say the word “force”.”. It is a suggestion of forcing and for the reason you list.
    .
    And your “reasons”, once again, totally revolting     in context:

    I assume the “current resources available to accidentally impregnated women” refers to contraception. (I can think of no other alternative.) The availability of contraception once an unwanted pregnacy exists is irrelevant in the case where the pregnancy now exists. So you are proposing as a “reason” for banning abortions at some stage the availability of birth control.
    .
    As for this: “that abortion at that late point might be as traumatic or more so than childbirth”. Sure, but that you speculate it “might” be as traumatic or more not remotely reason to decree that the law should force a woman to carry the fetus to term. After all: it ‘might’ be less traumatic. And the woman is in a better position to judge what would be traumatic. And even if she ends up mistaken, there is no good reason why the law should enforce the mistakes of others on her and have her bear that risk. People– both men and women– should have a right to decide which things will be more or less traumatic for them and then decide based on their own judgement.
    .
    And…oy….

    adding the factor that the latter served a productive purpose

    Oh… and as usual, you use vague language like “served a productive purpose”. But I have to suppose the “productive purpose” is somewhat similar to the specific one you previously provide– creating a baby for some other childless couple. (Possibly a trans couple.) Otherwise, we are left to imagine what the “productive purpose” is.
    .
    So you seem to be doubling down on given as a reason for making a law that band or limits abortion making women is one of the benefits is to force some individual women to be “manufacture” (i.e. produce) products for others. You can say you reworded that– but this is exactly the abhorrent suggestion you made before.
    .

    When we do a thing that changes other’s lives for the better, like saving a child, we can feel good about that, or at least should

    And now you are decreeing you women “should” feel about being forced by law to carry a fetus to term for the “benefit” of others! Telling people they “should” feel good when you compel them to “serve” is also abhorrent. (I don’t go around telling parents and spouses they “should” feel good if their child is drafted and gets shot in friendly fire. They get to feel the way they feel.) So, you are adding an abhorrent reason to your collection of reasons.
    .

    I also said that last point would be variable depending on society’s demand for adopted babies.

    This is clearly abhorrent. Making abortion law change based on the “supply” of a “commodity” is horrible. And this “commodity” or “social need” reasoning is qualitatively the same reason that underlies making abortion compulsary because of an oversupply — which the Chinese have done. And their policy of forced abortion was also abhorrent.
    .
    I’m not even grasping what your argument about selecting sex is.
    .

    You never acknowledged that an earlier restriction line empowers women who want to have a choice to keep their child over being pressured the father or others to abort it. Do you think that is abhorrent?

    “Acknowledge”. I have to admit I never saw that “point.” But I now state: of course I don’t “acknowlege” that. It’s ridiculous.
    You are suggesting being given no choice at all “empowers” some group of women? That’s nonsense.
    .
    I think men who try to be over-controlling– rather than merely expressing a preference– is bad behavior on the part of the men who do it. But this is not solved by the law taking away women’s choice. There will always be people in our lives (spouses, partners, parents) who try to control us excessively– about going or not going to school, working or not working. But having the law decree the outcome and taking that choice away from us is not “gaining” any sort of autonomy of freedom.
    .

    I think it shouldn’t be unless a political message has been pounded for a decades by Democrats that men are not allowed to speak on the issue. This is the claim that Don Lemon made in parallels to the African American experience with his Vivek Ramaswamy interview.

    Yea… I get it. You are back to blaming the Democrats and now, specifically Don Lemon.
    .
    Look: the reason people are unpersuaded by your arguments– which contain some abhorrent suggestions, is you support them poorly. And then you throw in bits that are abhorrent– which makes people just roll their eyes and decide your arguments are a waste of time.
    .
    Ending it with a suggestion that people only reject your argument because “Democrates” say men can’t speak is self rebutting. After all: I’ve let you– a man– speak. And pointed out your view range from irrelevant to abhorrent. And your arguing style — which as you recall– descended to bringing up Nazi’s is unconvincing. And I (and most others here) have said straight out we think it’s fine for men to speak. Many here say perfectly sane, non abhorrent things.
    .
    Even some whose actual view on what the law should be is totally at odds with mine say sane, non-abhorrent things. But you have really bad arguments that suggest totally revolting ‘benefits’ as reasons to limit women’s autonomy. They are reasons some people sometimes suspect others may have as motives, but you– you hold those as motives. And they are awful.

  676. Lucia: “I assume the “current resources available to accidentally impregnated women” refers to contraception. (I can think of no other alternative.) The availability of contraception once an unwanted pregnacy exists is irrelevant in the case where the pregnancy now exists. So you are proposing as a “reason” for banning abortions at some stage the availability of birth control.”
    .
    1) Health education is the first resource.
    2) Abstinence, female contraception or mail contraception.
    3) 10-14 day 99% accurate home tests available in every drug store for the price of a McDonalds lunch.
    4) Access to abortion pill.
    5) Access to abortion procedure up near the end of the second trimester, a circumstance you voiced was a good cut-off.
    .
    So here is an example of your condemning me for using the same balanced reasoning that you allow yourself to make. So why is my adding points to support a conclusion that you already made, (24 weeks), so abhorrent? I think it is an example of exactly what I pointed out about the effects of decades of identity politics baiting.

  677. 6) Drive to a less restrictive state. Or have a non-profit transport you for free.

  678. Lucia: “I’m not even grasping what your argument about selecting sex is.”
    .
    In India, and perhaps other countries, male children are more desired than female. This is likely changing but there has been concern that females would be selectively aborted over males. It is just another example of complexity and unintended consequences that happen from restrictions, lifting restrictions or not taking into account the affects of arriving technologies, like fetal sex identification (or potential early identification of other traits).
    .
    Lucia: “Yea… I get it. You are back to blaming the Democrats and now, specifically Don Lemon.”
    .
    Actually, I was using Don Lemon’s recent newsworthy reaction as an example of your reaction. And, yes, I stand behind my observation that Democrats use identity to get groups to feel they are being exploited or victimized by the other (non-blacks, non-Hispanics, non-Jewish, non-immigrants, non-foreigners, non-heterosexuals, non Democrats and non-women).
    .
    You say I am against women being able to make choices. If that is what I have been saying then I really am poor at expressing ideas. I am a libertarian leaning conservative and support people over government in making choices in almost every fashion, including my wife, mother and daughters. Having our choices limited by where they clash with other’s rights is the part we need to negotiate civilly without calling names or vilifying motives.

  679. Komical Karma [or maybe it’s just irony]
    Harry pressured the Royal Family to give him a prominent seat in the Church. He was offered a seat behind Princess Anne who is very short. OK says Harry. Then, they appoint Anne ‘Gold Stick’ so she wears her dress military duds and helmet with tall plumage. Harry is lost behind the feathers! Screenshot:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1655245740992520194?s=20
    More irony, Princess Anne rode horseback in uniform directly behind King Charle’s carriage as his symbolic protector….. Little sister protecting big brother.
    Screenshot:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1655247664760381442?s=20

  680. On slow news days the legacy media will mindlessly regurgitate the latest “outrage” happening on the right. Everyone can write these stories for them at this point … (person) accused of immoral behavior … quote from hyper partisans … part of a dangerous pattern … blah blah blah … snore.
    .
    Example today, CNN: Senate Judiciary chair says ‘everything is on the table’ in response to Clarence Thomas revelations.
    .
    They have to fill their pages with something, this reflexive partisan tripe is what they know a certain segment of their audience will read. It’s my view that the decline of the media really started happening once they could measure what their audiences were actually reading on the web. This started sort of a doom loop of partisan hype to maximize audience “engagement”.

  681. Ron Graf,
    I’m aware some cultures selectively abort one sex or the other. I don’t see how that “complexity” matter allowing or not allowing abortion. Based on past reasons you’ve alluded to about things that “matter”, I could speculate the underlying “reason” why you think “matters” . ( And the one I would speculate is abhorrent.) But you haven’t said it, so I’m not going to give a counter argument to something you haven’t stated.
    .

    Actually, I was using Don Lemon’s recent newsworthy reaction as an example of your reaction.

    I don’t follow Don Lemmon, so I have no idea what this newsworthy reaction was. I note: you brought up “Democrats”– as if saying that mantra is a reasoned argument.
    .

    You say I am against women being able to make choices. If that is what I have been saying then I really am poor at expressing ideas.

    Or, you are actually saying the law should be changed to reduce their choices. That you seem to be arguing that making laws to limit their choices would increase their power to make choices is odd- but that’s pretty much what you are saying– and calling this “complexity”.

  682. Ron,
    You made a list of resources. A list of reasources doesn’t constitute a reason that do not help at this point are not “reasons” why a woman carrying an unwanted fetus should be forced to carry it.
    .

    So why is my adding points to support a conclusion that you already made, (24 weeks), so abhorrent?

    The conclusion is not the issue. The reasoning for the conclusion matters. You are providing abhorrent reasons for limiting choice. I’ve told you this before.
    .
    And moreover, as far as I’m concerned, the list you gave mostly consists of non-reasons. For example: health education is not a reason for limiting abortion choices at all. It has nothing to do with right and freedom, nor viability of the fetus, nor any issue related to the potential for humanity of the fetus, nor the social, economic, financial or physical burden on the woman. You keep insisting on making long lists of irrelevant reasons
    .
    And I should note fairly consistently on the side of reducing the time to allow abortion and limiting rights of women. And you tend to characterize pregnancy is somehow not much of a burden. And you bring up benefits of “others” (like the childless couple– or vague allusions to the pregnancy being “productive”– which tends to characterize the women as manufacturing plants for “products”– i.e. babies.)

  683. Lucia:

    You made a list of resources. A list of reasources doesn’t constitute a reason that do not help at this point are not “reasons” why a woman carrying an unwanted fetus should be forced to carry it.

    .

    For example: health education is not a reason for limiting abortion choices at all. It has nothing to do with right and freedom, nor viability of the fetus, nor any issue related to the potential for humanity of the fetus, nor the social, economic, financial or physical burden on the woman.

    .
    Information is part of freedom. Giving choices without proper information can be worse than limiting choices but arming with proper information. Health education is absolutely empowering liberty to women and men. On top of the knowledge of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy a woman also has the power to know with 99% certainty inexpensively and privately within 10-14 days of conception. This is absolutely empowering and was not available until years Roe decided 24 months should be the cut-off. Later the Casey decision added the exceptions to allow later abortions if the doctor felt concern about the health of the mother.
    .
    So the matter does not become anyone forcing anything but time limits for choice making. Time being of the essence is in play in almost every choice we make. Reducing that time because of the availability of information and other technologies changing what is reasonable is also common.
    .
    You voiced support for men’s rights to be involved in the decision IIRC but your comments do not acknowledge it. First, I agree that in the case of an unwed, unengaged couple the male is nothing more than the sperm donor. But for a married couple it is not coercion for the man to have some say. I am not advocating here for how much say and in which circumstances, for or against abortion, I am again just pointing out this is something almost never discussed, especially by the liberal experts on the issue. But whatever the right of the man had in wanting a child that is very much undermined by the availability of the home test. There is no doctor informing the couple of the pregnancy test, only the wife to the husband. But compared to issues David Young listed facing all of our freedoms the effect of home tests on men’s rights is insignificant. If the situation were reversed and a woman’s right to information were being suppressed by technology it would be a major plank of the Dem convention I suspect.
    .
    On the Don Lemon firing, it is reported that his talking over Vivek at the end of this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-JzgD1V0-4

  684. Ron,

    Information is part of freedom.

    Sure. The ability to access to information is freedom. That’s why we have the 1st amendement. But the existence of our first amendment freedoms do not constitute reasons to legally force a subset of women to have kids for “society”, “childless trans couples”, “achieving gender balance in the population” of any of the other things you seem to have alluded to as things you have alluded to in the names of “complexity”.

    Giving choices without proper information can be worse than limiting choices but arming with proper information.

    Neither I nore anyone here has suggested depriving women of information. But giving information is not a justification for limiting choices. You are now launcing into the benefits of education– sure. But tangent.
    .

    So the matter does not become anyone forcing anything but time limits for choice making.

    Oy! Time limits force choices once the time period has passed. You don’t seem to grasp that.
    .

    You voiced support for men’s rights to be involved in the decision IIRC but your comments do not acknowledge it.

    Huh? What does “it” refer to here? Or “involved”? Real questions.
    .
    I’ve said men have a right to speak in the debate. Men can vote. Men can legislate. Men can rule on SCOTUS.
    .
    I don’t think any man has a right to compel or coerce either an abortion or continued pregnancy.
    .

    I am again just pointing out this is something almost never discussed,

    Discuss away. Tom Scharf and I already did. On this thread.
    .
    You’ve preferred to discuss Democrats, BLM, Nazis and so on. If men’s rights have been discussed less than you prefer, that falls to you– not those of us who did discuss it.
    .
    As far as I can tell, your bringing up Vivek and Don is yet another irrelevant tangent. But maybe you know what you are talking about and what it has to do with abortion.

  685. Lucia:

    But the existence of our first amendment freedoms do not constitute reasons to legally force a subset of women to have kids for “society”, “childless trans couples”, “achieving gender balance in the population” of any of the other things you seem to have alluded to as things you have alluded to in the names of “complexity”.

    .
    I’m absolutely against force and am always looking for reasonable alternatives that protect the rights of all sides. I’m sure you do as well. Your definition of force and the purposes for using force are not part of my writings or thoughts.
    .
    You agree with supporting the forcing of women to continue their pregnancy after 12-24 weeks (barring exceptions), as do I. You strongly agreed with forcing women to carry if they reached the third trimester. The only difference between your position and mine is that I voiced some of the factors that support the notion that time is of the essence in this choice. It is hard to see that killing a baby the day of its birth is punishable as murder but one day before birth it would be “a women’s right to choose.” We can all see the conflict there. The only difference between us, apparently is my place to speak on the subject. This is exactly how Dom Lemon expressed himself to Vivek. The interview is very informative as to the conflicts in our ability to talk about anything.
    .
    Here is another video, this one with Kristen Sinema on the craziness of the Biden and Dems and the disfunction with the GOP. She is now caught in the middle as an independent voice and she makes a lot of sense. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-kyrsten-sinema-criticizes-biden-160520615.html

  686. Ron Graf

    I’m absolutely against force …

    Law limiting choice are forcing choices. That’s true even if I like the law. I’m for a limit after 24 weeks, which I totally admit is forcing a choice for all times after 24 weeks. You just want to claim this is somehow not force.
    .

    Your definition of force and the purposes for using force are not part of my writings or thoughts.

    Well, they may not think they are not “part” of your thoughts. But that’s because you are deluding yourself about what the verb “to force” means.
    .

    supporting the forcing of women to continue their pregnancy after 12-24 weeks (barring exceptions), as do I.

    So… you now admit that forcing is part of your thoughts. . .

    The only difference between your position and mine is that I voiced some of the factors

    The difference is you voice some factors that are abhorrent and others that are wildly irrelevant making it seem you believe that if we accept those factors that certain “changes” could move the time line earlier. But forcing women to have babies (and you now admit it’s forcing) to “produce” them for “childless couples is abhorrent. Forcing it to “be productive” (of some unstated thing) is abhorrent. And you keep giving that service as a motivation for not permitting abortion.
    .
    And you’ve made no rebuttal to my point that these motivations are abhorrent. You just want to call it “complexity” or… something. In fact: forcing women to produce babies as a service to society is abhorrent. That’s the reason you keep giving.
    .

    The only difference between us, apparently is my place to speak on the subject.

    Your place to speak? You’ve been allowed to speak. And you have done so enthusiastically. I’m simply responding and telling you that reasons you give are abhorrent. Because forcing women to produce babies as a service to society is abhorrent. You keep repeating this reason in various ways– and it remains abhorrent. And I will keep pointing out you are saying it and telling you that it is abhorrent.
    .
    I have no idea what gripe you have with Lemon and Vivek. Is it just that he interrupted Vivek? Sure. Ok. Presumably, you are not accusing me of “interrupting” you or not letting you speak. (Oh… wait a minute, you seem to have accused me of not letting you speak. All the while writing paragraph after paragraph after paragraph with no moderation.)
    .
    As per usual, you are back on some tangent about something to do with Biden.

  687. Mike,

    There is a Federal law I think from the 1960’s regulating interstate firearms sales. But it applies to all firearms purchases at Federal Firearms Dealers too. These constitute the vast majority of firearms dealers. The requirement is an ATF form that the dealer or seller fills out and signs specifying the firearm and serial number, etc. The buyer then fills out a section certifying that you are not a felon, not subject to a restraining order, not dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, not an illegal alien, not adjudged mentally unfit, not a user of illegal drugs and quite a few more questions. The dealer then phones the FBI which does an automatic background check against various databases. Usually this takes only a minute or two. You are signing this form under penalty of perjury. Hunter was a crackhead at the time he filled out the form and lied about that fact. For ordinary people, that’s up to 5 years in prison if you get caught. I don’t know how common prosecutions happen for this though.

    Now in most states firearms transactions between individuals who reside in the same state are not regulated. But that’s a very small percentage of all firearms sales. In most states ammunition, sighting systems, and other gun products are not regulated. Oddly, rifle scopes and red dot sighting systems are export controlled!! I guess that’s because the military uses them and the technology is pretty advanced on the more expensive ones.

    In fact there are a lot of Federal regulations on firearms many of them stemming from the 1920’s and the crime problem at that time. That’s when fully automatic firearms were essentially outlawed. That’s in my opinion not much of an effect because fully automatic guns are overrated. It’s virtually impossible to keep them on target as the recoil and muzzle flip builds on itself. They are only useful when mounted on a stable vehicle or from a prone position with a muzzle break but these are often not that effective. There are also various restrictions on short barreled shotguns and rifles. Special licenses are required for these. Same for silencers. The Biden administration in another almost certainly illegal action is sitting on millions of applications for silencer tax stamps from law abiding citizens. I’m one of them.

    There is also a bewildering array of state laws on firearms. In many red states, restrictions have mostly been repealed. Oklahoma for example is now a Constitutional carry state. Any citizen who can legally own a gun can carry it. I think felons for example can’t legally own a gun unless they petition a court to get their rights restored. In Washington state you need a concealed carry license to carry concealed, however its a shall issue state, which means they have to give you one if you can legally own a handgun. It’s an open carry state which means you can carry openly most places except courthouses, etc. No one really does open carry though unless they are hiking, backpacking, or hunting. Upper middle class techies get nervous at the sight of a firearm so no one wants to cause a wasted 911 call. Law enforcement will talk to you and tell you its legal but to please conceal it or leave it in the car trunk. California is a special case. Most dealers won’t sell and ship guns to California, probably for fear of an unjustified malicious prosecution or because the laws are very complex.

    This is something I don’t understand about the gun control movement. Firearms are already very heavily regulated. If we aren’t enforcing our current laws (and we are not) why do they suppose more restrictions on law abiding citizens would be enforced either and criminals taken off the streets for violating them. The mass shooter north of Houston a week ago is an illegal alien from Mexico who had been deported 3 times in the past. He may have simply carried his gun with him when he walked across the border. He could not have passed an FBI background check either.

  688. Prigozhin and the Russian Military brass… Drama queens.
    “ Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin had said on Friday that his fighters, who have spearheaded a months-long assault on Bakhmut, would pull out after being starved of ammunition and suffering “useless and unjustified” losses as a result.
    But in an audio message posted on his Telegram channel on Sunday, he said: “We have been promised as much ammunition and weapons as we need to continue further operations. We have been promised that everything needed to prevent the enemy from cutting us off (from supplies) will be deployed.”

  689. Ron Graf,
    “Oz had exhausted a lot of money in a bruising primary in which he barely squeaked out. Fetterman, being largely unchallenged in the primary, did not have to spend or defend. Then he announced his stroke and became somewhat immune from attack. Then mail in voting by Dems was mostly complete before the single debate that we all saw the highlights of.”
    .
    Well, sure, but Oz wasn’t really a resident of PA. The fact that Fetterman was a) mentally incompetent, and b) likely unable to represent his state effectively in the Senate, did not enter into an election which was ~100% a partisan contest for control of the Senate. A cat named ‘Ima-cat’ could have stood in for Fetterman and the results of the election would likely have been the same. Remember that Fetterman won by about 5% of all votes… it wasn’t really close at all. The main problem was that Oz was not a PA resident and a terrible candidate. The Republicans needed a better candidate. Like, say, someone from PA.

  690. Looks like the media’s banning on speculation of a gunman’s motive has ended for some reason. Something must have changed since last month when NBC said this:
    .
    ““You should never speculate about a motive until you have all of the information despite the public wanting the answer right away,” said Tyrone Powers, a former FBI special agent and founder of The Powers Consulting Group, a public safety consulting firm based in Baltimore. “The manifesto may have some answers in it or it may lead to some other people, but until you go through all of that,” authorities shouldn’t comment on a motive, he said.

    Joseph Giacalone, a retired sergeant with the New York City Police Department and an adjunct professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the need for caution becomes even more crucial when the suspect was known to have a mental illness and is no longer living.”
    .
    NBC, after some rethinking over the past month now says:
    “Texas mall shooting suspect Mauricio Garcia interacted with neo-Nazi and white supremacist content online, two senior law enforcement officials said.

    One of the officials said Garcia, 33, posted such content himself. The other official said that the suspect consumed such rhetoric online and had several social media accounts and that authorities found him with a patch with a right-wing acronym on his chest.

    It’s not known what the acronym is.

    NBC News hasn’t seen any of the suspect’s accounts, and the officials have stressed it’s too early in the investigation to ascribe a motive.”
    .
    NYPost: CBS execs bar the word ‘transgender’ from reports on Nashville shooter: ‘This is not journalism’
    https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/cbs-execs-bar-the-word-transgender-from-reports-on-audrey-hale/
    “The shooter’s gender identity has not been confirmed by CBS News,” the network’s executives insisted in a Tuesday memo obtained by The Post. “As such, we should avoid any mention of it as it has no known relevance to the crime. Should that change, we can and will revisit.”
    .
    CBS today:
    “Investigators are looking into whether the gunman was motivated by domestic violent extremist ideals, according to a law enforcement source. The source told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that the gunman was heavily armed and appeared to be on a mission
    …
    Two sources also confirmed to CBS News that the shooter had a patch on his clothing with the letters “RWDS,” which stands for “Right Wing Death Squad” — believed to be a right-wing neo-Nazi group.”

  691. Lucia, clearly I don’t see anything at all wrong with my pointing out the residual effects of the policy on all parties, including society. Do you feel that policy makers should make judgements on residual effects or on their personal feelings? Real question.
    .
    You seem laser focused on this narrative that men care about using or controlling women, which, yes, would be abhorrent. I can only guess where you got that presupposition but it wasn’t from my pointing out the real life factors at play and the resources available today to women. By the way, woman historically are not prosecuted by the law for having abortions, only for infanticide. https://aul.org/2010/04/23/why-the-states-did-not-prosecute-women-for-abortion-before-roe-v-wade/
    .
    The question then comes to availability of abortion. A woman can take RU486 to induce abortion up to 11 weeks. Therefore, even if the law restricts her to less than that she can induce the abortion herself if she has access to the pill. After that point she also has access to other states if she has the means of transportation.
    .
    The bottom line is that you and I are agreeing on the restriction being necessary and that time is of the essence in the choices in pregnancy. But in the case a woman is forced to become pregnant very few, (and not me), are advocating for any restriction on her to terminate the pregnancy as long it’s not infanticide. Nancy Mace was raped at 16, and was in denial it seems for a while, and it almost ruined her life. But she has no problem voting for abortion restrictions. She only fears the GOP will lose votes due to the media and political messaging the Dems will use against her colleagues. If she expressed the exact same views as I did would she be abhorrent? Real question.

  692. SteveF” The main problem was that Oz was not a PA resident and a terrible candidate. The Republicans needed a better candidate. Like, say, someone from PA.”
    .
    Yes, he was a terrible candidate. If he and his team didn’t know that the average voter never heard a veggie platter be called cruditĂŠs he would have lost in NJ too. It also would have helped if he did not hawk diet pills and supplements of questionable value on TV.
    .
    He actually went to college at Penn and practiced in Philly for some years before moving to NJ.
    .
    Edit: also the PA GOP ticket was dragged down by a candidate for gov that showed up for J6 protest and was pro-life.

  693. Ron Graf,

    Lucia, clearly I don’t see anything at all wrong with my pointing out the residual effects of the policy on all parties, including society.

    You aren’t grasping my point. I think it is abhorrent to sacrifice the liberty of individual people based on what you call “residual effects”. We don’t sacrifice children (i.e. individuals) at the top of mountains to bring on rain during droughts (a residual effect).
    .

    Do you feel that policy makers should make judgements on residual effects or on their personal feelings? Real question.

    Before I answer: Why do you ask? Real question.
    .
    Because I haven’t made any arguments based on anyone feelings and have never suggested policies be made based on feelings. So I am left asking myself: Do you think the answer to this question is relevant to anything I have said?
    .

    You seem laser focused on this narrative that men care about using or controlling women, which, yes, would be abhorrent.

    Well… that’s an interesting claim because I said nothing about men. I have pointed out that a law that only allows one choice does force a choice. This is simply true and has nothing to do with “men” nor what they “care” about. So, no, I am not “presupposing” something I never claimed and don’t think. ( And once again: you like to craft arguments against something no one said or thinks.)
    .
    That said: the law under discussion happens to control women’s choices.
    You can call this a “narrative”. But calling it that doesn’t change the fact that laws that eliminate women’s choices do control women.
    .
    I’ll skip some irrelevant tangents. . .
    .

    The bottom line is that you and I are agreeing on the restriction being necessary and that time is of the essence in the choices in pregnancy.

    I don’t consider this “the bottom line”. I also didn’t say “time is off the essence” , and since I’m not sure what you think that means, I actually suspect I don’t think I agree on whether you think that means.
    .

    If she expressed the exact same views as I did would she be abhorrent? Real question.

    Which ones? If she expressed the view that women should be required to carry pregnancies to produce a product that benefited others, then yes, that view would remain abhorrent. It doesn’t become not-abohorent to suggest that women should be turned into manufacturing plants for the benefit of society just because the person who said it had been raped and carried that baby to term.
    .
    Nothing gives a rape victim the right to call for the sacrifice the lives and liberties of anyone other than herself for the “benefit” of creating the “product” of babies for childless couples who dream of raising children.

  694. Lucia:

    We don’t sacrifice children (i.e. individuals) at the top of mountains to bring on rain during droughts (a residual effect).

    .
    Yes. I just changed my mind on that last week. (sarc at relevance).
    .

    I have pointed out that a law that only allows one choice does force a choice.

    .
    In the real world we live in choices are always limited, and many choices narrow with time. Wanting unlimited choices or teaching in school that anyone who limits your choices is defacto “controlling you” is the wrong lesson. Children do not need to be taught they are the center of the universe. They believe that naturally. The hard part is making them aware of their actions effects on others. They need to be informed and know there are consequences for poor choices or for not making timely decisions. This should not be debatable. And I agree wholeheartedly that nobody should be stripped of their rights. That is not what we are debating. Lines need to be drawn and thus there needs to be a decision making process about where to draw them. Policy starts by being based on principles. There is usually many to consider. In considering which ones are more important we look at the consequences of proposed policies.
    .

    I also didn’t say “time is off the essence” , and since I’m not sure what you think that means,…

    .
    Time of the essence means that not making a decision to act will have consequences.
    .

    Nothing gives a rape victim the right to call for the sacrifice the lives and liberties of anyone other than herself for the “benefit” of creating the “product” of babies for childless couples who dream of raising children.

    .
    I am thinking this sentence means that a rape victim should be given special consideration for likelihood she may have covered up the pregnancy out of embarrassment and thus should be allowed to have an abortion past the all cause deadline. I agree, as I said in my last comment and support for exceptions in about ten comments.

  695. Ron

    In the real world we live in choices are always limited, and many choices narrow with time.

    Sure. I either take job A, B or neither. I can’t do all three.
    But that’s different from advocating constraining choices that affect an individual’s life, liberty, economic prosperity and physical well being to force them to provide their uterus to provide babies for childless couples.

    Children do not need to be taught they are the center of the universe. They believe that naturally. The hard part is making them aware of their actions effects on others

    Uhmmm…. I’m trying to figure out if you are likening women who are preganant to children who think they are the center of the universe? Or if you are suggesting they need to be taught to sacrifice their life, physical well being, economic liberty for that of others (e.g. the trans childless couple?) Or what… Or that we need to have a deadline for late term abortions to teach women a lesson about timeliness?. ‘Cuz…Oy.
    .

    And I agree wholeheartedly that nobody should be stripped of their rights. That is not what we are debating.

    We are debating stripping people of their bodily autonomy and right to make decisions about their life. And we are debating what sorts of reasons could be sufficiently valid to limit or strip people of said autonomy and decision making. Call that rights or call them “not rights”. Whatever. Doesn’t matter. That’s what we are debating.
    .
    Because you are advancing women providing the service of adoptable children to childless couples (and a number of other things) as reasons to deprive women of their right to control their lives , physical well being, economic liberty and so on.

    Policy starts by being based on principles. There is usually many to consider. In considering which ones are more important we look at the consequences of proposed policies.

    Precisely. And it’s your principles that are abhorrent.

    The consequence of adopting your principles as valid reasons would be depriving people of autonomy to (adding to the list) teach them the lesson of the importance of timeliness, teaching them they are not the “center of the world” or to force them to donate their bodies for the “benefit” of granting the dreams of childless people. That’s a horrible principle and should never be a basis for policy.
    .
    If that sort of principle about applies to pregnant women it would necessarily apply to all adults. And we could start telling people they can’t apply to college more more than 3 months after college graduation because it’s important for them to learn that sometimes there are deadlines. If you are going to have deadlines, there should be a good reason other than “we need to teach kids timeliness” or “we need to teach kids the world doesn’t revolve around them”.

  696. SteveF (Comment #220779): “Well, sure, but Oz wasn’t really a resident of PA.”
    .
    And his main primary opponent, David McCormick, was CEO of a company in Connecticut until about 4 months before the primary and 3 months after Oz was registered to vote in PA.

  697. I do think the bad candidate talking point is overblown. It’s basically people like McConnell who are establishment Republicans who have made millions from being politicians and are part of the elite cartel who are very scared of populism. A vastly bigger cause is the deep state, media, big tech cartel that controls the information voters get to see. This cartel keeps Republican’s issues from getting in front of voters, for example by ignoring or denying the border crisis and the surge in violent crime and chaos on the streets.

    And SteveF, are you are really trying to tell me that media hiding the fact that Fedderwoman was a walking corpse and unable to be a Senator didn’t lead a lot of voters to be unaware of the facts or at least to be able to pretend that wasn’t the case? They did the same thing for Biden of course and ran the most consequential election interference campaign in American history. Do not fall for false narratives.

    The only reason abortion has any political influence at all is because media keep promoting the narrative about “extremist Republicans positions” and hiding the fact that the Democrat “abort while still in the birth canal” is quite radical. The status quo is not radical at all and the embodiment of democracy. But you never hear that emphasized.

    It’s not that I like Republicans so much. It’s that Democrats are insane and dangerous. Cultural Marxism is a toxic ideology every bit as crazy as some of the Nazi’s racial ideas or progressive racially motivated ideas about eugenics at the end of the 19th century. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying in the US as a result from drugs, suicide, and crime to name just a few.

  698. BTW, you will find that just as during the pandemic, many European countries are not nearly as crazy as our US cartel. Several European countries are now putting very strict limitations on “gender affirming care.” You’ll be hard pressed to find a national Democrat or a cartel media outlet that is not pressing the narrative of “dangerous Republican bills to deny life saving health care to young people” lie or the “banning books” narrative.

    Middle class professionals who don’t care to go beyond information provided by the cartel are a large part of the problem. You can make the same case for gender affirming care as for abortion. It’s all about personal autonomy to decide your own fate and medical care right? Except that gender dysphoria is spread by social contagion and affects vulnerable young people.

  699. David Young

    It’s all about personal autonomy to decide your own fate and medical care right?

    I don’t see any reason to make gender affirming care illegal for adults of sound mind.
    .
    The idea is qualitatively similar to boob jobs, liposuction, tattoes, piercings, facelifts, derma planing, artificial nails and so on. Gender affirming care is generally quantitatively more invasive, but I don’t see that as a reason to ban it. I’d be against subsidizing it since it’s all elective.
    .
    The desire for cosmetic boob jobs, liposuction, tattoos yada, yada, is also spread by social contagion. I don’t think minors should be able to do the more invasive of these elective procedures. I don’t think insurance should be required to cover them. I don’t think the state should pay or subsidize them with some caveats for “fixing” things (e.g. if breasts are lost due to cancer, I’d say insurance should cover it. Of if there is an actual abnormality– cleft chin, birth mark that should be covered. But just wanting a cosmetic upgrade– no.)

  700. David Young,
    What I am really trying to tell you is that very restrictive abortion laws are a political loser for Republicans and will lead to losses in competitive districts. There is zero need for you to talk endlessly about all the horrible policies Democrats support. There no need to talk about how biased and unfair the MSM is. Republicans supporting very restrictive abortion laws, something every voter understands clearly, will make political control by Democrats (and all the associated insanities) only more likely. Very restrictive abortion laws are not supported by about 75% of voters nationwide, and this has been fairly consistent over decades.
    .
    This is not even a close political call: Republicans need to pull up their big-boy pants and support moderate abortion laws, so that voters focus more on all the other important issues where Democrats support absurd policies. Every time a prominent Republican publicly supports very restrictive abortion laws they do long term damage to the country.

  701. Last year, Ukraine’s Karkiv offensive that shocked the best Russian divisions was comprised of old Soviet ear tanks and fighting vehicles. Contrast that with this year’s 82nd assault brigade:
    Led by 14 British heavy Challenger 2 Main battle tanks accompanied by 40 German Marder tracked infighting fighting. The Marders deliver 240 stormtroopers and are armed with a 20 mm Rheinmetall autocannon and Milan anti-tank missile launchers. The second wave of 810 stormtroopers is delivered by 90 US Stryker fast, wheeled fighting vehicles.
    Whew!
    Forbes: “Ukraine’s 82nd Air Assault Brigade Is Ridiculously Powerful—And Could Lead The Coming Counteroffensive”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/05/03/ukraines-82nd-air-assault-brigade-is-ridiculously-powerful-and-could-lead-the-coming-counteroffensive/?sh=3ac4ecbd1bbf

  702. SteveF: “Every time a prominent Republican publicly supports very restrictive abortion laws they do long term damage to the country.”
    .
    I would like to see Nancy Mace take Lindsey Graham’s senate seat.
    .
    Lucia, I think our difference comes down to the reasoning behind banning late term (third trimester) elective abortions. You said you are against them but never supplied reasoning or I forgot it. And, if you are against late abortions what do you propose should be done with the babies? My position is to support a strong adoption system that would allow the mother to be the peace of mind that if she feels she is not ready and able to be a mother that the baby would get an excellent home with parents eager to field that responsibility. I personally know two people that were adopted, one a childhood friend, and the other an extended family member. They both had very nice parents and lived happy lives. The later reunited with her birth mother (my mother in law) after her adopted parents died. She and her family are now a regular part of our extended families. Adoption is far from abhorrent. So I am guessing your point that forcing mothers to carry children to be put up for adoption is abhorrent. I agree, and I am not advocating that. My point was that even after the woman had missed her opportunity to take action she still is being provided a choice of keeping the child or knowing it will be well cared for. This is a circumstance existing today but may not be the same in the future as technology makes it cheaper and easier for childless couples to artificially use their own gametes. In such a case that the adoption demand falls away the woman would have less of a choice and thus I would support less restrictive abortion laws. I hope this makes it much more clear and I am sorry you thought I was advocating for the Handmaid’s Tale and just BS-ing when I said many times that I wasn’t.

  703. Lucia wrote: “I don’t see any reason to make gender affirming care illegal for adults of sound mind.”
    .
    Is someone who wants to mutilate their body to look like the opposite sex of sound mind? Don’t really care, but I thought that was funny!
    .
    The big issue is that “gender affirming care” is a euphemism for indoctrinating kids into a dysfunctional, and potentially permanently life altering, gender cult obsessed with sex.

  704. Ron

    Lucia, I think our difference comes down to the reasoning behind banning late term (third trimester) elective abortions.

    I’ve only told you multiple times that our differences are the reasons you give for banning or permitting abortions. So that part of what you say is true. But I didn’t limit my criticism to your reasons for “third trimester”. I criticize the horrible reasons you give no matter what trimester you think you are applying them to.
    .

    You said you are against them but never supplied reasoning or I forgot it.

    You forgot.
    .

    And, if you are against late abortions what do you propose should be done with the babies?

    Huh? What I propose “be done with” babies parents wish to give up for adoption is permit adoption– just as we always have permitted it. I’ve certainly not said adoption is abhorrent.
    .
    Adoption policies have nothing to do with how we should regulate abortion. And we can and should certainly continue to allow adoption– just as it was allowed before and during the Roe era.
    .

    So I am guessing your point that forcing mothers to carry children to be put up for adoption is abhorrent. I agree, and I am not advocating that.

    Except that you do repeatedly advocate forcing women to carry fetus and then point out that we should consider the “benefit” of providing children to society or childless couples.
    .

    In such a case that the adoption demand falls away the woman would have less of a choice and thus I would support less restrictive abortion laws. I hope this makes it much more clear and I am sorry you thought I was advocating for the Handmaid’s Tale and just BS-ing when I said many times that I wasn’t.

    Uhmm… so you are advocating making the amount of women’s choice in abortion contingent on the market demand for babies. And in particular, you support more restrictive abortions laws if the demand for babies his high. And by more restrictive you mean not allowing it after some point.
    .
    Making the deadline contingent on the market for babies is abhorrent. And saying you can’t have the abortion after a particular deadline had passed is forcing the women who missed the deadline (for whatever reason) to carry the fetuses. And that is precisely justifying your policy to deprive women of their bodily autonomy, and forcing them to incur physical, emotional, social and financial burdents based on a “marketing” analysis of an economic product which happens to be “babies”.
    .
    One of features of your “clarifications” is that they sound even more like “The Handmaid’s Tale” than the initial statement! I realize you (for some mystifying reasons) think you can explain that the economic market for babies is a factor in your setting the deadline for abortion is and then immediately turn around and think you have just rebutted the accusation that your views come from something like “The Handmaiden’s Tale”. But…. Oy!

  705. DaveJR,

    The big issue is that “gender affirming care” is a euphemism for indoctrinating kids into a dysfunctional, and potentially permanently life altering, gender cult obsessed with sex.

    I agree “gender affirming care” is a buzz word. And I think it’s important to stop indoctrination of kids, and to also not allow the first steps for this to happen while they are kids.
    .
    And yes, I should have written “otherwise of sound mind”. Because I do think someone has to have something not quite right in their head to want thes sort of surgeries or hormonal interventions.
    .
    That said: I honestly don’t know which steps give people with problems in their head the most peace– and that’s true for other medical issues. So I don’t think they should be illegal for adults.
    .

  706. David Young (Comment #220787): “I do think the bad candidate talking point is overblown.”
    .
    Indeed. The Democrats had lots of bad candidates. Fetterman was a far worse Senate candidate than any Republican, but he won. Heck, he was a bad candidate even before his stroke.
    .
    No candidate is perfect. I see no evidence that the Republican candidates were any worse than the Democrat candidates. Well, no evidence other than that they lost, which is a circular argument.

  707. lucia (Comment #220789): “I don’t see any reason to make gender affirming care illegal for adults of sound mind.”
    .
    There are definitely good reasons to ban sex change operations. We don’t let people take any drug they might want. For the most part, access to harmful medical procedures is controlled by medical ethics rather than by law, but I’d guess that there are procedures that are banned. I don’t think you could find a hospital willing to cut off a healthy limb or sever your spinal cord.
    .
    You might well argue that the reasons to outlaw sex changes are outweighed by letting people make their own decisions. I might even agree. But “no reason” is a bit much. At a minimum, there is certainly reason to tightly regulate such procedures.

  708. AFAICT gender affirming care is code for “the authorities don’t tell the parents about the transition”, or at least that is included. This is batty as hell. I’d like some different authorities please.

  709. MikeM

    We don’t let people take any drug they might want.

    No. They often need prescriptions from doctors. And some drugs are illegal– sometimes for no good reason. When there are good reasons, someone can make an argument providing the reasons.
    .
    So: just making an analogy to regulation of drugs fails as an explanation because you still need to give the reason why the surgery should be made illegal.
    .

    I don’t think you could find a hospital willing to cut off a healthy limb or sever your spinal cord.

    Not making it illegal isn’t the same as forcing a doctor to do it. If all hospitals. So this isn’t an argument for making it illegal.
    .
    I do think patients should be able to sue doctors for medical malpractice if the consequences of procedures aren’t explained or the discussions about harms and benefits are misleading and the outcome is unfavorable. That should be retained for gender affirming surgery or drugs.
    .
    Even if only the plausible financial burdens of after care are not fully explained, I think it ought to be possible to sue and get the doctors, hospital or medical practice to pay for the after care.
    .
    If doctors lose malpractice cases, they might become less willing to do the operations– but making doctors liable is not the same as making something illegal.
    .

    ut “no reason” is a bit much. At a minimum, there is certainly reason to tightly regulate such procedures.

    To make me see a reason, you actually have to give one. You haven’t yet given a reason– you gave a very overbroad analogy that clearly does not fit.

  710. I don’t care if adults do it, as long as they pay for it. As of now some prisons are allegedly paying for it, etc.
    .
    Tattoos are not particularly useful or serve any purpose, but I’m not going to stop people from getting them.

  711. Tom,
    Yes, I’m against prisons paying for affirmative gender care– especially if it is being initiated in prison. There might be some necessary care if an already transitioned person ends up in jail. For example: if someone already had their gonads removed, they likely need continued hormones (?). That’s not too expensive, but may be required for some proper bodily functions. (Although, honestly, I don’t know what after care eunuchs needed.)
    .
    The amount of aftercare required should be modest if the surgery is not initiated while in prison.

  712. Disney is also learning this lesson:
    .
    NBC: Disney fans are fighting online in response to the company’s lawsuit against DeSantis
    Walt Disney World vacation-planning forums have turned into political battlegrounds.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/disney-suing-governor-florida-desantis-lawsuit-online-rcna81761
    “We remove a whole lot of stuff to be safe, and we get pushback from the left and the right,” said the moderator, who asked that his name not be disclosed for his privacy. “We have folks saying, ‘You guys are obviously a bunch of liberal shills’ and then we have people saying, ‘You guys are fascist enablers.’”
    .
    The real question is what has Disney gained here? Not much IMO.

  713. If the movie John Wick teaches us nothing else, it should at least teach the bad guys NOT TO hurt the family dog. I’d like to shake this guy’s hand, maybe even buy him a non Bud-lite beer.

  714. [Disclaimer: I was joking above (obviously I hope). I understand I am legally permitted to use deadly force only under very specific circumstances such as when I believe myself to be in imminent danger of death or severe injury by an assailant and would only use deadly force under the appropriate legal circumstances, may that day never come.]

  715. Tom Scharf,
    “The real question is what has Disney gained here?”
    .
    To paraphrase an ancient song about war, they gained “absolutely nothin”!
    .
    Having businesses get involved in contentious social issues is a) a terrible business mistake, and b) due mostly to those businesses hiring and promoting quasi-idiots who were indoctrinated by the academic left into thinking advancing your personal political views is what you should do in every situation. My suggestion: a way more diverse management group (diverse in political thinking!). The only way really bad decisions will be avoided is if there are voices within the organization willing to argue against the truly nutty stuff.

  716. In some cases abortion is the issue that sinks a Republican. But that is largely irrelevant. This is because the media keeps abortion front and center and keeps people from knowing about the issues that help Republicans.

    Focusing on this issue is odd. It’s like the circular firing squad that establishment Republicans like to form. This is really about a battle for the Republican party. The establishment as embodied by National Review for example wants to go back to George W. Bush Republicanism and be nice guys and be loved by the media. This is a totally failed model for preserving our Republic. The populist wing of the Republican party embodied by Trump and DeSantis wants to convert the Republican party from a white middle class dying party into a working class multi-ethnic party. It’s a simple choice for conservatives. Be the Whig’s fighting the anti-slavery Republican party of the 1850’s and die or embrace the only way to push conservatism forward.

  717. Ultra-woke Bud Light marketing manager: “I think we need to go after the LGBQT+ demographic in our promotional campaigns.”
    .
    Woke actual underlings: “Sure, great idea, lets find some social influencers to promote Bud Light among the LGBQT+ demographic!”
    .
    The underlings they should have had: “Ummm, boss, the cheap beer market is really in no way associated with that demographic, who actually prefer to drink chardonnay and mixed drinks, and publicly promoting ties to that demographic risks alienating a fraction of our existing customers and losing net sales.”
    .
    Just having someone to point out the obvious to quasi-idiots reduces the risk of terrible error.

  718. “Gender affirming care” is fundamentally different than liposuction or breast augmentation. Genital mutilation patients become permanently dependent on the medical system and need lifelong drugs that have very significant side effects like osteoporosis. The victims of this “care” are also more likely to commit suicide and have serious mental health issues. These studies from Europe are once again covered up by our information cartel. And of course these patients become sterile and unable to experience real sexual gratification, etc. Not to mention the pain involved. People who suffer from gender dysphoria deserve compassion and counceling. We don’t need to pay for medical malpractice to be perpetrated on them by quacks any more than we need to pay for laetril for cancer patients.

  719. Lucia:

    Except that you do repeatedly advocate forcing women to carry fetus and then point out that we should consider the “benefit” of providing children to society or childless couples.

    I only advocate for setting a time limit on the choice, just like you do. Lucia wrote: “My acceptable window was 12-24.” We also both support the issue to be handled by the states rather than at a federal level.
    .
    I point out that having an option of an adoption by a caring, financially stable, couple eager to undertake all the roles of parenthood relaxes the moral burden on the woman and provides her a palatable choice besides taking on those burdens herself (or with child support payments). It is not abhorrent that the otherwise childless couple is fulfilled as well. This in fact is called a societal benefit. That does not mean it is the motivating factor for raping women or stealing their children. That is called demagoguery. I think it’s because Democrats invented it. 🙂 Do you agree that having a healthy adoption system reduces the burden on women with unwanted pregnancies carried beyond 24 weeks?
    .
    Is your 24 week limit because of fetal viability outside the womb? If so, do you also agree there is not a clear demarcation of where human life could be defined to begin in a secular sense of deserving rights that would protect society?
    .
    To refresh, you wrote:

    They often don’t think it’s fully human, and recognize funerals for miscarriage are not traditional point out that people have always made a distinction in the level of “humanity” related to “born” and “in utero”.

  720. David Young,

    Wow, seems you can’t understand what people write.
    .
    The question is: how do Republicans win? I can tell you for certain it has nothing to do with embracing very restrictive absorption laws, and a lot to do with finessing that issue by adopting moderate positions (which most voters will accept/support!) and focusing on all the other policy issues where Democrats absolutely suck. It is almost like you have a death wish.

  721. What this discussion ignores is that our medical system is becoming less functional. My brother pointed out to me that a lot of health care workers left the field during covid because of stress and burn out. Many of those who are left are still suffering from PTSD. He should know, he was a chief medical officer for a regional health care system.

    What we are noticing is that it takes longer to arrange procedures. My wife has waited 6 months to get a large and growing thyroid nodule removed. It’s now virtually impossible to get an appointment with a doctor on short notice. They expect you to go to urgent care instead.

    Why should we waste scarce resources on unneeded and harmful genital mutilation proceedures?

    IS the media talking about this deterioration of the system? Not that I’m aware of.

  722. And our worst horror story involves my brother who recently retired. He had a heart attack with a 100% blockage. He was triaged in the emergency room and waited 180 minutes to get catheterized and that only because he called his cardiologist who was able to come to the hospital. He was in hospital for 3 weeks and came close to dying. Normal time from arriving at the hospital to catheterization is 60 minutes. His long term prognosis is still up in the air even though he seems able to do most of his regular activities.

  723. Ron Graf,

    Why not propose paying pregnant women in the second trimester a lot of money (many $thousands) to carry their baby to term, funded by all those ‘desperate’ couples who want to adopt? I suspect you will find the number of people willing to pay for that service are few, because the price would be too high.

  724. SteveF, I thought of a financial reward for the giving mother when I see that surrogate mothers are commanding ~30K. But, maybe it would not be a good idea for the same reason we no longer pay for blood donations or allow people to sell organs. And accepting the payout could be harmful mentally in the long run. There is already an increased incidence of depression, drug abuse and suicide associated with abortion. I believe it is less for giving the child up for adoption but it is hard finding a non-confounded study that proves this.

  725. No Steve, I never said what Republicans should say on abortion. Around the edges it may matter but that’s caused mostly by the media environment which amplifies Democrat talking points and almost actively campaigns for them.

    You are right that Republicans should point out the current status quo is perfectly moderate and democratic.

    I do think though that this is another way establishment Republicans can try to turn back the more populist wing of the party, which tends to be more pro-life than the establishment wing.

  726. David Young (Comment #220808): “This is really about a battle for the Republican party. The establishment as embodied by National Review for example wants to go back to George W. Bush Republicanism and be nice guys and be loved by the media.”
    .
    There is much truth to that. I don’t think that Establishment vs. Populist is the only reason for internal Republican disagreement on abortion, but it is surely part of it.

  727. lucia,

    I gave reasons why one might argue to ban sex change operations. You may not find the reasons to be compelling (I don’t find them very compelling) since they amount largely to protecting people against themselves. But many people do find such reasons to be compelling.
    .
    I do find those reasons to be compelling ones for banning such procedures for minors and for tightly regulating them in all cases. “Gender affirming care” often amounts to unscrupulous people exploiting the mentally vulnerable, with often catastrophic consequences for the victim.

  728. Thanks Mike. I think also this is why Donald Trump set off the biggest disinformation and election interference collusion in American history. Trump wasn’t an establishment Republican, you know the kind who try to curry favor with the media and work across the aisle. He started a populist movement with a very large core of devoted supporters. However, the ruling class’ effort here became more and more corrupt and more and more obvious to any person with 2 functioning neurons.

    At first establishment Republicans such as Lindsey Graham were very supportive of the Meuller probe. But what happened is that this also opened the eyes of a lot of Republican officials. Some like Graham became avid Trump fans although Graham is still a strong neocon on foreign policy. The same thing happened to people like Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley.

    Trump is a transformational player in American politics and he really did change the Republican party, hopefully permanently. He also clarified the incredible corruption and dishonesty of establishment “conservatives” like Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, and David Frenchfry, who thankfully no longer play at being conservative.

  729. MikeM

    I gave reasons why one might argue to ban sex change operations. You may not find the reasons to be compelling (I don’t find them very compelling)

    No. Those weren’t “reasons”. This, for example is not “a reason”: “We don’t let people take any drug they might want. ” It is not a cause, justification of explanation for doing X.

  730. Ron

    I only advocate for setting a time limit on the choice, just like you do.

    You know…this is just tiring and annoying. You’ve repeated this claim over and over. And I have told you over and over that I am objecting to the reasons you advice to support the position. You even seemed to finally get that, writing

    Lucia, I think our difference comes down to the reasoning behind banning […]

    But now…. you want to go back “I only advocate X”– and then procede to write paragraphs advocate something other than “X”. So, clearly you don’t “only” advocate X.
    .
    It’s really tiring to have you simply ignore what I write.

  731. Lucia, We in the US are rather unique in our transgender science denial. In Europe, they are starting to impose restrictions on this form of “medical care.” The reasons we shouldn’t allow this as a matter of course or pay for it are pretty obvious. Genital mutilation and the construction of phony genitalia that require constant medical attention is painful, costly, and actually increases the tendency for confused people to contemplate suicide. There is also very strong evidence from a former Brown University psychologist that the epidemic of gender dysphoria particularly among girls and young women is spread by social contagion. It’s a form of mass delusion. You won’t know about this if you read the corporate media in the US anyway. Girls are very subject to peer pressure.

    You won’t know this if your only source of information is the information cartel. They constantly allow the idea to be propagated that this medical care “saves lives.” That is anecdotal nonsense. The science says otherwise.

    Most disgusting is parents who actively push their children to transition. This is child abuse plain and simple.

  732. David Young,
    “Around the edges it may matter”
    .
    No my friend, it matters in the center, around the edges, and everywhere else. Republicans are foolishly falling on their swords over restrictive abortion laws, even while it is a loosing position based on every national poll. There is surefire support in Mississippi, and Alabama, where restrictive abortion may actually be supported by a majority. But Wisconsin? Pennsylvania? Michigan? North Carolina? Arizona? Restrictive abortion policies are utterly stupid, even suicidal, political positions in those places, and anywhere the electorate is closely split between Democrats and Republicans. If you care about saving the country from 500 absolutely insane laws Democrats insist upon promulgating in the next 6 years, then finessing abortion is required.
    .
    Good grief.

  733. David,
    I’ve never found “this is what Europe does” a strong motivation for what we should do.
    .
    Beyond that–my understanding is some European countries are starting to restrict gender affirming care for minors. I approve of that sort of move and said so. But “That’s what Europe is doing” is not the reason I approve it.
    .
    Out of curiosity, are you under the impression that I said I think gender affirming care for minors is good, or ok? I didn’t. I said I’m against having them be allowed to do very invasive procedures that are entirely elective. Gender affirming care is among those. It’s certainly more invasive than a boob job, which I don’t think minors should do (with exceptions for things like reconstructive surgery.)

  734. Yes Lucia, I understand your position. However, I do think that on many fronts over the last 3 years European governments have shown a much better conformance with the best science. Keeping schools open is just the most striking example.

    The science on gender affirming care’s effects on mental health were all done in Europe. I might try google scholar later today.

  735. Here’s the first article in found on google scholar from Sweden.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885&utm_source=mandiner&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=mandiner_202101

    Results
    The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9). Comparisons with controls matched on reassigned sex yielded similar results. Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

    Conclusions
    Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

    You will notice they feel the need to suggest that the surgery cures the dysphoria. Not data to support that though.

  736. In fairness there were also quite a few articles that showed improvements in patients mental health. They all relied on self reporting though.

  737. If it doesn’t fit, just get a hammer out, bang it in, and make it fit.
    .
    Wash Post: Analysis: Why non-White people might advocate white supremacy
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/08/texas-shooting-white-supremacy-non-whites/
    “For many people, this idea triggered an immediate negative reaction: How could someone with the name “Mauricio Garcia” — a Hispanic name — be a white supremacist? In some quarters, that The Post was offering such a possibility was somehow demonstrative of this newspaper’s purported interest in elevating unsupported racial claims.
    In reality, the idea that someone named Garcia might be sympathetic to white-supremacist views is unexpected but not inexplicable.
    “White” is not as hard and fast a racial category as many assume, and “white supremacy” is about power as much as it is about race.”
    “We don’t yet know specifically what drove Garcia to gun down shoppers in Texas on Saturday. But we do know that it is not at all impossible for someone with a Hispanic name to embrace white-supremacist rhetoric.”
    .
    “Not impossible” is today’s standard of reporting rampant speculation. If the Post had integrity they would have waited for evidence.

  738. I don’t strongly disagree SteveF. It’s a small thing some Republicans can do to gather a few more votes. I still just don’t think the issue itself is important to most people in the absence of the constant media propaganda and promotion of the narrative of Republican extremism. Most Republicans are not extreme on the issue.

    In your opinion, why didn’t abortion hurt Republicans in Florida in 2022? Was abortion even an issue at all? Will it hurt DeSantis in the future? I doubt it. DeSantis for the information cartel offers so many targets for “extremist” smears that are more resonant. They seem to have settled to some extent on the “banning books” narrative.

  739. SteveF (Comment #220824): “it matters in the center”.
    .
    I don’t think you have given evidence that the abortion issue matters very much in the center. It is true that most people in the center would prefer a compromise on abortion. But I don’t know of evidence that those people feel strongly enough about it that it will influence how they vote. The people on the extremes do feel strongly enough that it would affect how they vote. But we know how they are going to vote.

  740. David Young,
    “In your opinion, why didn’t abortion hurt Republicans in Florida in 2022? Was abortion even an issue at all? Will it hurt DeSantis in the future?”
    .
    First, DeSantis is not allowed to run again under Fl law. There is nothing he has done which will make any difference in Florida. Of course it will make no difference to DeSantis in Florida in the future.
    .
    Second, DeSantis supported (and in fact implemented) a very reasonably 15 week law in Florida. Perfectly reasonable, and consistent with Florida voter sentiment. Which I note was BEFORE the 6 week ban. The 6-week ban he recently signed is disconnected from popular support in Florida. WTF? DeSantis needs someone to grab him by the ears and shake some sense into him.

  741. Mike M,
    “But I don’t know of evidence that those people feel strongly enough about it that it will influence how they vote.”
    .
    It matters enough to influence the vote of our gracious hostess.
    .
    If you look at the votes in close states in 2022 (eg MI, PA, WI, and several others) it seems pretty clear to me that Republicans lost mainly on the question of abortion. Sure, Trump put up a bunch of shit-hook candidates, and that hurt Republicans, but even considering that, there were few Republicans willing to buck the ‘base’ and support reasonable positions on abortion. Impossible to say they could have won with a more main-stream position on abortion, but perfectly accurate to say they lost. Idiots.

  742. MikeM,
    Define “center”? I don’t consider myself on “the extreme” and abortion definitely influences my vote. In contrast, Gun right? Not so much.

  743. Lucia, I pointed out that the abortion pill is effective to 11 weeks of gestation. If the availability of the pill could not be curtailed that would nullify any restriction under 11 weeks, right? If that is the case, and you are OK with 12 weeks then is this still a huge issue for you?
    .
    Planned Parenthood says:

    You can get the abortion pill from some Planned Parenthood health centers or other abortion providers. In some states, you can do your visit online (AKA telehealth) and get your abortion pills mailed to you. Read more about how to get abortion pills.
    .
    Some people confuse abortion pills with morning-after pills, but they’re very different. Abortion pills end a pregnancy — the morning-after pill PREVENTS pregnancy before it happens. And unlike abortion pills, anybody can buy morning-after pills over the counter at pharmacies and drugstores. You can take the morning-after pill up to 5 days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. But morning-after pills won’t cause an abortion or harm the pregnancy if you’re already pregnant. Read more about the difference between abortion pills and morning-after pills.

  744. Riley Gaines going out on a limb here:
    @Riley_Gaines_ Each day for the next week I’m going to call on well-known female athletes to take a stance on this issue because silence is complicity…we need their voices. Day 1: @serenawilliams @Venuseswilliams how do you feel about males competing against women?
    I am interested to see how this plays out.
    She also said this recently: “We have to have girls who, when the whistle blows, they don’t run, they don’t swim. They stand up on the block and they don’t go,” Gaines told Fox News.
    She wants them to refuse to compete if there is a male in the event. Only Fox News carried it.

  745. Ron

    Lucia, I pointed out that the abortion pill is effective to 11 weeks of gestation. If the availability of the pill could not be curtailed that would nullify any restriction under 11 weeks, right? If that is the case, and you are OK with 12 weeks then is this still a huge issue for you?

    I am henceforth ignoring all your “questions” because you clearly either (a) have no intention of paying attention to answers I already gave of (b) are incapable of understanding them.

  746. Fire them all.
    .
    WSJ: As Covid Hit, Washington Officials Traded Stocks With Exquisite Timing
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-washington-officials-stocks-trading-markets-stimulus-11666192404?st=dxal4mtfz4svsdo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    “A deputy to top health official Anthony Fauci reported 10 sales of mutual funds and stocks totaling between $157,000 and $480,000 that month. Collectively, officials at another health agency, Health and Human Services, reported 60% more sales of stocks and funds in January than the average over the previous 12 months, driven by a handful of particularly active traders.”
    “By March, every major agency was drawn into the pandemic response. That month was the most active for trading by officials across the federal government, including at HHS, in the Journal’s analysis of financial disclosure forms for about 12,000 officials spanning 2016 to 2021. Federal officials reported more than 11,600 trades that month, 44% more than in any other month in the analysis.”
    .
    This is simply insider trading by government officials. They know they are untouchable and I very seriously doubt it will even be investigated. Just like when IC officials “officially” leak information, nothing. I’ve had it with this stuff.

  747. Tom, as I mentioned a dozen comments back, corruption was the biggest problem in Roman times and it will be here a while longer too. Ethical journalists were our vanguard and still are, the thirty or so that are left.
    .
    RFJ, Jr. is flatly accusing the CIA of being behind the plot that killed his uncle. He hasn’t mentioned the one that killed his father yet. I suppose he is thinking any of the living assassins are in their 90’s or 100’s by now. If Joe won’t debate him maybe Michael Beschloss or Gerald Posner will, the CIA’s historians.
    .
    Lucia, I think we had a good discussion. It could have had less ad hom. But for an emotional issue we got a lot further than most. Perhaps it could be instructive to others on the topic to more quickly condense the facts and principles. Generally I am on the side of people being left more rights and also more responsibility that naturally comes with those particular rights. Freedom is not free, nor open ended. We all have to work hard at it.

  748. Ron,

    .
    Lucia, I think we had a good discussion. It could have had less ad hom.

    Not once did I call you any names nor make an appeal that suggested your argument was wrong because you are you.
    .
    If you are suggesting you shouldn’t have brought up Nazi’s, then I agree. It could have been less ad hom.
    .
    My main problem with the discussion is you fail to read or acknowledge what I say, post arguments against what someone someone else said somewhere else (and suggesting that’s a counter argument to me) and don’t seem to even grasp the meaning of what you say. There is also your constant tendency to launch into tangential tirades against things you don’t like– BLM, Nazi’s,democrats. You also keep bringing up the notion that the discussion is “emotional” when, at least on my part, I never was. And none of my arguments or positions were based on emotions.
    .
    This is the sort of thing that makes discussing with you frustrating.
    On the balance, I don’t think it was a “good” discussion because your methods of arguing aren’t really rational.

  749. BTW, Sounds like James Comer will have big news on the Biden crime family Wednesday morning. Many many foreign entities involved and perhaps a dozen Biden’s. They have the bank reports of suspicious large transactions. The fact that the FBI has until now succeeded in covering this up does I think show the headwinds Republicans face these days.

  750. David, I usually see this big news is coming as another squib in a long line of Republican squibs.
    When real scandal hits it dips usually sudden and unannounced and unexpected.
    There does seem to be some muted fight back in what I would have thought was a Republican aligned grassroots FBI support base but not enough to overcome 8 years of entrenched Democratic appointments at top levels in the past.
    The Trump show should hit 4 or more legal hurdles in the next 8 months .
    The current Carrol case 60:40 he goes down.
    Surviving that he faces Jan 6th pressures, severe risk.
    Then retention of files matters and finally the Braggs takedown mission.
    Odds of surviving all four very low, say < 10%.
    Great theatre.
    Can anyone explain why Rasmussen has slowly become Biden supporting over the last 4 months?
    Change of ownership??
    Unbiased questions. Voter mood behind Biden.
    I have found this unusual and upsetting

  751. Angech, great questions. I would think Biden is slipping in the poles due to Dems realizing that it is coming time to make the tough decision of whether to fire their figurehead, especially when they don’t see a ready replacement. As far as Trump surviving politically, that depends solely on his campaign against DeSantis and whether DeSantis can steal his support when he is freed from the FL legislative session and can enter the race in earnest. The spurious prosecutions wound Trump with independents, (the Dems are hoping), but that could backfire if the prosecutions are seen as illegitimate.
    .
    I find it interesting that RFK Jr., running as a Kennedy Democrat, in the mold of his father and uncle, having their exact views, is right in line with Tucker Carlson on all the major issues.

  753. I question how much social media plays into current polling methods etc. From what I’ve seen, there are HUGE bot networks consisting of bots which look very much like real people, and this is with past technology. AI changes that considerably. When Musk made his comments about the bot problem on twitter, he wasn’t exaggerating. Majority opinion on social media can easily be faked.

  754. I bet Kristen Sinema is finding it interesting that RFK Jr. can run as a Democrat for the presidency. I haven’t heard her mention that but she is inserting herself into the debt limit – US Treasury default showdown.
    .
    RFK Jr. has weighed in on his father’s assassination.

    Robert Kennedy Jr. said evidence of CIA involvement in his father’s death is “very convincing, but is circumstantial.”

    .
    For anyone interested the documentary The Second Gun (1973) was banned from movie theaters after its opening day but you can view it today. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+second+gun+documentary+on+RFK

  755. The Republicans seem to ignore the problem they have with political discussions that has the MSM very much on the side of the Democrats. The only reasonable counter is to explain in an unemotional and articulate manner the problems with the Democrat agenda and a reasonable alternative. There are individuals who could do this but are probably not electable in Republican primaries or as third party candidates.

    When Republicans are ready to settle for someone like Trump, who is the antithesis to what I described above, the writing is on the wall that a very far left Democrat party in coalition with the MSM will be able to successfully defend their agenda in future elections. Trump made the MSM coalition with the Democrat party more open and able to ignore counter arguments to even their most outlandish proposals. If Trump is nominated to run again the coalition’s path to victory is made just that much easier.

    Abortion has been and will be a major deciding vote in elections, although that is because it is an “easy” issue for the Democrats and MSM. If it were not for the abortion issue it would be some other issue a little further down the list or preferred talking points.

    The 6 week abortion limit makes no practical political sense for the Republicans as it accedes to abortion on principle but makes it more readily seen as difficult for the pregnant woman. That obvious bit of trickery has and will continue to backfire. Why not if acceding make it 15 months? For the record as I have stated previously here I consider abortion as a matter of rights of the mother and the unborn with the unborn rights taking precedent when the unborn becomes viable with the usual exception of the mother’s health being a real matter in favoring the mother’s life over the unborn.

    I have come to believe that the many Republican politicians believe that many of the Democrat’s proposals, programs and candidates are so outlandish that they only have to emotionally point to them and the majority of the voters will immediately recognize the problem with little or no prompting. They fail to see that this approach gets opposition doorknobs elected.

  758. Ken: “The only reasonable counter is to explain in an unemotional and articulate manner the problems with the Democrat agenda and a reasonable alternative.”
    .
    How do you propose to present such a message to an audience that doesn’t want to listen, and has plenty of gatekeeping to make sure it stays that way?

  759. angech (Comment #220842): “Can anyone explain why Rasmussen has slowly become Biden supporting over the last 4 months?”
    .
    I very much doubt that Rasmussen is “Biden supporting”.
    .
    I had noticed that Rasmussen is getting a much better approval rating for Biden than the RCP average. That seems to have happened gradually over the last year, although I have only eyeballed the data.

    Rasmussen here: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/biden_approval_index_history

    RCP average here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

    Maybe there has been a shift in Rasmussen’s sampling and/or response rates. Maybe the RCP average (not really a proper average) has changed. Or maybe it is Simpson’s Paradox.
    .
    If two polls get systematically different results, it must be due to differences in how they sample. Then if shifts in opinion are not uniform across all demographics, polls could shift relative to each other even if neither poll changes how it samples.
    .
    My sense is that Biden’s recent decline in approval has been heavily in demographics that lean strongly Democrat and that might be less likely to vote. Not uniform across all demographics.

  760. DaveJR (Comment #220850): “How do you propose to present such a message to an audience that doesn’t want to listen, and has plenty of gatekeeping to make sure it stays that way?”
    .
    That is the essence of the problem.

    A key part of Trump’s success was that he found a way around the gatekeeping.

  762. DaveJR (Comment #220850)

    Since it has not been faithfully applied how would we know it would not work. The MSM attempts to intellectually make the cases for Democrat proposals and programs even when the Democat politicians are using emotion and innuendo. That certainly is an added benefit that the Republicans do not have.

  763. Ken wrote: “Since it has not been faithfully applied how would we know it would not work.”
    .
    I’m not saying such a message cannot work, I just don’t see how you will get such a thing in front of an audience to attempt to try. This is the first hurdle to overcome.
    .
    There are plenty of interesting discussions from considerate, thoughtful, people on places like youtube, including from diehard democrats who didn’t throw their libertarian values away as soon as it became convenient to do so. It doesn’t matter what your political affiliation is. As soon as you step off the reservation, your opinion no longer has any merit and you will be socially tarred and feathered. You need only look at visible mainstream examples like Greenwald to see this in action.

  764. It will be interesting to see the media spin on the debt ceiling showdown. The Dem are claiming Biden has the 14th Amendment as his ace in the hole if GOP doesn’t cave.
    .

    Relevant sentence: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    .
    In the 2011 debt ceiling fight Obama did not threaten to use it though the Dems in the senate voiced eagerness to sell out the legislature should it be needed.

  765. Ken Fritsch (Comment #220854): “Since it has not been faithfully applied how would we know it would not work.”
    .
    How much traction has Tulsi Gabbard got? Glenn Greenwald? Matt Taibi? Bari Weiss? And many more. The answer is “almost none” outside Tucker Carlson’s audience. And now the Establishment is trying to muzzle Tucker.

  766. The 14th Amendment is not relevant to raising the debt ceiling, outside the fever dreams of the Left and the Deep State. The Constitution is perfectly clear: Only Congress can authorize the federal government to borrow money.

  767. Angech, Beware of the “walls are closing in on Trump” narrative. It’s been the narrative since 2016 and it was always wrong. But you are right about the FBI, it has become little better than the Russian secret police, investigating the political opponents of the regime. They are supposed to identify a crime and then find the perpetrator. Now they target a person of interest and spend millions of dollars and years searching for a crime. And they cover up the more serious crimes of the regime and its leaders.

    The only good news here is that thanks to Trump, the Federal courts still have some integrity and can overturn the worst of the abuses. They however don’t have the power to prosecute or investigate deep state crimes. I am hopeful that if this gets bad enough attorneys general in states like Florida and Texas may start to indict people for these abuses. Right now, its totally one sided with massive prosecutorial misconduct in places like New York, Fulton County, and other large cities.

    I can’t emphasize enough how necessary Trump was to starting a movement that can start a counter revolution that can reign in the deep state and big tech. A lot of people are radicalized including a lot of Republican elected officials. It’s an exciting time in some ways with the explosion of alternative media platforms and outlets and good reporting is making a comeback in many ways. You just have to look for it and realize that corporate media in the US are really essentially propagators of deep state leaks (almost always false or half truths) and narratives and radical ideology.

  768. Mike, Do not underestimate the reach of alternative media. Rumble for example is growing rapidly. Places like the Daily Wire are also growing rapidly. I think they have several hundred employees at this point. Substack is also growing and there is a growing revenue stream for people like Glenn Greenwald that enables him to hire people both producers but also reporters to help him do more stories. Also corporate media is I think in trouble because their business model no longer works. The size of these organizations has been shrinking of late and at some point the shareholders will tire of the loses. Also Twitter is still a go to site for professionals and influencers to get their messages out. I don’t think its going away either. RealClearPolitics is a great nonpartisan aggregator that also seems to have significant resources devoted to investigative journalism.

    It’s easy to support this new media financially. Patreon is one way (that’s where you can support Judith Curry) but you can simply become a paid subscriber of a substack creator often for a quite small amount. I think for example Greenwald costs me $5 per month. I have even given some gift subscriptions to my friends and relatives. I don’t visit the sites of corporate media outlets.

    Even in the climate sphere, its people like Curry and Pielke who have the biggest reach. Places like Ken Rice’s have become quite boring and lacking in interesting content. BTW, check out AR6 WG1. They no longer use climate models as a source of evidence for climate sensitivity based on their obviously abysmal performance. Even in climate science, there are some top honest scientists who seem to have displaced Mann and Dessler.

  769. David Young (Comment #220862): “Do not underestimate the reach of alternative media. Rumble for example is growing rapidly. Places like the Daily Wire are also growing rapidly.”
    .
    Excellent point.

    I don’t think that such media have much impact right now, at least not outside the ranks of those who have already been red pilled. Right now is what seems relevant for Kenneth’s claim. But they do provide hope that things will change in future. Hopefully, in the not too distant future.
    .
    I suspect that whatever Tucker Carlson does next will accelerate the process.

  770. I don’t know that the alternate media is growing so much as the legacy media is doing self harm. They have become so rigid in thought that their agreement on a subject is as likely to be ideological collusion as a finding of truth. Who can tell the difference? Not I.

  772. Seeing recent references to Queen Elizabeth saying bad things about Meghan Markle:
    “Queen Elizabeth II was ‘surprised’ when Meghan Markle ‘dismissed’ her advice”
    “Queen Elizabeth publicly called Harry meeting ‘evil’ Meghan a ‘complete catastrophe”
    While these sources are ‘confidential’ and not well corroborated, I find them plausible. I have no doubt the Queen was in on the decision not to hire Megan as a ‘working royal’. Although Charles played the heavy at the time, Elizabeth was still in command of the firm. Harry even appealed Charle’s decision to her, but she returned him to his father. The family feud spiraled out of control after that.
    https://nypost.com/2023/05/05/queen-elizabeth-reportedly-called-meghan-markle-evil/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost_sitebuttons
    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-harry-queen-elizabeth-sophie-b2318236.html

  773. Lucia,
    Trump will pay the judgement and claim the accusations are false. I doubt there will ever be definitive proof, but we should remember that the trial was in NY. Unlikely Trump could ever get a non-prejudiced jury under these circumstances.
    .
    Funny though that the accusations arise 30+ years after the fact. Really? Rape is horrible and should be punished. Waiting 25+ years to make such accusations seems a bit odd.

  774. SteveF,
    Evidently what happened is she said something to people– not in court, just told people her version of the story. Then he called her a liar in public– saying she made it up. So the suit includes a defamation component.
    .
    Maybe if he’d just said, “That didn’t happen”, there would be no defamation suit?

  775. I can’t emphasize enough how necessary Trump was to starting a movement that can start a counter revolution that can reign in the deep state and big tech. A lot of people are radicalized including a lot of Republican elected officials.

    Trump was nothing more than a useful idiot. He is without principles save that of self promotion. He is capable of making a good idea sound bad with his crude delivery.

    It will take measured intellectual arguments to point out the problems of the administrative state and that does not appear to be forthcoming from Trump and/or his minions.

  776. Ken:

    Trump was nothing more than a useful idiot. He is without principles save that of self promotion. He is capable of making a good idea sound bad with his crude delivery.

    .
    There is definitely some truth there Ken. But sometimes direct delivery is appreciated for its courageousness. Trump, not being reliant on corporate donors or the MSM to burnish his image, had the unique standing to state inconvenient things that were made even more obvious by his plain language. To some degree Sen (R) John Kennedy has a very plain spoken delivery, self-parodying that point in his deep southern accent. I think he’s great.
    .
    Trump doesn’t have half the verbal skills of a Vivek Ramaswamy or Tucker Carlson. That comes out in his debates. But he’s not corrupt IMO, and mostly has the correct instincts on policy and most especially diplomacy.
    .
    In a larger sense too, vindication of Trump supporters lies in Trump gaining vindication. Conversely, a demonstration of the successful destruction of Trump will stand as a warning to any other individual in his position (Elon or others). Do you want the deep state to prove unvanquishable? Do you think Biden is the true power leader in the US? If not, who or what is?

  777. They didn’t convict Trump of “civil” rape (what an oxymoron), only sexual abuse so the jury wasn’t buying the whole story. They downgraded the potential outcome. I agree with Trump’s lawyers that he shouldn’t be tried in Manhattan.

  778. Tom,

    I agree with Trump’s lawyers that he shouldn’t be tried in Manhattan.

    Perhaps. Why didn’t they get it moved?
    .
    It was a civil trial and for something that happened long ago. And for which physical evidence was not collected. Rape is a heavy charge. So, I’m not surprised the jury didn’t decide on “guilty” for that.
    .
    This is still not a great outcome for Trump.
    .

  779. Tom

    They didn’t convict Trump of “civil” rape (what an oxymoron)

    Well… no. In a civil trial, (where the standard of proof is “more likely than not) the jury did not find Trump guilty.
    .
    The crime isn’t “civil” rape vs. criminal rape. The trial is civil vs. criminal.

  780. It is certainly no surprise that a Manhattan jury ruled against Trump in a civil case. We don’t know what he did to her physically, but he definitely smeared her publicly. Now that I think about it, Trump defamed a lot of little people. Punching below his weight is one of his many character flaws. Remember the Gold Star parents Gazala and Khizr Khan? They had the audacity of saying bad things about Trump at the Democrat convention. Remember President Mean Tweets? He would ruthlessly attack people I had never heard of. I would not be surprised to see more defamation suits. I hope it keeps him busy for a while.

  781. Well Ken, I was wondering how long it would take for the emotional outbursts to start. But what you say doesn’t make sense. Normally, one would say something like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney are useful idiots for the American security state. Who is Trump a useful idiot for?

    It is hard to deny that Trump was a transformational figure for the Republican party. Just compare Jeb Bush and Ron DeSantis. Totally different in tone and in willingness to fight for conservative principles. These kind of changes evoke strong emotions. The Republican party has become a lot more conservative due to Trump. It’s hard to see how any real conservative wouldn’t welcome that. DeSantis has proven beyond any doubt that this brand of conservatism can win even in formerly purple states by attracting working class people of all races and ethnicities. I can’t imagine that Asa Hutchinson has more followers than could be packed into a VW bus. Trump and DeSantis’ formula is the only reason the Republican party isn’t dead.

    Trump won the only way a Republican can win the presidency given the censorship industrial complex and the deep state. He created a movement of people who were personally loyal to him. And he attacked the media and is now attacking the deep state. During his term, he was under such intense attack, he was not ready to take the dramatic steps that were needed. And there were a lot of useful idiots for the deep state in his administration too. Their strategy depended on deception, secrecy, and anonymity. It won’t work a second time.

    I would recommend you listen to a little Glenn Greenwald or Ben Shapiro to understand how the political landscape has been totally transformed. Neither is a Trump follower and both have balanced takes on him. What is totally remarkable is how far real conservatives have come in moving toward Greenwald’s positions on quite a few issues around the deep state and media corruption and how Democrats and liberals have switched their positions on the most important issues. They now seem to worship the CIA, the deep state, and the intelligence community. In fact they are weaponizing them to persecute their political opponents. I don’t think this has happened before in our history.

    The real and deepest value of Trump was that he questioned many of the fundamental political dogmas of the elites and caused them to out themselves for what they are, deeply corrupt and dishonest. Trump spawned what is a rapidly growing alternative media universe that could grow more influential than the censorship industrial complex. Fervently do we hope and fondly do we pray that this scourge of corruption will be lifted from us (to paraphrase a famous man).

  782. If you are unaware what a desperate situation we are in, you can read my recent post at Climate, Etc. It’s deeply sourced and you can go to the primary sources too.

  783. And Ken, I deeply disagree with your idea that we might rely on “measured intellectual arguments to point out the problems of the administrative state.” The era of Asa Hutchinson is thank the Almighty over. It will take people willing to name and shame and tell the truth no matter who hates you for it. DeSantis does this actually better than Trump.

    In any case, these reasoned arguments have been out there for a long time. Glenn Greenwald has been making them since at least 2010 and before. They make no difference without strong people to pursue the remedies. If you are unaware of them, you need to do some reading. The problem here is that the corruption is so deep that normal RINO politics will be unable to change anything.

  784. What David just said.
    .
    Thanks David. And, also for your work at CE.
    .
    Breaking: Biden Says:

    I have been considering the 14th Amendment, and the man I have enormous respect for, Larry Tribe … thinks that it would be legitimate.

    .
    Biden also says that he is proud that no allegations of sexual assaults have ever been made against him. (kidding. I made that up.)

  785. David,

    I can’t emphasize enough how necessary Trump was to starting a movement that can start a counter revolution that can reign in the deep state and big tech. A lot of people are radicalized including a lot of Republican elected officials. It’s an exciting time in some ways with the explosion of alternative media platforms and outlets and good reporting is making a comeback in many ways.

    This is pretty disturbing stuff. As a conservative, I’m not looking for revolutions. I don’t think people being radicalized is a good thing. To hear you talk about this as an exciting time reminds me of hearing extreme leftists speak, frankly.
    As to the rest, people have been telling me that we are facing ‘The End’ because of the political situation since I was barely more than a child. Somehow it never seems to be as bad as all that, somehow we manage to keep staggering on.
    I don’t think Ken was being emotional.
    Shrug.

  786. For those who want Trump as their leader so be it, but I would not follow him to a gold mine. I do not understand how any decent human being can rationalize this man’s actions and character. Voting for him because there is no other choice I can understand as long as the voter (like SteveF and others here) proclaim that he is a scumbag.

    Trump is the best thing going for the Democrat party. After his victory over H. Clinton it has been downhill since for the Republican party, Trump and his political selections based on their pledge that he won in 2020.

    I have never voted for a Democrat or Trump and I never will.

  787. David,
    I’m rather amazed that you characterize what Kenneth wrote an an emtional outburst!?!?!!!!

  788. Ken, on which particular foreign or domestic policies did you agree more with Obama, Clinton and Biden versus with Trump? Thanks and I will respect your answer if you choose to. You already know where I stand on that question
    .
    If you generally agree more with Trump on policy does that mean you put personality as the most important leadership attribute?

  789. The Republican party has become a lot more conservative due to Trump.

    David, you need to do more reading. Trump is proclaimed more as a populist than a conservative. He invoked tariffs that hurt US companies and consumers. He went big on government handouts during the Covid-19 pandemic. He evidently thinks SS and Medicare are on a good path and uses arguments against DeSantis that sound much like the Democrats. He made a fool of himself when he was doing his daily talks on Covid-19 (it was all about himself).

    Most of those actions that were thought to be positive were pushed more by people like Mitch McConnell, for whom Trump has a great dislike, than by Trump. That is why I believe the label “useful idiot” fits Trump very nicely.

  790. Ron Graf (Comment #220883)

    As a libertarian my agreements with those individuals and including Trump would be none of the above. As a practical matter the longer the Republican party or part of it stays in bed with Trump the easier it will be for the Democrats to win elections.

    That the intelligentsia is biased in favor of Democrats does not somehow make their enemy, Trump, a better person. Like I said previously Trump can make a good idea sound sleazy.

    His attempts to change the election in 2020 should have made him, at least morally, ineligible to run for public office again.

  791. Mark, A lot of conservatives are tired of surrendering on every important social and political issue. As I say, people like Mitt Romney are so ingrained in their nice person persona they don’t see what is happening. They are constitutionally incapable of getting people pissed off at them for being effective at putting conservative policy in place.

    No one in the media calls Romney names because he’s totally ineffective as a check on the new elite dogmas. They attack Trump and DeSantis constantly because they are effective and a threat to the new cultural Marxism and the censorship industrial complex and the deep state.

    There really has been a big change in conservative thought in the last 6 years. The new conservatism is represented by the Daily Wire, Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson. Even Tulsi Gabbard and Glen Greenwald are forging working relationships with this new right on the biggest issues. It’s deep intellectually too, vastly more thought out than Rinoism ever was. Rinoism’s basic principles were defend big business, wink at vast expansions of state power and allow the state to control more and more of our lives (and now control the flow of information), and new-con foreign policy. This is totally discredited now. National Review represents a shrinking part of conservative thought, one that is not coherent or attractive.

    One of the most revealing things about the Trump era was the exposure of the never Trumpers as frauds who were never really conservative but made a lot of money pretending to be. They are now really just another arm of the censorship industrial complex.

    I would urge you to read my Climate Etc. recent post and some of the primary sources if you want to try to understand what is happening.

  792. David Young (Comment #220876): “It is hard to deny that Trump was a transformational figure for the Republican party.”
    .
    That is certainly so.
    .
    David Young: “The Republican party has become a lot more conservative due to Trump. It’s hard to see how any real conservative wouldn’t welcome that.”
    .
    I would not say that. Trump is a very different sort of conservative from those who came to dominate the party over the previous 20-30 years. But he is a populist more than a conservative; many conservatives find that to be unacceptable.
    .
    David Young: “The real and deepest value of Trump was that he questioned many of the fundamental political dogmas of the elites and caused them to out themselves for what they are, deeply corrupt and dishonest.”
    .
    Definitely true. Trump is a disruptor, which is very much what we needed in 2016. That made him a target of those who had grown comfortable. Conservatives have an innate dislike for disruption, even when the alternative is the steady destruction of what conservatives say they hold dear.

  793. Ken, Just out of curiosity where do you get your information on political issues? It cannot be overstated how corrupt the corporate media has become. You can read Gerth’s very long piece in Columbia Journalism Review exposing what Josh Seigel in Tablet calls the hoax of the century. Seigel lays out in detail how the war on terror has been brought home to the US. Its intelligence gathering tools are now used on Americans and its methods of suppression and propaganda are used domestically too.

    I’m pleading with you to read these articles. You won’t be disappointed.

    I’m also amazed that you don’t see how the deep state interfered to rig the 2020 election. They are still covering up the Biden corruption information. We now know for example that CIA people were soliciting people to sign the notorious disinformation letter about the laptop story. These people I think knew they were lying. And big tech just rolled over for them. But in reality this disinformation campaign never stopped after its origins in 2016.

  794. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #220885): “His attempts to change the election in 2020 should have made him, at least morally, ineligible to run for public office again.”
    .
    Why is it OK for Democrats to try to overturn elections? They tried it with the presidential election in 2000, 2004, and 2016; i.e., all the ones they lost. Another even more blatant example is the election of that George Santos clown last fall.

  795. The battle that never ends, Bakhmut…. successful Ukrainian counterattack. Tonight there is a video by the commander of the Azov Regiment, Andriy Biletsky.
    “The first commander of the Azov Regiment, Andriy Biletsky announced the defeat of the 72nd Brigade of the Russian Armed Forces, the 6th and 8th companies are completely destroyed near Bakhmut. The brigade reconnaissance [of the 72nd brigade] was defeated, Russian armored vehicles”
    https://twitter.com/albafella1/status/1656061666587492352?s=20
    Russian defeat confirmed by Prigozhin video:
    “Prigozhin said the 72nd brigade and Gazprom “Torch” PMC abandoned their positions after 500 Wagner members died to get them”
    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1655903508636348419?s=20
    Body cam and drone video of part of the battle [Caution it gets ugly]:
    “Interesting video of the 3rd brigade advancing on the southwest outskirts of Bakhmut city, many Russians dead, a BMP destroyed, and 3rd brigade tank passing over Russians, and some Wagnerites captured at the end.”
    https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1656124833610989568?s=20

  796. Mike, Perhaps you are right about populism and conservatism. But both terms are quite vague. For me conservatism is really social conservatism. Business interests often work against the interests of ordinary working people. Trump’s populism I think is more in line with common people’s interests and not reflexively in bed with big money. And that’s why the new Republican party attracts broad support from working class people across racial and ethnic lines.

    My analogy for our era is the gilded age. Over the last 50 years, big business in the US has gotten as concentrated and as anti-competitive as it was in the late 19th Century. Wealth inequality is as bad as then too. And in the gilded age there was an elite that indeed ruled. The malefactors of great wealth bought off both political parties. Big city bosses rigged elections using wide spread fraud. High immigration led to declining real wages. Both of those things are happening now.

    It did take a revolution of sorts to break up the elite cartel in the 19th century. It took people like Teddy Roosevelt who also liked to call people names and imply they were wicked but who also inspired the average American. Roosevelt was transformative just as Trump is today. The one alarming difference is that in the 19th century the press was still free. There were tens of thousands of newspapers with a very wide variety of opinions. Today we have a cartel that sticks to the ideology. The essentially state control of media is quite alarming.

  797. David,
    All of that is fine. I wouldn’t describe DeSantis as a ‘radical’ and I wouldn’t call his work in Florida as ‘revolutionary’ or even ‘counter revolutionary ‘. I think the man is a competent, energetic politician with pretty solid policy and a knack for handling a hostile press.
    I think you are crediting Trump with some things that he didn’t have much to do with, but perhaps that’s not important. Trump made some contributions despite his gross faults. He’s going to cost Republicans 2024 though.

  798. David,
    Also, if you want me to read something somewhere else, you better at least link it. I am certainly not going searching the threads at Climate Etc for you comments.

  799. If Trump wants to run for President it is his tight and privilege as an American Citizen.
    If Biden wants to run for President it is his right and privilege.
    Ditto for all other legal candidates.
    –
    The American way.
    –
    Candidates have their faults.
    They are people and they carry the scars of their efforts in life with them.
    –
    We all form opinions based on the cover of the book, the contents of the book and the opinions of critics and other people.
    –
    Trump and Kennedy, both played around, the Establishment covered for one so only the other is a sleaze.
    Biden and Nixon both looked after themselves, the Establishment only protected one.
    –
    There is no perfect politician or party.
    –
    Conservatives have a hard row to hoe in country where more and more people live in what they are told is relative poverty.
    Handouts beat tax cuts.
    Morality is no longer an issue when judges are appointed by political parties to pursue their opponents.
    The Republicans may lose but not because of Trump.
    The abortion issue (denying rights to women), on top of the increasing irrelevance of their policies will be the causes of. Their failure.
    Trump garnered votes by appealing to the poor and disadvantaged, by appealing to their pride in their nation, jobs for Americans, Americans first.
    A simple appealing and productive line of political sell by a master manipulator.
    Without him they could not have won 2016.
    With him they may well lose 2020 but not as badly as they would with a Mitch McConnell or Jeb Bush at the helm.

  801. I don’t understand you guys. Half the population absolutely despises Trump. He’d lose to a vegetable, in fact he already did. Move on for pity’s sake. The cult of personality isn’t going to make this work in 2024.

  802. Half the voting population plus one is democracy, Mark.
    –
    I think I understand your revulsion.
    –
    Perhaps you should consider why people will respond to anti establishment memes and people.
    –
    When the establishment gets too big for its boots and ignores the common man
    The French Revolution,
    Cromwell,
    The American Revolution.
    –
    2016.
    People stop complaining and start voting.
    Trump, De Santis, anyone other than another faceless thoughtless politician.
    –
    Trump is not. Ideal.
    –
    as you sometimes comment “Shrug”.
    –
    The system is always broken badly in the first place for change to occur.
    –
    Fix the system.
    Hopefully find a better person to fix the system but do not complain if you let it break in the first place…

  803. Kenneth

    That the intelligentsia is biased in favor of Democrats does not somehow make their enemy, Trump, a better person.

    Bingo! That’s where all these “arguments” that focus on how bad the Demoncrats are don’t really help the GOP or Trump or really any not-Democrats. If you want to explain how any individual not-Democrat is good– you have to explain how they are good. And if that person’s record is public (which Trump’s is) you have to be correct in your claims.

  804. Russel

    The battle that never ends, Bakhmut…. successful Ukrainian counterattack.

    Did the Wagner group get their arms? Did their leader P??? have them withdraw? Today was supposed to be the day. (I’m guessing on on the 2nd, no idea on the first.)

  806. Angech, I expressed no revulsion, and I can’t find a single thing in your response that connects in any way to anything I said. Why put my name at the top of a set of remarks that’s got nothing to do with me. How ’bout quit.
    [Edit: Also, are you trying to muscle in on my shrug?
    Glare.
    ]

  807. Mark B: “David,
    Also, if you want me to read something somewhere else, you better at least link it.”
    .
    Here is David’s post for CE: How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science
    Posted on April 23, 2023 by curryja | 391 Comments
    by David Young
    .
    Here is NYT veteran reporter Jeff Gerth’s scathing takedown of the NYT and Wa Po on Russiagate in his series in the Columbia Journalism Review.
    .
    Here is an article on Jeff Gerth’s scathing takedown of MSM’s collusion with the Dem controlled US Intel complex.
    .
    Mike M. “Conservatives have an innate dislike for disruption, even when the alternative is the steady destruction of what conservatives say they hold dear.”
    .
    That is a strangely accurate insight that might explain why some are so offended by Trump but not offended by 50 top CIA officers colluding with Mike Morrell, as directed by Anthony Blinken, to fabricate a talking point for Biden to protect him from the exposure that he obviously sold his influence to the primary US geostrategic rival.

  808. Oh. A top level post. My apologies, I thought you were asking me to go look at comments.
    I may read this when I have time. Thanks.

  809. mark bofill (Comment #220896): “I don’t understand you guys. Half the population absolutely despises Trump. He’d lose to a vegetable, in fact he already did. Move on for pity’s sake. The cult of personality isn’t going to make this work in 2024.”
    .
    Yet polls show Trump beating Biden in a rematch. And he won’t need to win the popular vote to win the electoral college. The public increasingly knows that Biden is mentally incompetent.
    .
    To the extent that there is a “cult of personality” it is not enough to get Trump the nomination. Any such support must be significantly less than his low point in the primary polls.
    .
    That said, I think that there are a lot of people who very much don’t want either Trump or Biden. I suspect that when forced to make a decision in the voting booth as opposed to giving an opinion to a pollster, they will not choose Trump. So I very much doubt Trump can win unless conditions are such that almost any Republican could win.

  810. Angech: “Trump and Kennedy, both played around, the Establishment covered for one so only the other is a sleaze.
    Biden and Nixon both looked after themselves, the Establishment only protected one.”
    .
    People are still not generally aware that FDR had a mistress in the WH, Pres. Johnson did while senate majority leader, Clinton we found out not only had one mistress, Jennifer Flowers, played around while President and even sexually assaulted at least one woman, Anita Broderick. The media didn’t hold it against them.
    .
    As for corruption, Nixon only was guilty of covering up a small black bag op that was, according to documentarian James Rosen, a CIA operation to get kompromat on Dems.
    .
    Clinton took money from China but otherwise was a normal handouts for votes Democrat. Obama weaponized the IRS, FBI, CIA and DoJ. Reagan illegally funded Nicaraguan anti-communist guerillas. The later was made into a huge news story and historic scandal, second only to Watergate.

  811. Pardon my previous posts being disjointed….. Things at Bakhmut are not happening in an organized fashion.
    -Three days ago, Drama Queen Prigozhin posted a video saying he got everything he wanted and is staying in Bakhmud.
    -Yesterday the Ukrainian commander posted a video saying a counteroffensive had routed the Russian regular army protecting one of Prigozhin’s flanks.
    -Last night Prigozhin posted a video condemning the Russian army for fleeing positions that he had originally taken that had cost 500 of his soldiers to be killed.
    Stay tuned, there are hints that the Ukrainian offensive is ongoing.

  812. Glenn Greenwald and Ben Shapiro give what is a balanced view of Trump. Glenn points out that there were no new wars under Trump. Shapiro points out that overturning Roe was due to Trump nominating Federalist approved judges. The Abraham accords were a breakthrough in the Middle East which our current corpse of a leader has allowed to dissipate. Aside from covid where Trump was too deferential to expert idiots, his record is both pretty conservative and pretty good.

  814. Russel,
    I actually thank you for the quick news flashes. I then go google….. I told Jim and then he googled and saw the news about the Patriot missiles.
    Of course everything is confusing and disjointed right now. Some things will be incorrect or misleading. But things can’t be great for Russia because even if Prigozhin is exaggerating or trying to find a scapegoat for losses, it’s clear things aren’t going well. If they were going well, he’d be trying to position himself to take credit.
    .
    That said: the tide could turn. If it does, I’m sure Prigozhin will be explaining how he turned it.

  815. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-claims-gains-around-bakhmut-as-fighting-rages-74d391e9
    .
    P is evidently still threatening to withdraw:
    .

    Mr. Prigozhin has vacillated publicly over Wagner’s continuing role in Bakhmut, promising last week to withdraw his troops from the city by May 10 and then saying he had changed his mind because the Defense Ministry had promised to provide him with the ammunition his troops need to keep fighting.

    On Tuesday, he said the ministry hadn’t given him the promised ammunition and that he would make a decision about whether Wagner would continue to contest the city or leave it to troops overseen by the Defense Ministry. “We’ll keep insisting for a few more days,” he said.

  816. Mike,

    Yet polls show Trump beating Biden in a rematch.

    Some of them do anyway. Others don’t. Here is RealClearPolitics on it. 538 polls here.

    That said, I think that there are a lot of people who very much don’t want either Trump or Biden. I suspect that when forced to make a decision in the voting booth as opposed to giving an opinion to a pollster, they will not choose Trump. So I very much doubt Trump can win unless conditions are such that almost any Republican could win.

    That’s more or less how I see it as well.

  817. Trump can easily win. Biden dies or becomes incapacitated after the primaries and Harris takes over.

  818. The Ghost of Kiev lives 🙂
    .
    Reported
    .
    KYIV, May 10 (Reuters) – A Ukrainian military unit said on Wednesday it had routed a Russian infantry brigade from frontline territory near Bakhmut, claiming to confirm an account by the head of Russia’s Wagner private army that the Russian forces had fled.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-unit-says-russian-brigade-flees-bakhmut-outskirts-2023-05-10/
    .
    Actual event
    .
    Forward Russian infantry company 8 km southwest of Bahkmut pulls back 1 km to a new position on May 7. No change in position since.
    .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5UpnuqxdM

  820. Ed Forbes, your post is Russian propaganda.
    Actual event:
    “Interesting video of the 3rd brigade advancing on the southwest outskirts of Bakhmut city, many Russians dead, a BMP destroyed, and 3rd brigade tank passing over Russians, and some Wagnerites captured at the end.”
    https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1656124833610989568?s=20
    Prigozhin words are spliced in condemning the Russian army for fleeing in panic.
    Vid of Prigozhin with English subtitles:
    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1655903508636348419?s=20

  821. Ed-
    The guys gripe is one Reuters report used the word “outskirts” to mean “area just outside Bahkmut”. Call the ukraine-english translation unit and get on their tails! I mean..this sort of ginormous war reporting attrocity must never happen again!

    .
    Also: Do you have a video that suggests “fled” is not an accurate translation of Prigozhin words? Perhaps Prigozhin only said “orderly retreat done for strategic purposes?” Who knows what other sorts of translation errors could cause havoc!

  822. Angech,
    You know what? I apologize for my comment. I didn’t understand at first, but I think I do now. I think you may be referring to the fact that I am not interested in revolutions or radicals when you mention ‘revulsion’. I did after all suggest that the words sounded like something an extreme leftist might utter, and it’s not unreasonable to assume such utterance would inspire revulsion.
    So – you go on to refer to historical examples of ‘the system being broken’ and appear to be suggesting that if the problems don’t get solved within the system they will be solved by revolution.
    Do I have this right? Before I respond, I’d at least like to try to make sure I understood what you meant. Pointless if I don’t.

  823. Poignant post today:
    “You often admire Ukrainian resilience and wonder how do we manage to carry on despite everything.
    The truth is – we’re all exhausted. The war takes its toll on everyone.
    But the other truth is – we don’t have a choice. This is literally an existential war – we fight for our survival. If we stop, all of Ukraine will suffer the same fate as Bucha.
    So every day we do whatever we can to help our Army and help Ukraine win. We know why we fight. That’s why we don’t get tired.”
    From: Anton Gerashchenko @Gerashchenko_en Ukrainian patriot. Advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Founder of the Institute of the Future. Official enemy of Russian propaganda

  824. My understanding from reliable sources was Bahkmut was captured about 6 months ago, followed by the quick collapse of the entire Ukrainian army. Did I miss something? Oh, and the de-arming of NATO and the economic collapse of western civilization. I haven’t gone outside because I assume zombies were also prowling my neighborhood.

  826. Russell, I would be skeptical of anything on Twitter about the progress of the war. Those photos have no documentation of where and when they were taken.

    The statement about Ukrainians being exhausted makes sense. Perhaps 150,000 military casualties and probably that many civilians is a little less than 1% of Ukraine’s population. It makes Zelenski’s position seem irrational. Crimea is not going to be coming back to Ukraine.

  827. Tom Scharf,
    “Did I miss something? ”
    Yes, you didn’t mention the pincer movement around Kyiv. It turned the city into a caldron.

  828. David Young,
    Don’t dismiss my post without evidence. Those pictures are not random grabs from Twitter. They come from OSINT sites that I follow. If you have contradictory information that supports your allegation post it. Otherwise…..you have nothing.

  829. I’ll just mention a couple more successes of Trump’s administration.

    The first is the border. After a year of floundering, Trump came up with some creative solutions that worked. The threat of tariffs on Mexico was genius and really worked. Also the remain in Mexico policy was successful. The last 2 years of Trump’s tenure border encounters were running around 30,000 per month. The oval office house plant’s numbers have been running 300,000 per month and are set to skyrocket. Oh and real wages are falling perhaps because the unskilled labor pool has increased by perhaps 5 million in the last 2 years.

    A second one was real wages which did rise during Trump’s tenure probably due to a decrease in immigration and refuges as well as a booming economy and Trump’s encouragement for American businesses to bring jobs back from overseas.

    A third one was the covid vaccine development. Despite the fact that the vaccine was never more than a short term benefit it probably did buy time until covid evolved to be pretty harmless. The authoritarian implementation of vaccine mandates was irresponsible and caused a lot of net harm to healthy young people. It is amazing to listen to Biden’s press flack gaslight this.

  830. Mike M,
    It is interesting that an ex-post facto civil law in NY was only very recently enacted to allow civil suits long after the statute of limitations on claims of sexual assault. Save for that ex-post law, no civil case could have been filed. Given the fact that no police report nor civil suit was ever filed at the time, the current civil suit does make me wonder. Trump is (of course) suspect, but no police report? It stretches credulity.
    .
    Not only is the NY law ex-post, it was valid for only one year after passage, then ceased to exist. Enough time for civil suits to be filed against, oh say, someone like Donald Trump. I would like to know if the law was passed specifically to allow civil cases against Trump. My guess: yes, likely it was.
    .
    Oddly enough, ex-post laws are clearly prohibited for all criminal cases, but the SC has held that civil ex-post statutes are allowed…. opening the door for targeting people a state government doesn’t like with civil suits.

  831. Russell, I’m not dismissing it just pointing out that just as in any war there is a lot of propaganda out there. Unless you can present evidence of accuracy for this site you follow, I don’t care enough to spend much time on it.

    From the Wiki page (not a great source, but this makes sense to me) on OSINT:

    “The sharing of open-source intelligence on social media has raised ethical concerns, including over the sharing of graphic images of bodies and of potentially military-sensitive data.[33] Matthew Ford of the University of Sussex has noted that “Ukrainians fear such images will reveal their tactics, techniques, and procedures,” and that Ukrainians have therefore undertaken a degree of self-censorship.[34] Concerns have also been raised about the potential dissemination of misinformation, such as through fake accounts posing as insider sources.”

  832. Interesting SteveF. It is impossible to underestimate the cartel’s full court press to “get” Trump by any means necessary. It amazes me that nothing has stuck on the criminal front. That means to me that Trump must have operated within the law, both in the private sector and in the White House. Hard to operate within laws that haven’t been passed though.

    The gaslighting is amazing and indicates to me panic and desperation.

  833. David Young,
    “Despite the fact that the vaccine was never more than a short term benefit it probably did buy time until covid evolved to be pretty harmless.”
    .
    Really? Please show data which proves that claim. What I have seen in data is that people who were at significant risk (mostly the elderly) who refused the vaccine had a far higher rate of death than the vaccinated, even after the “less dangerous” but more contagious strains developed. The single biggest determining factor in death rates in different states within the USA (after number of elderly) is vaccination status. Sates with high vaccine refusal rates among the elderly had much higher death rates among the elderly.
    .
    Yes, there was never any need to force vaccination on young heathy people, and especially not young healthy men who were at clear risk of cardiac damage from the vaccines. Yes, the entire effort to force people to follow nutty covid rules (masking, social distancing, closing businesses, etc) was foolish, costly, and destructive. But the data are clear: vaccines saved lots of lives.

  834. David,
    Trump accomplished some good things and deserves credit for them. Full stop.

  835. David Young,
    “I don’t care enough to spend much time on it.”
    You cared enough to spend time trashing it in a post but didn’t care enough to spend time investigating first. My sources are always available upon request. The Dead District, the source of this has 123,000 followers on Twitter. This site has been dead right nearly every time in its posts for nearly a year.

  836. SteveF

    Save for that ex-post law, no civil case could have been filed. Given the fact that no police report nor civil suit was ever filed at the time, the current civil suit does make me wonder. Trump is (of course) suspect, but no police report? It stretches credulity.

    The defamation part of the suit could have proceeded. That’s where he claimed she was a liar who made the whole thing up. The assault rape could not have proceeded.
    .
    It doesn’t entirely stretch credibility that there was no police report; that happens. But it does make the accusation significantly less credible. Civil does use “preponderance of the evidence.” It sounds like Trump was truly awful on the stand– saying lots of things in his “Trump” way.

  837. Lucia,
    “The defamation part of the suit could have proceeded.”
    .
    Um, he-said-she-said just about never leads to a jury award…. of course, in any case against Trump before a NYC jury, an award was virtually certain.
    .
    I think an adult (she was in her 50’s!) who says nothing about a claimed sexual assault/rape for many years is not credible. Its much like the claims against Kavanaugh yet again, except at least those claims could not lead to a civil suit. How can there be credible evidence of a rape/assault 25 years after the fact, with no contemporaneous evidence? I just don’t believe her.
    .
    I do believe it is likely the State of New York passed the law to go after Trump. Communications between her (or her representatives/attorneys) and state lawmakers should be disclosed. I am sure they won’t be.
    .
    I expect there will be appeals filed, both state and Federal.

  838. Lucia,
    BTW, were any woman to accuse me of having raped her 30 years ago, I would say she was a liar and that she made the whole thing up. That would not be defamation, it would be me telling the truth. The civil case against Trump was brutally unfair and offends any reasonable definition of justice, at least outside of places like Manhattan.
    .
    Trump is in fact a horrible person who is easy to loath, but the civil case against him for events of 25+ years ago is beyond the pale.

  839. Steve, there was a large study in Sweden I think in 2021 or 2022 that tracked their national health data which is quite good. 2 dose vaccination was roughly 85% effective against getting symptomatic covid and against hospitalization for the first couple of months. After 9 months the effectiveness against infection was -15% but the confidence interval just barely included zero. (yes it was negative). For hospitalization it was as I recall 25% with a pretty big confidence. The later doses had significantly worse effectiveness. I think I saw one study showing that the bivalent vaccine wore off after 2 months.

    But yes, the vulnerable and very old were benefited by the vaccine.

    What was inexcusable were the vaccine mandates especially given the fact that effectiveness waned so quickly and that people who had gotten covid had immunity superior to vaccination. There is a new paper by Makary and a host of authors at Oxford showing that vaccine mandates for college students are unethical. It’s not even a close call.

    How can someone who thinks women should solely make their pregnancy health care decisions think that its OK to force people to take a vaccine when the harm outweighs the benefit in at least half of them?

  840. Steve, I think we mostly agree on vaccination. I also did some preliminary exploration of state covid death rate and obesity rates. Looked like a pretty good correlation to me but I didn’t do any formal statistics. You will also notice that death rate is strongly correlated to percentage of young people. Thus, Utah and Alaska both had quite low rates. Utah has lots and lots of kids. covid death rate probably has many many contributors, with vaccination being one of them.

    In Europe though some of the most heavily vaccinated countries had pretty high death rates. Sweden’s rate was among the lowest with a PFR of 0.16%. If you look at Israel I was shocked to see that they had 4 waves all with roughly the same number of deaths. Israel was very heavily vaccinated. So why weren’t the later waves a lot less severe? Just a lot of things don’t add up here.

  841. SteveF

    That would not be defamation, it would be me telling the truth. The civil case against Trump was brutally unfair and offends any reasonable definition of justice, at least outside of places like Manhattan.

    If she were not lying I think it is defamation especially if you said it in certain ways. (Which Trump could have– being Trump. That said, I don’t know exactly what he said.). She alleged defamation and was able to bring it in court. She got the jury to believe her at least in part.
    .
    Generally speaking, with normal individuals, no one would have been able to collect enough evidence to convince anyone 30 years down the road.
    .
    Ok….. This is giving some details about what he said:

    After he denied the allegations and accused her of lying in a bid to bolster sales of her forthcoming book, she filed a defamation lawsuit against him in November 2019. That suit stalled in the courts for years and is yet to make it to trial.

    Ok… so he accused her of lying specifically to bolster sales of her book. If untrue, that would be defamatory if she is not lying. It doesn’t matter how long ago the event was– if the defamation would be recent.
    .
    I obviously have no idea what happened 30 years ago. Goggling some more….

    .
    I’m rather amazed at her behavior 30 years ago also though.

    In the book excerpt, she said she was shopping at a Bergdorf-Goodman in New York when Mr Trump approached her and struck up a conversation. He asked her for help picking out a gift for a woman.

    She then alleged that he took her to the lingerie section of the store and asked her to try on an item for him in a dressing room before pinning her up against a wall and sexually assaulting her for three minutes.

    I can’t imagine going to the lingerie section of a store with a man who just struck up a conversation with me and then modeling the lingerie for him. (Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But..huh?)

    “She is trying to sell a new book – that should indicate her motivation,” the then-president said, adding that her book “should be sold in the fiction section”.

    He should have just stuck to “Didn’t happen.” Trump being Trump would be incapable of that.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-verdict-e-jean-carroll-accusation-rape-guilty-b2336011.html

    It does sound like his answers on the stand did him no favors either.

  842. Luica,
    “She got the jury to believe her at least in part.”
    .
    I wonder how many Republicans were on the Jury.

  843. Lucia,
    “If she were not lying I think it is defamation especially if you said it in certain ways.”
    .
    But I can assure you she would be lying! You can’t defame someone by speaking the truth…. at least not under US law.
    .
    I think this is a subject on which we are very unlikely to ever agree.

  845. Once upon a time…
    I’m putting a picture together from disparate sources and trying some sense of it…so this might not all be fact …but here goes.
    Wagner [Prigozhin] turned protection of the north and south flanks of Bakhmut over to the regular Russian army. This was done so that Wagner [Prigozhin] could concentrate what was left of its force on driving the remaining Ukrainian forces from the west side of town.
    Ukrainians mounted a surprise counteroffensive on these flanks. Two days ago part [a several-mile front] of the southern flank collapsed and the Russians fled several miles in retreat. The attack on the flanks continued today but with more limited success.

  847. SteveF

    But I can assure you she would be lying! You can’t defame someone by speaking the truth…. at least not under US law.

    Yes. But that statement might not apply to Trump. It’s oddly possible to believe he might do that. Though, her behavior was odd too. I mean…. going to model lingerie? To someone you just met? Very odd.
    .
    Trump could have sued her for defamation and otherwise shut up when she started circulating stories. That route would have prevented her from being able to sue him for defamation. Because I don’t think filing a law suit alleging defamation can ever be called deramation. (I understand the risk of suing for defamation. But it can be the wiser course than calling someone a liar and saying they made it all up to see their books.)

  848. Lucia,
    She accuses him of sexual assault and rape in a department store dressing room. Maybe someone in the store would have heard her if she started yelling (“help, help”). And how does a guy wander into a lady’s dressing room in a department store, rape a woman, and have nobody notice? It is all so absurd as to beggar belief. Yes, Trump is Trump, and likely made the kind of offensive asshole-type statements be always seems to make. But this is the kind of preposterous legal case that should have been laughed out of the courtroom. Yet it wasn’t….. that alone makes the whole thing absurd.

  849. All the smart people realize that noone would make up a story that dumb, so it must be true. For the rest of us, the only way that story even begins to looks credible is if the words “sexual assault” are removed.

  850. Can the assault-defamation verdict be appealed? The 5 million probably does not hurt as much as it helps his status as being targeted unfairly. My guess is that she was flirting with a star and it went beyond where she wanted and had to stop him. She was a writer of an advice column for the women’s magazine Elle. It seems likely she would have known to report it to police if she thought there was crime. The fact that she mentioned it at most to two friends seems to back up that it was an ugly moment rather than an intentional assault, if it really happened. What exactly she told the friends 30 years ago could have been reinvented too. She could have been boasting about the encounter. I am about 60/40 thinking that something happened. I am about 99.9% certain that the Access Hollywood tape got her calling book agents.

  851. Ron Graf,
    There were some dubious rulings on allowable evidence that the judge made, and the case could be reversed or re-tried based on those. There also the potential for appeal of the size of the award.

  852. SteveF

    And how does a guy wander into a lady’s dressing room in a department store, rape a woman, and have nobody notice? It is all so absurd as to beggar belief.

    I agree– it sounds very odd. I don’t know what dressing rooms at Bergdorf Goodman were like of if they are somehow special.

    Her side did bring forward some sorts of witnesses from “the time”– I don’t know who or what the witnesses said. They may only be people she told– or who knows, maybe they found a clerk who said she did yell and people came?
    …
    Hmm… yeah. No real witnesses https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

    Since there are no third-party eyewitnesses and no physical evidence, Carroll’s case hinges on whether the jury finds her credible. Trump’s attorney used his cross-examination to try to cast doubt on Carroll’s motives and memory, but Carroll did not waver, saying “Those are facts that I could never forget.”

    .
    She does say this about the dressing room:

    She testified that on Thursday evenings during the 1990s, the sixth floor of the luxury department store wasn’t very busy, that an attendant wasn’t always present in the lingerie department and that the dressing rooms were sometimes unlocked.

    That’s actually plausible. I’ve been in lots of nearly vacant dressing rooms with at least seemingly no attendants. Still…. No witnesses is no witnesses.
    .
    I agree without physical evidence– rape kit etc, this would be laughed out of criminal court. But the standards are different in civil court.

  854. Ron Graf

    Can the assault-defamation verdict be appealed?

    Trump says he is appealing.

    The 5 million probably does not hurt as much as it helps his status as being targeted unfairly.

    This view will not be universal. Some will think this; others won’t.

    My guess is that she was flirting with a star and it went beyond where she wanted and had to stop him.

    Perhaps, but that interpretation would not help Trumps case. If that’s what happened, he would definitely be guilty of defamation given the full range of things he said. (For example: it would not be entirely made up to pump up sales of his book.)
    .
    And he might also still be guilty of assault because he might have gone further than the amount of consent granted. So, if your guess is correct, the jury verdict is actually correct.
    .
    Evidently, he didn’t even appear in court to deny or give his version of events. This can’t have helped him.

    She was a writer of an advice column for the women’s magazine Elle. It seems likely she would have known to report it to police if she thought there was crime.

    Not all crimes are reported, particularly not sex crimes. They aren’t reported for various reasons.
    .
    Ordinarily, this makes it much,much harder to pursue legal cases. But she can still later tell the tale in her book. And once she does that, if the person accused feels the need to object to it, they can either sue for defamation, or just say “I didn’t do that”, or refuse to engage etc.
    .
    Trump could have sued for defamation when the allegations were brought forward, but did not. Whatever that means.

  855. SteveF, There are a couple of reasons I’m skeptical of this US data.

    First, there is a well known phenomena known as healthy vaccinatee bias. Generally people who are healthier and wealthier tend to be the ones who get vaccinated. Doctors tend to not vaccinate people who are already ill or very old on the theory that it won’t improve their life expectancy. Covid killed mainly this type of person.

    Second, US health care records are a mess. Given the fact that hundreds of millions of doses were given out often in drive by vaccination sites, records are often incomplete. Also many patients are not good at remembering their health history or accurately reporting it. If the data relies on these databases, a lot of vaccinated people would have shown up as unvaccinated.

    I would place a lot more credence in the Swedish study for example where records are centralized and probably a lot more reliable.

    That said, I would withhold judgment especially given how much phony science and data was out there during covid. If you read my Climate Etc. post I document this in detail.

  856. I think the burden of proof should clearly be on her for the defamation and I’m not sure how she ever cleared that burden. Even though civil cases are preponderance of the evidence, there wasn’t any actual evidence here other than a he said / she said testimony 30 years later.
    .
    This should have been tossed out of court before trial IMO. Judgments of credibility without evidence are simply unfair. Somebody on the autism spectrum will likely not fair well against a sophisticated liar for example. There needs to be more. I don’t find that she had somebody testify she told them without actual evidence to be very compelling.
    .
    As I have said before, Trump can be a disreputable a-hole and also be unfairly persecuted simultaneously. The people in NY are out to get him, it is not paranoia. I’m repulsed by the entire thing.

  857. The efficacy of the covid vaccines was proven everywhere. They were very good against the original variant, good against delta, and not so good against omicron. A lot of FUD on this intentionally conflates recent (lack of) performance for infection and transmission with omicron versus performance against serious illness.
    .
    You have to be psychotic to not see this efficacy, but I suppose you can make that claim on the way to the moon landing denial meeting. There are enormous mountains of data here and they have normalized out everything a zillion different ways. If you don’t like the US system you can look at Israel and the UK. You are going to find they were very effective early, and less effective later as the virus changed.
    .
    This doesn’t mean these vaccines should be mandated. They also have variable performance against certain groups. There are many problems with how the statistics were done (dying with covid, not from covid, etc.). Healthy people under 30 weren’t getting a lot of benefit, but it also wasn’t very risky for them. Seniors were getting a lot of benefit, but diminishing returns now especially if you are frail. They were oversold to the point of evangelism by the usual scolding suspects. If you have had 2 to 4 shots then there is not a compelling reason to get more. If you already got covid then there isn’t a lot of need to get a vaccine.

  858. Tom Scharf

    I don’t find that she had somebody testify she told them without actual evidence to be very compelling.

    I wouldn’t find it actual evidence of rape or sexual assault. The problem for Trump is he evidently said she only made it up to sell her recently written and soon to be published books. So it suggest that she made it up long before she wanted to sell her recently written book.
    .
    I don’t know what the normal standards for throwing these things out with out a trial are. So I don’t know what should have been done nor what the likely outcome of an appeal will be.
    .
    This was a private, civil trial and brought by the plaintiff, not the State of NY. The State of NY may be out to get him– but they didn’t bring this case.

  860. Lucia:

    And he might also still be guilty of assault because he might have gone further than the amount of consent granted. So, if your guess is correct, the jury verdict is actually correct.

    .
    This is a question of timing. If he stopped as soon as she changed her consent then it was not assault. If he kept going while she was pushing him off, even for 3 seconds, that’s assault. IMO, I’m not a lawyer.
    .
    If a physical assault happened in the dressing room then he is liable of both charges. If it did not happen he is not liable for either, IMO, regardless of how he reacted to her accusation of rape.

  861. Tom, I’m going to need to see some evidence on the vaccine issue. I gave you enough information to find the study out of Sweden and a couple of reasons why US data is probably not trustworthy. Another one is that the CDC was actively lying all through the pandemic. They had two very flawed mask studies on their web site too. One relied on truncating the data on a cherry picked date when the full series showed the opposite (no benefit of mask mandates).

    You mentioned Israel and Britain. Britain had one of the highest covid death rates in Europe, albeit most of the deaths happened before the vaccination campaign. Israel had 4 waves of almost equal severity. If vaccines were supereffective the later waves should have been much milder. They were not. The first wave happened before the vaccines and the third one after the first vaccination campaign. It was maybe 6 months after that campaign. The fourth one was perhaps 10-12 months after the campaign. The big third wave is consistent with the Swedish study I cited earlier. In the UK the first and second waves happened mostly before the vaccination campaign.

    Read my Climate Etc. blog post. The pandemic spawned a flood of fraudulent science, public health establishment malfeasance and lying, and a flood of bad data. There was very explicit censorship of some of our best scientists who didn’t toe the party line. Including John Ioannidis, Martin Kuhldorff, Marty Makary, and Jay Battacharia to name just 4 of the biggest names. Ironically, you seem to agree with your most hated man, Trump on the vaccines. I think the story is complicated and that we were mislead in order to get people to get vaccinated. But you seem to be worryingly certain of what you say.

  862. mark bofill (Comment #220917)
    “So – you go on to refer to historical examples of ‘the system being broken’ and appear to be suggesting that if the problems don’t get solved within the system they will be solved by revolution.
    Do I have this right? Before I respond, I’d at least like to try to make sure I understood what you meant. Pointless if I don’t.”
    –
    I think so.
    I see America as struggling with all the changes in population mix and people’s expectations that have built up since the last change in the 70’s with the civil rights and war themes.
    So many people selfishly, but understandably, want their own piece of the cake but have no regard for everybody else.
    –
    The groups that win build resentment in the rest.
    So much anger.
    Revolution against the new status quo leads to Napoleon and Mugabe and Mandela, Ghandi etc.
    People at the front of these revolutions are despised by the people they are trying to displace and others looking on who do not understand the resentment.
    They can be good, bad, megalomaniac or sleazy. They arise from the mood of the electorate and reflect it, not cause it.
    –
    You mentioned that (Comment #220896) “Half the population absolutely despises Trump. He’d lose to a vegetable,”
    I thought that meant they would be revulsed (or revolted) by him.
    –
    I will go quiet for a moment as I appreciate your commentating and comment style, along with the other regulars, and don’t want no glare.

  865. Ron

    If he stopped as soon as she changed her consent then it was not assault.

    If he went further than she ever consented, it’s assault. And that’s how you described it

    My guess is that she was flirting with a star and it went beyond where she wanted and had to stop him.

    Going “beyond where she wanted” implies going past anything she ever consented to. That’s not the same as her giving consenting and then changing her mind. And “flirting” is no giving consent.
    .
    The way I read what you initially wrote as your guess, it would have been assault. I’m not saying assault necessarily happened — after all, that was just your guess. I’m only saying what you initially described as your guess is assault.
    .
    Now, if you’ve changed your guess to she initially thought she wanted something, consented, but changed her mind, that’s different.
    .
    As for the defamation charges: I think could still be liable for defamation but not assault for saying she made everything up to sell books. Even if they disagree about some details related to consent, that’s not the same as making everything up to sell books. And saying someone is making up everything in their book in order to sell books could be very damaging to a book authors reputation– so defamation.
    .
    Like it or not, Trump dealt with this badly.

    (1) It’s clear something happened, and his denials went too far. He claimed he’d never met her– which was not true. He claimed she wasn’t his type– which was not true she was clearly his type. He claimed she totally made up everything, which was not true. None of these mean he assaulted her– but stepping outside the truth is never going to help your case in a he said-she said.

    (2) He then chose not to appear in court to tell his side. If his version had been she had given consent but then changed her mind, he could have given that. Of course, this would be difficult for him because then he’s have to admit she didn’t make everything up. There would at least have been an incident– but with two different versions with one being consistent with assault and the other one being withdrawn consent.

    So the problem is that to the extent he tried to “rebut”, his version was riddled with lies. (That’s (1)). And then he gave no believable rebuttal– that is no (2). Now….I get that doing the things in (1) is– to some extent Trump being Trump– but it’s still a problem in court especially since he didn’t then take all that back and move to defense (2).

  866. David,
    Are you going to tell me that you haven’t seen any information on vaccine efficacy over the past 3 years? That’s your story? You have seen one study from Sweden and that is all there is as far as you know? Try Googling “efficacy of mRNA vaccines” for a start. FDA, CDC, NIH, UK, Israel, on and on and on and on and on and on. I mention UK and Israel because they have centralized healthcare and could track results better and faster than the US. You aren’t looking, or you aren’t seeing, you decide which one it is.
    .
    It was 95% effective against infection originally and basically 100% against serious illness in the FDA trials. Too bad that didn’t hold up. Look at the graph against the placebo.
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
    .
    https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(21)00947-8/fulltext
    “During the analysis period (Jan 24 to April 3, 2021), there were 232?268 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 7694 COVID-19 hospitalisations, 4481 severe or critical COVID-19 hospitalisations, and 1113 COVID-19 deaths in people aged 16 years or older. By April 3, 2021, 4?714?932 (72¡1%) of 6?538?911 people aged 16 years and older were fully vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2. Adjusted estimates of vaccine effectiveness at 7 days or longer after the second dose were 95¡3% ”
    .
    Omicron, UK
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451
    “… vaccine effectiveness (infection) after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% … dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks”
    .
    UK, Omciron, serious illness
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33378-7
    “VE after a 3rd dose peaked at 82.4% and dropped to 53.6% by 15+ weeks after the 3rd dose; using all admissions for >?=?2 days stay with a respiratory code in the primary diagnostic field VE ranged from 90.9% to 67.4%; further restricting to those on oxygen/ventilated/intensive care VE ranged from 97.1% to 75.9%. Among 65+ year olds the equivalent VE estimates were 92.4% to 76.9%; 91.3% to 85.3% and 95.8% to 86.8%.”
    .
    The virus changed over time, it evolved to escape vaccine immunity as one would expect.
    .
    There are hundreds of these studies and they basically all show similar data. Go look. I’m “worryingly certain” because I read a whole bunch of these things.
    .
    You are conflating notable bad behavior by some people and organizations with mass scientific fraud. The vaccine evangelists absolutely tried to censor dissent, especially as performance dropped against infection and transmission, and they were pushing mandates. If you want an example of bad behavior, they basically refused to acknowledge natural immunity was as effective as the vaccine.

  867. Trump says he has never met the woman, and AFAICT she never even proved they ever met. The effective standard in NY appears to be a detested Trump has to prove his innocence against a fabulist, prove a negative (something never happened), for a 30 year old undocumented event that the woman can’t even isolate to within a year. Anybody could be accused of something like this, and then it is simply a credibility test without evidence on the stand. That is all it takes? It seems a bit flimsy. I don’t think Judge Wapner of The People’s Court would have let this one go to trial. The jury saw it the way they did, I’m just not sure this kind of case is justifiable. I admit I did not follow this case closely though.

  868. Trying to decide if this was FUBAR or just SNAFU. ISW posted today on the Ukrainian counterattacks on the flanks at Bakhmut.
    Russian regular army units are replacing badly ‘attrited’ Wagner mercenaries on the flanks. The problem is the replacement units have been badly mauled by the Ukrainians elsewhere and are ‘nowhere near full strength’. Further complicating this was miscommunication between the advancing army units and the retreating Wagner units. Wagner left early or the army arrived late.
    My vote is SNAFU.
    ISW says the Ukrainian offensive is ongoing and having limited success.
    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-10-2023

  869. Something out of the ordinary… The US NAVY has had a P8-A Poseidon spy plane circling over the Western Black Sea and Eastern Romania since 3 AM [their time]. It originated at the Sigonella air base in Italy. There is a USAF tanker flying nearby. Because Russian fighters have been aggressive in this airspace recently, I bet there are US fighters nearby also but they would be flying dark.
    Screenshot: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1656563891424448512?s=20
    Live track if it is still in the air: https://www.flightradar24.com/303cd626

  870. David Young,
    The evidence for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines saving (mostly elderly) lives is overwhelming across multiple countries since they first became available. Being diagnosed with a covid infection is not the same as dying from covid, and insisting that we rely on studies that measure chance of infection rather than death is a pure straw-man argument. The vaccines clearly do not stop people from catching covid, but they do protect most elderly people from severe illness or death. I am forced to conclude your political inclinations are coloring your analysis. Cio.

  871. Tom Scharf,
    “Anybody could be accused of something like this, and then it is simply a credibility test without evidence on the stand.”
    .
    Yes, that is the issue I have with the case. It’s a damned popularity contest, where the defendant is a jerk who is easy to dislike, wealthy, very well known, and conducted in a city where he is deeply unpopular. The entire idea that someone can be punished financially after being accused of a ‘crime’ from 30 years before which was never reported and for which there is zero evidence is legal insanity. One more reason why sensible people will continue to vote with their feet and leave crazy places like NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.

  872. Tom Scarf,
    “Anybody could be accused of something like this, and then it is simply a credibility test without evidence on the stand.”
    .
    Not only ‘anybody’ can be so accused, two sitting SC justices were accused of sexual misconduct in exactly the same way: no evidence, no dates, no report of anything at the time. All such unsubstantiated accusations are outrageous; that our legal system has been contorted to enable the accusers is even more outrageous.

  873. Tom Scharf: “Trump says he has never met the woman, and AFAICT she never even proved they ever met.”

    This article contains a photo of Carroll and (allegedly) Trump, about 3/4 of the way down. The photo is from behind Trump, so I can’t identify him, but his wife Ivana is identifiable. (Not that I personally would recognize her.)

  874. Tom

    Trump says he has never met the woman, and AFAICT she never even proved they ever met.

    The showed photographs of them togethet. That may not convince you it’s ‘proven’, but others likely think it was. Others seems to have included the jury.

  876. This has the photo:
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-trial/index.html

    I’d suggest most people would consider that photo to constitute evidence that Trump at least met Jean Caroll. If rather than denying the possibility he’d said “I meet a lot of people. I don’t remember meeting her. I might have happened briefly at a bit event.” that might have worked. But the jury was justified in believing (a) he met her (because we have photographic evidence he did) and (b) he was just lying.

  877. “Anybody could be accused of something like this, and then it is simply a credibility test without evidence on the stand.”

    Well, here is the thing: obviously, the law is not and cannot be “if you didn’t file a police report and you didn’t mention it at the time you are never allowed to reveal the event“. People– including women– retain the right to report things that happened to them. And that can include rapes or sexual assaults they did not report.
    .
    Now: should we believe them? Well…. to the extent there is evidence, sure.To the extent there is none: be very dubious.
    .
    The other thing is if someone does call an author or journalist a liar who makes things out of whole cloth, that accusation (if believed) does cause reputational damage. So if it occurred recently (which this did) the author/journalist needs to be able to sue for defamation with some burden of proof to show it. There’ can’t be a “rape accusation” exception– otherwise the author/journalist is being deprived of a right that all others have.
    .
    So Caroll should have had a right to sue for defamation at least. That would have created the suit–and the proof would still have necessarily involved showing Trump was lying about at least some things.
    .
    The only real questions are: should she have been allowed to also sue for the sexual assault or rape or any crimes whose statue of limitations had run their course? That’s the dubious thing.
    .
    But the alleged defamation of her was recent. (Trump could also have sued for defamation, but did not. )

  878. Lucia:

    Like it or not, Trump dealt with this badly.

    .
    That is easy for an observer to say. Did you believe the Russian Dossier claim about the hookers? Did Trump handle that accusation badly too? What about Kavanaugh? Did he handle Blasey Ford’s accusation badly? I think most people believed her the day of her testimony. My wife did and all of her friends. Then, luckily for Kavanaugh, Ford’s acclaimed lifelong friend and primary witness threw her under the bus.
    .
    How does the photo tie into the story of them meeting at a department store? Real question.

  879. Lucia,
    “But the alleged defamation of her was recent.”
    .
    Well, sure, but that ASSUMES her allegations are true; there can be no defamation if she made it all up. With zero evidence, it seems to me it comes down a he-said-she-said question, with the jury outcome nothing but a popularity contest. Which Trump will lose in NYC every time.
    .
    As I said up-thread, I doubt we will ever agree on this. Accusing someone of a sex crime 25 or 30 years after the fact, with zero contemporaneous evidence, no date and no time, is for me an ethical outrage, because there is no effective defense against the allegation. And, not surprisingly, it is an outrage that seems to happen to people, even SC justices, who are politically unfavored by those bringing the charges.
    .
    Trump deals with everything badly. This is no exception. It is still unjust. It is still outrageous.

  881. Surely, if you are publicly accused of something, you should have the right to deny it without being accused of defamation.
    .
    A picture showing two people in each others vicinity at a party 35 years ago does not prove that they knew each other.
    .
    The jury did not find that Trump raped the woman, so how can they find him guilty of defamation for denying that?
    .
    Ridiculous.

  882. SteveF: “Trump deals with everything badly.”
    .
    Except Putin and Little Rocket Man and Iran and China and Europe.
    .
    But, I agree, for a man who is accused of a heinous act every Tuesday he should be better at his responses.

  884. StevedF

    Well, sure, but that ASSUMES her allegations are true;

    Sure. But unless you count Trumps words as “evidence”, there is also no evidence she “made it all up”. And the threshold for filing a civil suit isn’t “prove it’s true before you file”. That’s left to the jury or judge to decide after the evidence is brought forward.
    .

    Which Trump will lose in NYC every time.

    Perhaps. But Trump (or ‘this specific plaintiff’) is unpopular in NYC can’t be a standard barring her from suing. That can’t be a reason why she — uniquely– cannot allege defamation in a civil suit. I don’t know if civil suits can be transferred to other locations. If it was possible, it would have been wise for Trump’s lawyers to try to get it transferred.
    .

    Accusing someone of a sex crime 25 or 30 years after the fact, with zero contemporaneous evidence, no date and no time, is for me an ethical outrage, because there is no effective defense against the allegation

    Perhaps. But as I wrote: We also can’t have laws that tell people they can’t speak at all and we can’t have laws that bar civil defamation cases just because they touch on sexual behavior.
    .
    That would leave open her right to allege defamation and file a civil suit.
    .
    I could understand blocking the right to file a civil suit for anything criminal that it outside its statute of limitation. That would include rape, or even just petty theft or any number of things.
    .
    But I’m not seeing how we could bar the defamation suit.
    .
    So I’m going to ask you:
    Suppose the rape happened.
    .
    Do you think a rape victim should not be allowed to even mention it merely because no case was filed? And because they don’t have evidence handy? (Perhaps it happened while camping in a remote location in Idaho.) Such a ban on speech would certainly violate the first amendment. But do you think they ought to be barred from even speaking?
    .
    Do you think if called a liar, and that accusation causes reputational damage that affects their professional reputation– the rape victim should be barred from suing for defamation during the normal statutory period during which one can sue for defamation? (Note rape– defamation. In illinois, defamation suits must be filed fairly timely. I think it’s 2 years from when the defamation occurred or was learned of by the plaintiff.)
    .
    I need you, at least for now, to set aside the possibilities there was no rape. Should these two rights people normally have be forbidden to a rape victim just because an accusation of rape if believed is damaging to the person accused of rape?

  885. That picture is the “evidence” Trump raped this lady? I would say it definitely undermines Trump’s statement that he never met her, but this looked like a party. It’s completely plausible he doesn’t remember everyone he ever stood by at a party 30 years ago.
    .
    People really want to believe Trump is guilty of something … anything. A picture of the back of (probably) Trump’s head … rapist! How do we stop people from being persecuted from these type of accusations *if* they are being targeted for who they are? The obvious answer is minimum levels of evidence required to bring a lawsuit to trial. This exists at the criminal level to protect people from the state’s vindictiveness (someone notify Alvin Bragg). Perhaps she met these requirements, I didn’t follow it too closely.
    .
    There needs to be some minimum requirement to bring cases to court. For example there are anti-SLAPP laws to protect speech from being civilly targeted.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
    “SLAPP is a form of strategic litigation or impact litigation. SLAPPs take various forms. The most common used to be a civil suit for defamation”
    “A common feature of SLAPPs is forum shopping, wherein plaintiffs find courts that are more favourable towards the claims”
    .
    This lawsuit was apparently funded by a 3rd party.
    Additionally I don’t see a defendant’s denial of a criminal charge to be actionable under any circumstance. The argument that a “witness is lying” happens about 1000 times a day.

  886. MikeM

    Surely, if you are publicly accused of something, you should have the right to deny it without being accused of defamation.

    If he’s merely said “That never happened”, he would have been fine. It’s not defamatory even if it’s a lie
    .
    But Trump being Trump said more. Saying a journalist made something up to sell books is more than “that never happened”. That’s where the minimum threshold to get a case to a civil jury was breached.
    .

    A picture showing two people in each others vicinity at a party 35 years ago does not prove that they knew each other.

    Define “knew”.
    .
    It proves they met. It would not prove he remembered her, it doesn’t prove the socialized. But they met. And the jury is the trier of fact and gets to decide what “knew” meant in the context Trump might have said it and whether they think he is lying based on this evidence. Proof he met her is pretty strong evidence he “knew” her in the sense many people use that word about others.
    .
    Trump would have been wiser to say “I don’t remember ever meeting this person.” Trump is Trump and likes to resort to things that go beyond the truth. But that’s still what gets to the jury.

  887. Tom

    hat picture is the “evidence” Trump raped this lady?

    No. It’s evidence he met her. Among his denials was the claim he never knew her. Obviously, if he never even met her he couldn’t have raped her. And so his claim of never meeting her because part of his evidence for how he could not have raped her. At that point, proving he did meet her is material to rebutting a portion of the defense he advanced.
    .
    And that is a picture or Trump. Doesn’t prove he’ s a rapist. But it’s pretty convincing proof he met Carroll– and he’d lied about that. Proven lying about a fact surrounding the case and a fact you advanced in your defense is not a good way to convince the jury of your truthfulness. That’s a big problem in a case like this.

  889. “We also can’t have laws that tell people they can’t speak at all”
    .
    Unless it’s Trump? Ha ha.
    .
    “That’s where the minimum threshold to get a case to a civil jury was breached.”
    .
    No.

  890. Tom

    Additionally I don’t see a defendant’s denial of a criminal charge to be actionable under any circumstance. The argument that a “witness is lying” happens about 1000 times a day.

    Said on the witness stand, or in a deposition, or congressional inquiry that would not be actionable. Also: if that’s all he said, he wouldn’t have faced defamation. He said more.
    .
    I get that he was angry, got over zealous, added other things beyond “the witness is lying”. But he did that. And certain other things– beyond mere denial– can vault things above the “minimum threshold”.
    .
    Of course someone else paid for the suit. But that’s not legally relevant– it’s allowed.
    .
    And of course politicians are in more danger or politically motivate suits.
    .
    But politically motivated suits can be valid; politicians — even hated ones — are sometimes guilty of bad things. It can be the case that someone poor cannot pursue a defamation case because they can’t afford it. So barring cases from being pursued because a third party pays would deprive the poor of the right to seeking remedies. Depriving people of the right to petition the government… by even sideways means is really not a great thing.
    .
    I get it if you guy are merely saying
    “We shouldn’t take this result as evidence the rape happened for thus and so reasons.”
    .
    Sure. But some of these reasons sound like claims that no suit should be allowed– not even the defamation one. And you need to at least admit that Trump did more than merely deny her claim. He tacked on other defamatory statements that he didn’t “need” to do. And the reason her defamation suit is barred should be some general legal principle that applies equally to other defamation suits.

  892. “But it’s pretty convincing proof he met Carroll– and he’d lied about that.”
    .
    No. Trump has never chosen his words carefully. Nobody knows who they might have met 30 years ago. Name every person you met in 1990. If that list is not complete, we will show you pictures later, and you are a “liar”, get out your checkbook. This is just not a compelling standard to get to “he raped me at a department store after I modeled lingerie for a stranger”. Perhaps if they had security footage of them both being in the store at the same time it would cross the threshold. Something.
    .
    Biden can be sued for denying he raped someone in Alabama at a campaign stop 30 years ago who showed up in a press picture? Is that a reasonable standard? He doesn’t remember meeting that person at 80 years old. Guilty! Additionally he denies it, defamation! The point I am making is that a person’s viewpoint likely changes here depending on who the target is. Trump is being treated differently, that’s what is wrong. A-holes should get equal protection.
    .
    This is how these things backfire and end up helping Trump. I don’t like this guy and somehow he ends up making me defend him.

  893. Lucia,
    And I need you to assume for a moment that either nothing took place or whatever took place was consensual. Those assumptions is just as valid as the assumption that Trump raped her. As to whether or not Trump “knew” her based on a single photo from a long ago social gathering: I can say for certain that there are people I encountered briefly 30 years ago that I have no memory of, and I’ll bet Trump briefly encounters a lot more people in social settings than I ever have.
    .
    We are never going to agree on this. If she was assaulted, she should have made some kind of contemporaneous complaint. Or offer some kind of evidence. She didn’t, and she can’t. Law suits based on accusations 25+ years after a claimed assault, one which took place, if it happened at all, while she was a mature adult, is a standard of justice (or more accurately, no justice at all) I will never accept as fair or reasonable. Sexual assault is a terrible, obvious crime which should have been prosecuted criminally if it happened. But not 25+ years later based only on accusations without evidence.
    .
    She can say what she wants, and so can Trump. She accused Trump of sex crimes 25+ years after the fact, making it essentially impossible for him to defend himself. Sure, he could have filed defamation charges, but to what end? He knows he could never win that case in NYC, and she likely didn’t have the funds to even cover his legal costs in the outside chance he won a judgement. So, no, he really didn’t have a way to stop her from claiming he is a sex criminal.
    .
    He denied it happened and questioned her motives. He did it in the stupidest, most offensive, Trumpian way possible. But neither of their many public statements should be legally actionable in any way. There is plenty of possible defamation in both directions.
    .
    IMHO, this is an outrageous, unjust, garbage case that should never have seen the inside of a courtroom. Justice must be applied reasonably and fairly to all, even to assholes like Trump. I will comment no more on this.

  894. The rich and powerful are not normally the target for harassment lawsuits. This is a bit upside down in that aspect. What is curious is how bad Trump’s lawyers must be that they can’t win this lawsuit? My suspicion is that it’s the fact that the trial was held in NYC, not the evidence at hand. I’d like to know the makeup of the jury. If they had a reasonable political split on the jury then I would be willing to accept this at face value.

  895. Tom

    No. Trump has never chosen his words carefully. Nobody knows who they might have met 30 years ago. Name every person you met in 1990.

    And he or his lawyers could have advanced that argument. He could have said, when I said I didn’t know her, I meant, I don’t recall every meeting her. It seems I did. She didn’t make an impression on my and the incident she relates never happened.

    But neither he nor his lawyers did this. Trump being Trump also doubles down on things he said. And Trump didn’t show for the trial.
    .

    Perhaps if they had security footage of them both being in the store at the same time it would cross the threshold. Something.

    You are describing the standard you would want as a trier of fact (i.e. jury member). But that’s why they have 12 on the jury. They didn’t see this your way.
    .

    Biden can be sued for denying he raped someone in Alabama at a campaign stop 30 years ago who showed up in a press picture?

    Whether he can be sued would depend on the specifics of what he said. If he said “They are making up the whole incident to sell books”, then yes Biden could then be sued for defamation.
    .
    And as the plaintiff, and there is evidence he said that and his defense was “that’s the truth”, he now has the burden to prove that she is making the whole thing up with the motive to sell books.
    .
    That’s the way the burden in defamation works.
    If, on the other hand, he had just sued her for defamation when she said or wrote it, and her defense was truth, the burden of proof is on her to show it really happened.
    .

    This is how these things backfire and end up helping Trump. I

    Sure. It might end up helping him. Or not.

  896. Tom

    What is curious is how bad Trump’s lawyers must be that they can’t win this lawsuit? My suspicion is that it’s the fact that the trial was held in NYC, not the evidence at hand.

    I think they have a very, very difficult client who won’t follow guidance to be careful with what he says. And he won’t clarify or back off the more extreme things he says.

  897. SteveF

    And I need you to assume for a moment that either nothing took place or whatever took place was consensual.

    If we are discussing principle’s of law both things need to be considered. If nothing took place Trump had a right to sue her. I know that’s a pain– but he had that right.
    .
    And he has a right to deny– up to the point where he avoids defamation.
    .
    And she has the exact same right.

    Sure, he could have filed defamation charges, but to what end? He knows he could never win that case in NYC, and she likely didn’t have the funds to even cover his legal costs in the outside chance he won a judgement

    The end could be to set the venue outside NYC. He doesnt have to file there. And his motive would not be money– it would be reputation.
    .
    The real difficulty for him might be the “public figure” hurdle. But likely, the correct thing for him to do was to say that and say the only reasons he is not suing are (a) public figure issue, (b) low pay out, (c) not worth the time and effort.
    .
    He didn’t do that.
    .

    We are never going to agree on this. If she was assaulted, she should have made some kind of contemporaneous complaint. Or offer some kind of evidence

    I specifically asked you about her right to sue for defamation, not rape or sexual assault. These are separate.

  898. From the Reason article linked by Lucia:

    Fourth, Carroll’s lawyers cited the notorious 2005 tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women],” he told Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush during that conversation, which came to light the month before the 2016 presidential election. “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” You can “grab ’em by the pussy,” he added. “You can do anything.”

    Fifth, Trump did himself no favors during a deposition in which Carroll’s lead lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked him about those remarks. “Well, historically that’s true with stars,” he said. “It’s true with stars that they can grab women by the pussy?” Kaplan asked. “If you look over the last million years,” Trump replied, “I guess that’s been largely true, not always, but largely true—unfortunately or fortunately.” When Kaplan asked if Trump considered himself “a star,” he said, “I think you can say that, yeah.”

    You can debate the quality of circumstantial evidence, but I would have to ask those defenders of Trump’s approach to getting attention for supposedly promulgating conservative principles, if he can make statements like the ones above, is he person you want in-articulating political ideas. As a practical matter those statements are not going to be a big hit with the female voters.

    There was, as the Reason link noted, an array of circumstantial evidence. If Trump got a raw deal in a civil trial it was not because it was an exceptional case. Any complaints in my mind should be directed against the system and not in defense of Trump – just like a number cases where Trump gets to be the victim and forgiven for what he says and does and systemic problems get short shrift.

  899. lucia (Comment #220980): “Do you think a rape victim should not be allowed to even mention it merely because no case was filed? And because they don’t have evidence handy.”
    .
    That is a straw man. Nobody has suggested that. What I (and i think others) have said is that the accused ought to be able to say “That is a lie” without being sued.

  900. Lucia,
    “I specifically asked you about her right to sue for defamation, not rape or sexual assault. These are separate.”
    .
    Good grief, like Michael Corleone, you keep pulling me back into this. 😉
    .
    I completely reject the notion that the two can be considered separately; the entire case stems from a unsubstantiated accusation of sexual assault that is 25+ years old. Without that unsubstantiated accusation, Trump says nothing about her. I think the entire thing is a miscarriage of justice and grossly unfair. If this actually happened, it is terrible that he was not prosecuted criminally at the time; that would make conversations like these unnecessary. And that really is my last comment on this sorry subject.
    .
    Ken Fritsch,
    Yes, the complaint I have is that the system in New York was modified (for exactly one year, and one year only) to allow a civil case from decades earlier. I note the law already reverted to the previous limitation… after Trump was targeted, of course. I find that to be a moral and legal outrage, but not one anybody can do anything about.

  901. lucia (Comment #220982): “But Trump being Trump said more. Saying a journalist made something up to sell books is more than “that never happened”. That’s where the minimum threshold to get a case to a civil jury was breached.”
    .
    Expressing an opinion is not defamation. Speculating on motives is an opinion. If Trump said he had evidence that it was just to sell books, that could be defamation.
    .
    lucia: “Proof he met her is pretty strong evidence he “knew” her in the sense many people use that word about others.”
    .
    Nonsense. I do not know every cashier who has rung up a purchase of mine or every waiter who has served me in a restaurant. There are cashiers at my local market who have served me dozens of times. I am pretty sure I would not recognize them unless they were standing at a cash register.
    .
    lucia: “Trump would have been wiser to say I don’t remember ever meeting this person.”
    .
    Arguably. But in everyday usage “I never met this person” means exactly the same as “I don’t remember ever meeting this person”.

  902. Lucia, are you saying that the issues are separate, like if she made it up but he reacts by calling her a filthy liar instead of saying “that’s not true” then he is defaming her?
    .
    Mike M.: “Expressing an opinion is not defamation.” Bingo. That is correct and Trump would have done better with you representing him than this guy that talks like one of the Corleone brothers.
    .
    Also saying the issues are separate is like saying that the whole Mueller investigation was a psy op but if Trump tried to fire Mueller he would have committed obstruction of justice, which is exactly what the media and Dems were arguing for when the final Mueller report came out.

  903. Just like Ken, Tom and other don’t like being forced to defend Trump, I hate to be defending Santos. But, he should not be arrested and kicked out of congress for claiming he was a collegiate volleyball ace or financial wizard for Goldman Sachs, while Omar gets away with marrying her brother to illegally gain citizenship.

  904. Mark, if you are saying you think big business monopolies and the government corruption, scientific corruption and slanted media were always like this and we just don’t remember. I think you are right but they never were all in crisis at the same time, as David pointed out.
    .
    We truly need to think of the present as a potential turning point for something irreversible, particularly as our generation is dying out and being replaced by children, now adults, who have been indoctrinated with acceptance of what they see as normal. My children and nieces and nephews see no real problems in the world but for climate change and needs for more anti-racism. I don’t know about the young people in your families.

  905. Ron,
    Are you speaking to me? I didn’t think there was another Mark on the thread, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
    [Edit: I think you are talking to me.
    Could you point me to where I said think big business monopolies and the government corruption, scientific corruption and slanted media were always like this and we just don’t remember?
    I’m not actually even saying I don’t think that. I don’t know. I don’t believe I said this though.]

  906. So I didn’t say that.
    Really, I think much of what I was trying to say is .. what I said. Paraphrasing: I’m not a revolutionary or a radical, and I’m not interested in becoming one.

  907. Ron,
    One last thing. I’m not trying to be a pain here. You’ve demonstrated your resolve to continue commenting here, and I’m resigned to that. It’d be great if we could avoid needless, thread clogging conflict. So how about we use the Willis rule? I’ll quote your words when I’m speaking to you (directly quote), and you can extend me the same courtesy, and maybe we can spare each other and everyone else the pointless irritation. Ok?

  908. mark bofill (Comment #220880)
    May 9th, 2023 at 8:16 pm

    David:
    I can’t emphasize enough how necessary Trump was to starting a movement that can start a counter revolution that can reign in the deep state and big tech. A lot of people are radicalized including a lot of Republican elected officials. It’s an exciting time in some ways with the explosion of alternative media platforms and outlets and good reporting is making a comeback in many ways.

    Mark B: This is pretty disturbing stuff. As a conservative, I’m not looking for revolutions. I don’t think people being radicalized is a good thing. To hear you talk about this as an exciting time reminds me of hearing extreme leftists speak, frankly.
    As to the rest, people have been telling me that we are facing ‘The End’ because of the political situation since I was barely more than a child. Somehow it never seems to be as bad as all that, somehow we manage to keep staggering on.

    .
    Mark B, I don’t think David was calling for violence. I doubt an armed could be successful in a modern country unless aided by a foreign power, which is also not great. We have a responsibility, IMO, to leave the country at least as good as we found it, paraphrasing a boy scout principle. That’s all. I am not attacking you. On the contrary, I would like to keep a positive assumption about your thoughts. You can be sure I am not targeting you.

  909. Ron,
    I think you said two separate things and I can respond to them:

    … but they never were all in crisis at the same time, as David pointed out.

    I don’t know if this is true or not. I’m not sure it matters enough for me to go try to figure it out, so I’m going to leave it on the heap, so to speak.

    We truly need to think of the present as a potential turning point for something irreversible, particularly as our generation is dying out and being replaced by children, now adults, who have been indoctrinated with acceptance of what they see as normal.

    It’s not clear to me how this is anything new. It might be that every day is a potential turning point for something irreversible. Perhaps we will never put down cell phones, or social media, or the internet; perhaps those things are irreversible. Perhaps reusable rockets are irreversible. So on. I suspect kids have been indoctrinated since before humans were modern humans.
    This said, of course my young-uns hold different views than I do. I don’t know about you, but when I was younger I had different views than I hold now. It took me a full fourty five years to start to extract my head from my rectum (some say I still have a ways to go). So there is nothing surprising or alarming to me about the observation that young people think differently than I do; of course they do.
    [Edit: We might not be able to communicate Ron. Where on earth did you get the notion that I thought (or cared) if you were attacking or targeting me? I mean, knock yourself out buddy. I don’t like you, that doesn’t mean I give two shits if you attack me or target me.]

  910. Ron,

    Mark B, I don’t think David was calling for violence.

    I think I see the problem now. I say a few words and you think you fully understand what I’m saying and thinking and proceed as if I’ve said things in accordance with what you’ve decided my position is.
    I don’t think David was calling for violence either. I didn’t say I thought David was calling for violence. That wasn’t any part of any point I was trying to make.
    It’s all good Ron. Talk to others if you like. I do not have Lucia’s patience and I’m not going to sit here all day correcting you sentence by sentence. Ciao.

  911. Tom, If you read my Climate Etc. post you will find a bunch of references on covid disinformation from the CDC and FDA from some of our best scientists. These government agencies are corrupt and many on their payrolls are getting paid by Pfizer and other drug companies.

    There are a number of very good reasons to think your first reference (It was sponsored by Pfizer who stood to make billions if the results were positive) is biased.

    1. The trail was small compared to previous vaccine trials.
    2. The trail was terminated after 90 days by offering vaccination to the placebo group. The results are worthless for longer term outcomes.
    3. Typical trials are done with volunteers who tend to be younger and healthier than the general population. Those most vulnerable to covid would almost uniformly not volunteer.

    The Swedish study by contrast was nationwide so the sample was completely representative. It lasted long enough to assess longer term outcomes.

    The Swedish showed about an 85% effectiveness against covid in the first month, dropping to -15% after 9 months. The Pfizer trial showed 95% and the confidence interval does not overlap that of the Swedish study. I think the Swedish study is much more likely to be correct.

    Bottom line: Just reading the scientific literature especially since 2020 is a very naive way to get “information.” Much of this literature is heavily biased and a lot of it is wrong.

    I would give higher credibility to the Omicron studies because the results were much much less positive, contrary to the information cartel dogmas.

  912. Just to make sure the FBI doesn’t target me based on my comments here, I am NOT calling for violence or even necessarily a revolution. We need to use our dollars to support the truth seekers in the alternative media and companies that are not woke and vote for politicians who will fight these issues and win.

  913. Ron

    Lucia, are you saying that the issues are separate, like if she made it up but he reacts by calling her a filthy liar instead of saying “that’s not true” then he is defaming her?

    I am saying accusing someone of making it up entirely because she has an underlying motive to sell books what that is not so is defaming someone.

    Just saying, “That didn’t happen” is never defaming her. It doesn’t refer to her character in anyway, just refers to whether a statement is truthful.

    I don’t think what I wrote was unclear.

  914. SteveF

    I completely reject the notion that the two can be considered separately; the entire case stems from a unsubstantiated accusation of sexual assault that is 25+ years old.

    But you are considering them separately. You are only willing to discuss what should happen if the accusation is false and not if it is true.

    If this actually happened, it is terrible that he was not prosecuted criminally at the time; that would make conversations like these unnecessary. And that really is my last comment on this sorry subject.

    Sure: but it if it did happen but was not prosecuted, I don’t think there is a rule that a victim is compelled to keep silent. If there is any such rule, that is an injustice also.

  915. “Tom, I’m going to need to see some evidence on the vaccine issue”
    …
    Information provided.
    …
    “Bottom line: Just reading the scientific literature especially since 2020 is a very naive way to get “information.””
    .
    OK, interesting viewpoint. Now that we have ruled out the mountain of scientific literature from multiple independent sources on a debate about vaccine efficacy due to a global conspiracy (encompassing both the government and private sector), I’m not sure where to go with this.
    .
    The results of the omicron studies were less positive because the virus changed, not the vaccine. It became much more transmissive.

  916. lucia (Comment #221010): “Sure: but it if it did happen but was not prosecuted, I don’t think there is a rule that a victim is compelled to keep silent.”
    .
    But nobody has suggested that there is such a rule.

  917. Tom Scharf,
    “I’m not sure where to go with this.”
    .
    Ummmm… maybe don’t respond to David’s crazy conspiracy theories? Just sayin’. The data are overwhelmingly clear for anyone willing to actually look at it. Some people clearly are not.
    .
    The US government’s non-vaccine response to Covid was horrible, destructive, wasteful, unfair, and profoundly stupid (and mostly due to numbskulls like Fauci and Alzheimer’s Joe). The vaccine almost certainly saved many hundreds of thousands of elderly people from death. Confusing the two issues is dumb, and dumb politics as well.

  918. Every now and then it does seem like Republicans have a few brain cells still working.
    Wash Post: Amid expected surge of border crossings, a costly predicament for D.C.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/dc-migrant-buses-immigration-tite-42-costs/
    “Over a year since busloads of migrants began arriving from Texas and Arizona, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s administration faces a costly predicament: housing and feeding those families at a time when city resources are strained, and an expected surge of border crossings probably means more of those chartered buses coming.
    More than 170 buses have arrived in the District from the two states so far, including two from Texas this week”
    .
    It is notable that the immigration lectures from progressive cities has seen a rapid decline. 2 busses this week? 11,000 people were apprehended yesterday.

  919. MikeM

    But nobody has suggested that there is such a rule.

    Oh? SteveF wrote this

    Accusing someone of a sex crime 25 or 30 years after the fact, with zero contemporaneous evidence, no date and no time, is for me an ethical outrage, because there is no effective defense against the allegation.

    That statement motivated me to I asked him what if the sex crime did happen and ask if there is some rule the victim can’t talk about it.
    Asking if a rule exists and then saying it seems to me that it can’t is not claiming someone said the rule exists.

    Just to remind you: this is asking a question– a real one.

    ucia (Comment #220980): “Do you think a rape victim should not be allowed to even mention it merely because no case was filed? And because they don’t have evidence handy.”

    .
    That is a straw man. Nobody has suggested that. […]

    It’s not a strawman to ask someone to clarify what they thing is or is not allowed. It’s a question that can be answered. I asked steve, but you could answer it too. Do you have an answer to that question?

  920. Tom, You are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say we should rule out a mountain of evidence, merely that perhaps the majority of that mountain is biased or wrong and that you need to do more than just find a couple of papers. I gave you a multitude of reasons why the Swedish study is likely to be more reliable. Skepticism should be the attitude.

  921. ‘He Could Have Used Napkins’: Homeless Man Charged With Hate Crimes After Defecating On Pride Flags.
    .
    Fred Innocent,45, allegedly took the flags from Buceo 95, a NYC tapas bar, and defecated on one while using the other to wipe himself on April 15, according to the New York Daily News. He was arrested Wednesday on hate crime charges including burglary, harassment and trespassing.
    .
    “This was a total hate crime,” Courtney Barroll, restaurant owner, told the Daily News. “He came in within 15 minutes of us opening up the restaurant. He could have gone to Popeyes or McDonald’s around the corner. He could have used napkins.”
    .
    Barroll told the Daily News she will pursue “the maximum charge possible” if asked to go to court.
    .
    https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/11/homeless-man-defecated-gay-pride-flag-charged-hate-crime/
    .
    The obvious response is “it’s just a flag, bro, why you mad?”

  922. New long piece yesterday outlining exactly what people and organizations make up the Censorship Industrial Complex and what their roles are.

    https://www.racket.news/p/report-on-the-censorship-industrial-74b?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

    Michael Schellenberger summarizes the main points.

    1. Powerful and high-ranking officials inside of FBI, DHS, and other US government agencies weaponized foreign “regime change” style tactics, including disinformation and propaganda, to paint Trump as a Russian asset, to cover-up Biden family scandals, and to censor millions of Americans.
    2. The government agencies and officials that oversaw regime change in the U.S. are also involved in efforts to discredit and deplatform politically independent media and journalists while promoting self-censorship by journalists and incuriosity by citizens.
    3. Love your freedom. Fear its loss. Now let’s go fight for it.

  923. Lucia,
    “It’s not a strawman to ask someone to clarify what they thing is or is not allowed.”
    .
    What is not allowed is claiming a criminal sexual assault 30 years after the fact, with no contemporaneous evidence, indeed, with without any evidence at all, when NOBODY, absolutely nobody, could possibly defend themselves against such a claim. Good grief! This isn’t even complicated. I must admit that I am much more than a little surprised you think all of this is OK. IMO, it most certainly is NOT ok. Damn.

  924. Here is the thing Lucia:
    I have been in dozens of situations where a woman could easily have made false claims of sexual assault against me. I had at one point 6 young women (all engineers) who worked directly for me. I often worked 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM when training production workers with one o r more of these women.
    .
    With two young women who worked directly for me, I rejected obvious physical advances (breasts willfully pressed against my body). With a couple others, I was very careful to make sure other people were always present. I told the two worst breast pushers to stop it; they didn’t like it, but it stopped immediately.
    .
    I never told human resources about any of this, to protect the young women from negative consequences. Was that wrong? Donno, but they were very young (20 to 25) and I was not. I try to cut young people a bit of slack. I can’t do that for people of 50+ years with a lot of experience.
    .
    When I see accusations long after the fact, I think: there but for the grace of good fortune go I.

  925. SteveF

    What is not allowed is claiming a criminal sexual assault 30 years after the fact, with no contemporaneous evidence,

    And there I differ from you. I think a person who was assaulted is is allowed to speak of the assault– which amounts to claiming it– 30 years after the fact, even if there was little to no evidence. (Carroll actually had little not none. She told some friends about it. Testimony is evidence even if not everyone is convinced by it.)
    .
    False accusations are wrong no matter when they are given– 2 minutes, 1 day 30 years — time makes no difference.
    .
    What we should believe when we hear claims is a different matter.
    .

    I never told human resources about any of this, to protect the young women from negative consequences.

    Yes– so they treated you somewhat like Trump is accused of treating Carroll. And you are mentioning it now, albeit without naming people. If you named them now– for some reason–, I’d say you had a right to do so.
    .
    Suppose you named them because they did bring accusations against someone else. And he countered with a story similar to yours? I would say that is entirely fair of you. And you would be bringing up something long past you didn’t report.

    .

  926. DaveJR,
    I’d bet he did do it on purpose. Plausibly he hates gays. But I think plain ole’ destruction of property is a suitable charge for this sort of thing.

  927. Lucia,
    “If you named them now– for some reason–, I’d say you had a right to do so.”
    .
    One woman (25+ years my junior) is a highly placed executive officer at a giant chemical company; she was as smart as a whip, a good engineer, and was great company. I would NEVER name her. Nor would I name other people against whom I have zero evidence of malfeasance… save for my own memory.
    .
    And I have zero right to do that; it would be grossly unfair…. 30 years after the fact. Yes, I know for certain a couple of young woman acted inappropriately with me, and I can live with that. That does not allow me to try to destroy their reputations.

  928. Lucia: “I am saying accusing someone of making it up entirely because she has an underlying motive to sell books what [when?] that is not so is defaming someone.”
    .
    Saying something about someone that is derogatory and “not so” is not necessarily defaming. Mike M pointed out correctly that there are rules for defamation, which I am sure you are aware of. The accusation has to be something that is being spoken as a factual in detailed fashion, not just an off the cuff opinion. How could Trump know here psychiatric profile? It was an assumption based on his personal opinion. Also, defaming a person in the news or a writer has a stronger burden (to my understanding) because they have the means to publish a public response.
    .
    Mark Bofill:

    It’s not clear to me how this [a generation of far leftists] is anything new. It might be that every day is a potential turning point for something irreversible. Perhaps we will never put down cell phones, or social media, or the internet; perhaps those things are irreversible. Perhaps reusable rockets are irreversible. So on. I suspect kids have been indoctrinated since before humans were modern humans. This said, of course my young-uns hold different views than I do. I don’t know about you, but when I was younger I had different views than I hold now.

    .
    Churchill once said that to be a conservative at 20 is heartless and a liberal at 50 is brainless. I likely got an early start on fiscal conservatism being a paper boy and boy scout. I grew up in an ethic neighborhood that was about 80% Democrat leaning and religious. I was neither. Science was my thing since 2nd grade. So, I never experienced the transformation. I always supported the women’s movement and equality for all groups, MLK’s message, etc. but not Great Society welfare or America bashing.
    .
    Things I have come to appreciate significantly more in recent years is fragility of things I took for granted. Societal trust in institutions is critical. Yet, how we keep the institutions in check without criticism, which can be taken as attacking them, is a conundrum. Do you ever ponder this puzzle? (Hands with no knife.)

  929. Ron,

    Societal trust in institutions is critical. Yet, how we keep the institutions in check without criticism, which can be taken as attacking them, is a conundrum. Do you ever ponder this puzzle?

    Well, criticism can constitute an attack, but criticism needn’t necessarily constitute an attack or undermine societal trust. I’d like to believe the exercise of our First amendment rights over our history has at least been helpful in keeping our institutions healthy, or maybe I should say healthier than they otherwise might have been.
    If I’m misunderstanding what you mean, a concrete example of what institutions, criticisms, etc. you are thinking of might help me follow.
    [Edit: I’m sorry, I should have said – No, I don’t remember ever thinking about this in these terms, in response to your question.]

  930. Ron,
    I don’t think it’s particularly important (yet at least), but you quoted me saying ‘It’s not clear to me how this [a generation of far leftists] is anything new.’
    This is not what I was referring to when I said ‘this’. I was actually referring to the quoted text preceding my words, specifically ‘the present as a potential turning point for something irreversible’.
    Just to prevent misunderstanding in case we need to refer back to this.

  931. I think Ron that this generation of leftists is different because their ideas are truly insane. Classical Marxists could at least claim that there was some reality behind their claims about capitalism.

  932. SteveF, I think you have to argue that the idea of extending a lookback window is wrong. I do not think that lookback windows were legislated to get Trump.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglaswigdor/2022/05/25/statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-assault-eliminated-for-one-year-in-new-york-following-passage-of-the-adult-survivors-act/?sh=7db4103946fd

    The ASA was modeled after the Child Victims Act that was passed in 2019, allowing childhood survivors of sexual abuse to file civil claims until they turn 55, as well as providing a similar lookback window. The same year, the state extended the statute of limitations from 3 to 20 years. Similar legislation has been passed recently in several states across the country, including in New Jersey where approximately one thousand cases were filed during the twenty-four-month period that that began in December 2019.

  933. Societal trust in institutions is critical. Yet, how we keep the institutions in check without criticism, which can be taken as attacking them, is a conundrum. Do you ever ponder this puzzle?

    Not a puzzle. Not a conundrum. What is critical for institutions is a healthy amount of criticism when needed or thought to be needed and not blinded trust.

  934. kenneth,
    The NY statute was a ‘special exemption for adult victims’. It was originally claimed to allow people assaulted ‘as children’ to long after, as adults, pursue civil claims against people (AKA Trump, or who ever) after the statute of limitations for alleged sex crimes had expired. Plenty were were ensnared, no doubt, most of those no doubt inconsequential; but Trump was the target.
    .
    But really, do you think an 80 YO state beauty queen from Indiana, who decides to model undies for a man she does not know, in a department store dressing room, needs an exemption to file charges of sexual assault 25+ before, which she claims happened but were never reported?
    .
    It’s nutty, absolutely nutty.

  935. Steve, It goes far beyond nutty. It proves again that we have a two tiered justice system that persecutes the enemies of the cartel and let’s go their allies. That should outrage every American because you could be next.

  936. Societal trust in institutions is critical. Yet, how we keep the institutions in check without criticism, which can be taken as attacking them, is a conundrum. Do you ever ponder this puzzle?

    Not a puzzle. Not a conundrum. What is critical for institutions is a healthy amount of criticism when needed or thought to be needed and not blinded trust.

    Thank you Ken. That was what I was trying to say. I think I expressed the sentiment a little more tentatively than you did; I like your response better than mine.

  937. Mark, thanks for your reply. My paragraph that you quoted and responded to was about the fact that a new generation was going to make the changes we see permanent. You responded that irreversible things happen every day and then gave some examples. I was trying to make the positive assumption about your point that you were feeling that there is no need for concern because change is normal, that even your perspectives changed.
    .
    This is all true. But what points in David’s outline of the current problems not warrant serious discussion? The way events are unfolding under Biden he may be in such low approval that even Trump could win. If the dumb heartland does not let go of Trump does that mean you don’t vote? Real question. I think that is what I heard was Lucia’s plan is.
    .
    It’s difficult for me and some to understand your strong feelings about Trump but shrug about the political situation. I admit I understand Trump can be arrogant and flamboyant, even inflammatory. But a lot of people are like that. They sometimes are effective.
    .
    I lived through the Vietnam protests and saw the division that took years to simmer down and maybe to some degree never completely disappeared. The biggest animosity of the conservatives was the attack on the establishments being unAmerican. I am for American establishment, including the scientific ones, but I disagree now with most of them.
    .
    Ken, let me hear what you think is unhealthy about David or my criticisms of the establishments. Do you think we are factually mistaken of just to impatient for the natural self-correction that Mark inferred? Will it all work out as it has in the past?
    .
    So far DeSantis has not been grilled in a CNN town hall. Their first question will be on his 6-week abortion law.

  938. Russian military bloggers are in a panic. The fear is being instigated by Prigozhin. He said on his official social media channels Thursday. “The counteroffensive is in full swing.”
    Also:
    “The situation on the flanks is developing according to the worst predicted scenario,” Prigozhin said in an audio message.
    Also: “Today, everything is being done so that the front line crumbles. Today, one of the defense ministry’s units fled one of our flanks, abandoning their positions. Everyone fled,” said Prigozhin.
    Prigozhin calls the situation critical.
    What I do know…
    Ukraine’s advances on the Bakhmut flanks are meeting with success. Small towns are being taken, the Russians are retreating. The offensive is being led by infantry and heavy tanks. It is supported by artillery and some air power.

    The Russian defenders are poorly equipped to handle the onslaught. They consist of units that had been mauled elsewhere and units made up of last years conscripts.
    ISW: “Russian flanks in Bakhmut and other similarly-manned areas of the front are likely vulnerable to Ukrainian counterattacks”
    One of the Ukrain units is the Azov division: “It seems units of the RU 3rd Army Corps have been holding the line in the area SW of Bakhmut. These are rapidly trained personnel who were recruited last summer. Their losses are now being replaced by mobik regiments. I think it’s likely Azov will eat them for breakfast.”
    Official Russian statement: “The statements spread by individual telegram channels about ‘defense breakthroughs’ in various sections of the line of contact are not true,” the ministry said on Telegram. Thanks to our well-thought-out defense in the Bakhmut sector, we are getting results from the effective actions of our units,” the commander of Ukrainian Land Forces, Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi, said
    Translating the Official Russian Response to English.. “Oh Shit!”

  939. Ron,

    But what points in David’s outline of the current problems not warrant serious discussion?

    Maybe those points do warrant serious discussion. To at least some extent, I am discussing them. I am even discussing those points with you, and I ought to know better.
    .
    I have explained why Trump is not getting my support many times, and I will not waste my time discussing that topic with you again. If you didn’t understand the first several times I explained it, you will not understand now.
    .
    Incidentally, you once again demonstrate rhetorical sleaze in your response to Ken. Ken didn’t say he thought there was anything unhealthy about criticizism of the establishment. Not even yours.
    .

  940. Ron,
    So you do this on purpose, right? You misrepresent what people say back to them so they will respond and correct you, to get them talking about the subject you want?
    I’m not sure, but I suspect it. But I want to say this to you. You and all the fools out across the land like you are the people who are going to insure that the leftists get another four years of rule. Advocating for that unelectable pig you think so highly of. You won’t take responsibility for it in the end I’m sure, but you’ll have contributed to it just the same. Trump will probably win the nomination and probably lose the election. Thanks for helping make that happen buddy.

  941. The options realistically are Haley and De Santis, maybe that Pompeo.
    De Santis is toeing the religious right more than Trump.
    No idea on Haley’s position, is that deliberate?
    My position would be whoever runs should take care of the injustices done to Trump and let him wander off into the blue.
    If not let him run and lose or win.

  942. My favorite quote from this AM:
    “I think Ukraine is just starting to probe to find where there are weak spots. It just turns out the weak spots are more or less everywhere they’re probing.”

  943. Mark, Ken offered an answer to my question voluntarily. And yes, I would like people to clarify remarks that seem vague or that I might not be understanding correctly. I am not in the least criticizing or trolling Ken by asking him what level of criticism is counterproductive. Because I am interested in productive change.
    .
    Asking the question also helps me think about the problem better. I know that sounds selfish but I would like others to share the process too. Batting every inquiry as an attack with evil motive is itself something I would hope could be reversed about the public debate in general.
    .
    Ken knows that I respect his opinion very much. Maybe I could respect yours more easily if you were more open.
    .
    Perhaps that is the answer to my question about what is the proper way to criticize a public establishment: Be sure to preface your criticism with care and genuine respect for the good the establishment could do and what specific area you feel is counter-productive, rather than blanket denouncement.

  944. Says the man who was comparing his political opponents to Nazi’s upthread.

  945. angech,
    If the democrats stick with their demented puppet, then the only Republican likely to lose in 2024 is Trump. Of course, if Biden’s dementia worsens to the point that it is obvious to most voters he should not be in office, then even Trump might win, although it would be a close race even if Biden didn’t campaign at all. Trump simply can win in enough states that an easy victory is not possible.
    .
    Biden has very limited public exposure, so hiding advancing dementia may be possible for a while.

  946. Mark, if I recall correctly, the conversation about Trump came up from my reaction to a blanket denouncement of him here. I then asked for specific objections, perhaps to explore explore them one at a time. I thought that was a fair and productive approach, particularly since I was confused by the “never Trump” phenomena. David voiced the idea that I have heard before that it comes from a faction of “chamber of commerce” type conservatism that is offended by Trump’s populism. I am not even sure I understand that or the RINO label. I am thinking the more likely answer is that Mitch McConnell is following the same path seen taken by George W, McCain and Romney of softening for the sake of self-preservation from a hostilely left media.

  947. Ron

    I think that is what I heard was Lucia’s plan is.

    No. That’s not what I said. But as you consistently misconstrue what I actually said, I’m not surprised you think so.

  948. Mark, I was analyzing the danger of scapegoating. The Nazi’s were people like you and I and all people, they went astray. I have read many history books covering that period and there were plenty of people in the US and Europe, outside of Germany, that had identical views. Henry Ford was an ardent supporter of the ideology, for example.

  949. Ron

    Ken, let me hear what you think is unhealthy about David or my criticisms of the establishments.

    Ron, you didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer. I think almost every argument you make is irrational. And I’m barely reading David’s because early on it the whole ‘go read my stuff at climate etc.’. I skip stuff that’s structured that way. To the extent that I read it, I’m not impressed by what he’s written here. (It’s mostly about vaccines… right? Or was at one point? I’m skimming.)

    Ken knows that I respect his opinion very much. Maybe I could respect yours more easily if you were more open.

    I honestly don’t think you respect other people opinions. You either don’t pay attention to what they actually say, or your memory is poor.

  950. angech,

    The options realistically are Haley and De Santis, maybe that Pompeo.

    There is talk of Glenn Youngkin.

  951. Lucia:

    No. That’s not what I said. But as you consistently misconstrue what I actually said, I’m not surprised you think so.

    .
    That’s why I said “I think”. Looking back you actually said something like that, and with a chip set on your shoulder to boot.
    .

    And I’m not going to vote for a candidate who is for a 6 week limit on abortion. Go ahead and insinuate that’s because I must not be smart. I can assure you that insinuation wouldn’t be a smart political move on your part.

    .
    So if DeSantis does not walk back his signing a 6-week ban into law and he wins the nomination, he is not getting your vote, is the way I read that. I could have sworn you also wrote that you didn’t vote for Trump. I apologize if my memory is failing again.

  952. Mark, BTW, I did not just call Nazi’s fine people, and neither did Trump. My point was that it could happen anywhere anytime if we discount them as some savages. For what Trump actually said you can search “fine people hoax.”

    .
    Also, Trump was my last choice in the 2016 primary and he will likely be near the last again but I see no need to go along with the false statements made about him or his unfair treatment.

  953. Ron,
    Let’s compare: your question to mark

    If the dumb heartland does not let go of Trump does that mean you don’t vote? Real question. I think that is what I heard was Lucia’s plan is.

    .
    And your “evidence” that my plan is to not vote is:

    And I’m not going to vote for a candidate who is for a 6 week limit on abortion.

    .
    If you think this what I wrote I’m not going to vote you have some problems with critical thinking skills. You aren’t going to vote for Biden, that doesn’t mean you aren’t going to vote.
    .
    As I’ve said above: I often vote 3rd party. That is voting. It is not “not voting”.
    .
    And even leaving one slate blank while voting other races is still voting but skipping a particular race.
    .
    You frequently put claims in people’s mouths. It is time wasting and does not contribute to useful rational discussions.

  954. Lucia,

    You frequently put claims in people’s mouths. It is time wasting and does not contribute to useful rational discussions.

    Yes. I am still wondering if this is just a natural and uncontrollable artifact of Ron Graf’s method of thinking or if it is a deliberate device he employs to steer the topic in the direction he wants. Either way, it’s pretty clear that it’s the way Ron rolls and it’s not going to stop. I haven’t decided how to handle this yet personally. The questions I’m considering (and I don’t have answers yet) Do I ignore the guy? If I don’t, I’d better be prepared to flush gobs of time down the toilet correcting him? Is there some better option I’m overlooking?
    I would welcome constructive suggestions on these specific questions from my friends if any of you have any.

  955. Ron

    Mark, I was analyzing the danger of scapegoating. The Nazi’s were people like you and I and all people, they went astray.

    You enthusiastically launched into a wild tangent during a discussion of the proper date for abortion, and decided to discuss all your bugbears. One of those bugbears is Democrats who you decided to liken to Nazis. You did bring up scapegoating– which was irrelevant to the main discussion about abortion.

  956. Ron,

    Also, Trump was my last choice in the 2016 primary and he will likely be near the last again but I see no need to go along with the false statements made about him or his unfair treatment.

    Well good. It’s strange that I have this impression you keep bringing him back up. I’ll go back and reread the thread, maybe I am mistaken.
    [Edit: Huh. Would you look at this:

    Mark, BTW, I did not just call Nazi’s fine people, and neither did Trump.

    I was talking about you, not Trump. Odd, yes? Why are we talking about Trump again? I’ll keep looking.]

  957. Ron,
    Here in comment-221033:

    The way events are unfolding under Biden he may be in such low approval that even Trump could win. If the dumb heartland does not let go of Trump does that mean you don’t vote? Real question. I think that is what I heard was Lucia’s plan is.
    .
    It’s difficult for me and some to understand your strong feelings about Trump but shrug about the political situation. I admit I understand Trump can be arrogant and flamboyant, even inflammatory. But a lot of people are like that. They sometimes are effective.

    WTF? You’re wanting to talk about how I’m going to vote if Trump is nominated again. This is most peculiar.

  958. Mark

    Yes. I am still wondering if this is just a natural and uncontrollable artifact of Ron Graf’s method of thinking or if it is a deliberate device he employs to steer the topic in the direction he wants.

    No matter the cause, it is time wasting and results in poor, fruitless discussions. How to deal with it is difficult. My current thoughts for different types of ‘putting words in my mouth’:
    (1) When he just outright says I said something or he “thinks” I said it, I’m going to only comment on that part of what he wrote, pointing out I did not say it. I will also remind him that he frequently misconstrues (which is the more polite way of viewing things.) (See Comment #221050 for most recent part of that strategy.)
    (2) When he asked a statement that significantly distorts something I wrote to make it look like he’s asking a question for “clarification”, I will answer by merely repeating what I actually wrote. I will make exceptions if I think what I wrote was even slightly unclear.

  960. Ron

    Lucia: “I am saying accusing someone of making it up entirely because she has an underlying motive to sell books what [when?] that is not so is defaming someone.”

    .
    Saying something about someone that is derogatory and “not so” is not necessarily defaming.

    No. The latter meets only two factors. That’s why I described one of Trumps published claims, that if untrue, that obviously meets all four legal factors.
    .

    To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:
    1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
    2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
    3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
    4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
    .

  961. mark bofill (Comment #221051)

    Mark, everybody has their own style of commenting here and thus I am hesitant to suggest a proper style. I personally like to make my opinions and judgment on issues under discussion known and only reply to those comments that I think will further shed light on my views.

    I do not have the energy, motive or time to engage in long debates here and particularly with a single individual. There are some good points and information that can come out of those debates, but that is not my style.

  962. Thanks Kenneth. Something to think about. Maybe I should just leave it alone.

  963. Back when you went by ‘Kenneth ‘ I’d sometimes call you ‘Ken’. Now that you go by ‘Ken’, naturally I mess that up too. My apologies.

  964. Russell Klier (Comment #221039)
    May 12th, 2023 at 6:55 am Edit This

    My favorite quote from this AM:
    “I think Ukraine is just starting to probe to find where there are weak spots. It just turns out the weak spots are more or less everywhere they’re probing.”

    I don’t know that Prigozhin is necessarily a good source. But I also like

    However the head of Russia’s Wagner mercenary group Yevgeny Prigozhin said what the Ministry of Defence was talking about “is unfortunately called ‘fleeing’ and not a ‘regrouping'”.

    .
    It also sounds like Kyiv’s rhetoric is “We have not yet begun to fight!”
    And Russia is saying “They definitely have begun to fight!”
    .

    We’ll better know what really happened this week two or three weeks from now.

  965. The *media* backlash against CNN giving Trump a town hall is pretty humorous. Anderson Cooper addresses this and after the obligatory “I personally think Trump is evil” prologue, gets it exactly right starting at about 1:15 here.
    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/05/12/anderson-cooper-cnn-republican-town-hall-donald-trump-ac-360-vpx.cnn
    .
    I’ll give him and CNN both credit for doing this (as usual I didn’t watch it)
    .
    The only thing I would add is for all the people who think the media should collusively censor Trump they need to think about how this attitude both created Trump to start with and is enabling him now. The best way to defeat Trump is to hand him a microphone IMO.

  966. We seem to be in a long stretch of needless death phase of the Ukraine war. It’s got to be tough on the locals. The stubbornness of both sides preventing an end to this thing is tragic. Our benevolent AI leaders would have ended this long ago.

  967. Tom Scharf,
    I suspect Biden’s political operatives are giddy that CNN had Trump on… anything that ensures Trump is the Republican’s nominee is a big plus. Hostile interviews/exchanges with liberal media talking heads only makes Trump more likely the candidate in 2024. I find it depressing.

  968. Tom Scharf,
    I will be very surprised if there is an official end to the war in Ukraine in the next 24 months. Only a change in political leadership in the USA or in Russia (or both) will generate the political will for a settlement. The Biden administration is 100% committed to continuing the war indefinitely, and so is Putin. The tragedy is that the situation at the end of hostilities may well look about the same as now, but with hundreds of $billions more spent and many thousands more deaths.

  969. I hear various people, including Trump, calling for a quick end to the war in Ukraine. But I never hear a practical suggestion for how to accomplish that. My impression is that people think that we can just tell Ukraine to surrender and they will obey. They won’t.

  970. It is basically agree to terms or you won’t get any more arms and your army will surely collapse. “Terms” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in this simplistic solution, and Ukraine has a funny way of never collapsing, and I’m not inclined to believe Russia is any more willing to end this thing either. So, tragic.
    .
    If Putin dies, this thing will end though.

  971. Mark Bofill:

    Back when you went by ‘Kenneth ‘ I’d sometimes call you ‘Ken’. Now that you go by ‘Ken’, naturally I mess that up too. My apologies.

    .
    Ken, I too must confess that I did not keep full track of whether you preferred Kenneth of Ken. I just assumed Ken was OK at some point because I have known you for 8 years.
    .
    Taking offense easily makes it difficult to trust conversing. It’s like walking in a mine field. I know that it’s naturally desired to have one’s views only confirmed. The result is that is what we sometimes refer to as an echo chamber. I like confirmation of my views as much as the next person but I also feel I want them challenged. I can hold a positive assumption about somebody that has completely different views than I. The more different, the more curious I am as to what they are based on.
    .
    Lucia, I apologize that I conflated voting third party to abstaining. I didn’t want to imply that not voting or voting third party is ill thought of, because I don’t think it is. In a free society people can vote however they like, obviously.
    .
    Misstating somebody’s views is not my intention. Sometimes people even inaccurately or incompletely compose their views. Part of what I think is fair is to flesh out views. Other’s apparently don’t want their views to be fleshed out. So, I can even see a sincere rationale for simply stating that they did not say something or mean to say something without further clarification.

    .
    I guess part of the reason I don’t have TDS is because I like that Trump rarely deflects. He was known to spend an hour answering press questions while entering the WH during the day. Of course, we all know about his Twitter use. He surrounded himself with people of all opinions, many he knew disagreed with his own. That takes confidence and (humility?).
    .
    The media unfairly treat Trump, IMO, by regularly taking his words out of context. For example, if he says something that is sarcastic or tongue in cheek, they will take it literally or without the tongue in cheek. In short, many misconstrue him so they can condemn him, making even conversations about his views toxic. To me it is very akin to social bullying, an attempt to make someone socially toxic so that a group exclusion can be justified. When he was banned from Twitter there was no protest from even principled civil liberations on the left. Maybe Alan Dershowitz said something. Perhaps it’s what red pilled Taibbi, Weiss and Gabbord. Online bullying, BTW, is a big issue for teens, especially females.

  972. Lucia,
    “We’ll better know what really happened this week two or three weeks from now.”
    Yes, I am currently not in the know. My reliable battle-front sources have all gone quiet. They have done this in the past when Ukraine was moving on offense. The Ukraine MOD makes private requests for them to dummy up from time to time. ISW is still reporting, but they are always a couple of days behind. For now, my sources are mostly regurgitating the Russian sources, who are still in panic mode.
    Examples:
    “Numerous reports in Russian channels about Ukrainian forces having begun a larger offensive in several directions. This follows reports of Wagner struggling in Bakhmut in the recent days. Current reports are very conflicting, some mention Ukrainians moving towards Russian border. We still have to see if any of this is real, but the situation is rather similar to September and November regroupings.”
    And
    “I don’t know if there are breakthroughs and all that. I’m not there. But Russians’ behaviour on public channels is very similar to what was happening during successful regroupings from Kherson and Kharkiv. They never panicked unless they had a reason to. They have a lot of eyes in the field, the military reporters, soldiers. I take it all with a grain of salt but I also don’t see a good reason for them to spread negativity without a good reason.”

  973. Tom “ If Putin dies, this thing will end though.”
    .
    Putin is the moderate. If he dies, a true hardliner will succeed. The complaints coming to Putin is that he is to soft, that he has not declared war, has not fully mobilized, and has not completely leveled Ukraine.
    .
    So in one sense, you are right. If Putin dies, the war will end

  974. Tom Scharf (Comment #221067): “It is basically agree to terms or you won’t get any more arms and your army will surely collapse.”
    .
    OK, so how do we force Russia to accept terms? We can’t. So if we tell Russia that we are going to impose terms on Ukraine, then Russia gets to specify the terms. And we enforce Russia’s terms on Ukraine. That is not reasonable.
    .
    If we give Ukraine such an ultimatum, I think that Zelensky’s response will make “I need ammunition, not a ride” seem wimpy. Ukraine will continue to fight, but a lot less effectively and with much higher casualties.
    ——-

    Tom Scharf: “If Putin dies, this thing will end though.”
    .
    Don’t be so sure. Putin’s successor won’t be any nicer. Heck, it could be Prigozhin. But his successor would have an option not available to Putin: Blaming the disaster on his predecessor.

  975. Yes, I think blaming the predecessor will be the key factor here, otherwise they will have to own it.

  976. Mike M,
    Direct talks between USA and Russia (Not publicized! Negotiation, not propaganda.) could define what they would settle for. But the Biden administration clearly won’t do that, since they have already stated they want all of Ukraine’s territory (including Crimea) returned as a condition to end the war. That is not going to happen, so the war will continue.

  977. Mike M:

    I hear various people, including Trump, calling for a quick end to the war in Ukraine. But I never hear a practical suggestion for how to accomplish that.

    .
    I liked SteveF’s proposal almost a year ago. It was something like using US and NATO’s influence on Ukraine to force them to the table with Russia. The final deal would look something like making the pre-war borders permanent, leaving the new old Ukraine territory and Crimea to independently govern themselves, all enforced with a NATO security guarantee. With Ukraine being banned officially from entering NATO, they could never be compelled to join a NATO retaliation against an attacker.

  978. This is bullshit:
    “I liked SteveF’s proposal almost a year ago. It was something like using US and NATO’s influence on Ukraine to force them to the table with Russia.”
    Russia was on an offensive for five months. It caused the bloodiest battles of the war. Tens of thousands died at Bakhmut alone. Everyone was silent. There was no talk of pressuring Russia to back off. Ukraine has been on the offensive for two days and you people are crying stop! Negotiate hell!
    You can cry negotiate around Halloween.

  979. Ron Graf (Comment #221075): “The final deal would look something like making the pre-war borders permanent, leaving the new old Ukraine territory and Crimea to independently govern themselves, all enforced with a NATO security guarantee.”
    .
    There is no reason to believe that Russia would settle for that.
    .
    Our objective ought to be a stable piece that allows Ukraine to develop as an independent country. There is no reason to believe that such a peace is presently available. People who demand it are not being reasonable. If listened to they will cause great suffering.
    .
    SteveF is correct that talks (or at least communication) should be ongoing, presumably via back channels. That way, an opportunity for peace won’t be missed. Of course, that could be happening without our knowledge, perhaps with Turkey as the middleman. We did not know about the talks that led to the near deal last spring.
    .
    I don’t mind pressure being put on the Biden administration, even including Matt Gaetz’s bill to cut off aid. I am concerned that Biden is using Ukraine as a cat’s paw against Russia. He needs to be put on notice that endless war is not an option. But people should not believe that a just peace is available for the taking.

  980. Russell Klier (Comment #221076): “Everyone was silent.”
    .
    Not true. SteveF was certainly now silent. Kenneth and Tom Scharf also, if memory serves,

  981. Russell, I am rooting for Ukraine. A couple weeks ago I mentioned that Putin lost his chance by not succeeding in the Russian offensive in what in my opinion would have been a reasonable strategy, to then then open negotiations with the face saving declaration: “mission accomplished”. Then I said now he must wait to prove Russia can withstand the counter offensive before negotiations.
    .
    My point was that I remembered a discussion here about the danger of stalemate, needless death and destruction, including nuclear. I remember that I or a few proposed NATO use its leverage to force negotiations and SteveF had the good idea of giving Russia security that Ukraine’s joining NATO could be taken off the table at the same time Ukraine could be given security promise by NATO to enforce the agreement.

  982. When I go to Name on my computer several names come up to choose from. When I respond on my Tablet several names come up and including Ken which is not on my computer. I am going to add Ken to my computer now and see whether this blog will accept it without Lucia’s intervention.

    By the way you can call me Ken or Kenneth. I am way too short of famous to call me KF.

  983. Yes, We need to be applying strong pressure for negotiations in Ukraine. Ukraine will probably have to give up some part of their Eastern provinces where ethnic Russians are a majority or nearly so. Crimea will stay in Russia. National boundaries have been constantly changing in this part of the world for thousands of years. There is nothing sacred about Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders. Russia is not totally unjustified in its fear of having NATO members right on its border. Certainly the intense anti-Russia propaganda campaign we are constantly subjected to is very wrong and dangerous. This is really as bad as the anti-German propaganda during WWI.

    I’m not so sure SteveF that Trump can’t win. The CNN town hall showed a much more disciplined Trump who had quite good policy answers. I have trouble seeing how any Republican without tireless energy can win in the face of the Disinformation Cartel. That was evident at the town hall where the moderator had some narrative driven falsehoods of her own. There is a difference between an election being rigged (which 2020 was as proven by the Twitter files) and stolen by fraudulent ballots which to me is an open question. She also lied about how long it took Trump to tell the rioters to refrain from violence on Jan. 6. Trump was ready for her and had printed out copies of his tweets, but he stayed calm and fact based. A lot depends on how mature voters are and whether they can look past personality issues to the important issues where Trump is dramatically superior to the venal oval office mumbling corpse. Trump is a colorful and in some cases mean person. He likes to be on television. But his first term was remarkably successful given the opposition of the deep state. Anyone claiming to be conservative or even libertarian who can’t see that is not thinking clearly.

    For me, its imperative that the next President clean out the deep state and the disinformation cartel by defunding all these NGO’s which are mostly funded by the Feds. Trump started to do that at the end of his first term. Now that he knows the score and is hopping mad, he could get it done quickly and appoint people who are loyal to him and to conservative ideas. This would be a sea change comparable to the Supreme Court sea change Trump caused. This is really our only chance to avoid a Russian style proto-totalitarian state with essentially state controlled mass media. I can’t vote for anyone but Trump or DeSantis (in some sense Trump’s mentee).

  984. I have called in the past for a plebiscite by Crimea and eastern Ukraine to decide whether those people living there want to be part of Ukraine or Russia or an independent entity. It could be part of a peace agreement.

    I have become very anti-war as I have gotten older and judge that avoidance of wars does not see the effort it deserves especially given the lose of life, limb and property that could be avoided.

    In the case of Ukraine it is obvious that as a sovereign nation it has been invaded wrongfully by Russia. The question remains whether this action could have been prevented. I am of the opinion that NATO has long outlived its cold war purpose and by its very existence provokes an enduring military answer to disagreements in Europe. I do not see it as directly causing Russia’s wrongful invasion but I think it does set a wrong environment for negotiating to avoid conflicts in general.

    In a protracted conflict where the destruction factor becomes huge and overwhelming a declaration of victory by either side becomes meaningless. Does the victor get to posses or repossess a totally devastated nation? Does it become responsible for rebuilding it or does it become dependent on the goodwill and direction of others?

    I am thinking of the US military victory in Iraq, that allowed the US to waste hundreds of billions dollars unsuccessfully rebuilding it in somebody’s view of an ideal Western style government.

    By the way NATO standing as a conglomerate of national militaries may in the near future be facing off with a conglomerate of non NATO nations. We already have China and Russia in close, or least closer, accords.

  985. Ron

    Lucia, I apologize that I conflated voting third party to abstaining. I didn’t want to imply that not voting or voting third party is ill thought of, because I don’t think it is.

    I didn’t suggest you made any implication that it was good or bad. I merely wanted to point that you were putting words in my mouth– I hadn’t said that.
    .
    It at least appears you are admitting that I never said I planned to not vote.
    .

    Misstating somebody’s views is not my intention.

    Whether your intention or not, you did it. I find myself pointing out you did it frequently and others point out you’ve misstated theirs frequently also. If it is not your intention to do this, you should take more care. With a small amount of care, you should be able to avoid “conflating” voting for X (e.g. third party) with “not voting”.
    .

    …I don’t have TDS is because….

    TDS? You appears to be suggesting people who don’t share your views are deranged. This from the person who (after likening Dems to Nazis) called for people not to vilify others, and who also believes people use ad homs against his arguments.

  986. One can argue NATO has kept Russia from taking bites out of eastern Europe. We would need an alternate history to determine how true that is.
    .
    As we have discussed, the world without NATO and other military alliances cannot be assumed to be all flowers and butterflies. Would the world really be better off with Saddam in charge the past few decades and Kuwait gone? An enduring sanctuary for Al Queda in Afghanistan? Are we better off with Iran on the brink of a nuclear weapon that cannot be undone? These questions cannot be answered and are very meaningful. Judgments have to be made. Putin made his judgment as well. Some things are worth fighting for, some things aren’t, and it isn’t black and white.
    .
    The majority of criticism falls on bad outcomes from decisions to act. All decisions to go to war are going to have some bad outcomes, pretty much everyone loses in an absolute measurement in the short term. Bad outcomes from decisions to not act are also very real (Syrian civil war). Just a big ugly amorphous blob of uncertainty.
    .
    Some of these problems can be self resolving and implode on their own significant faults. No action would be necessary. North Korea has nukes and not much has really changed, unless one of those whackos decides to unify Korea later.

  987. Tom, I’ve been listening to a lot of Glenn Greenwald recently and it has changed my view on America’s recent wars. Also Josh Seigel’s Tablet long piece links the Disinformation Industrial Complex as due to a slow expansion of the War on Terror from focused on foreign threats to domestic threats (like you and me).

    I am actually pretty upset that I let myself be taken by Chaney and Bush on Iraq. Also the patriot act seems to me to now be in need of repeal.

    Glenn has a great example of how the media functions as the propaganda arm of the security state. Dick Cheney or one of his subordinates leaked to the New York Times that intelligence showed that Saddam Hussein was shopping for aluminum tubes that could only be useful in nuclear weapons. The Times dutifully repeated this leak without questioning it. Then the next Sunday Cheney appeared with Clinton flak Georgie Stephenopolis on his national show and used the New York Times article to justify his aluminum tubes claim.

    Greenwald claims that the corporate media in the US even during the war on terror was quite strong in supporting the war and certainly serving as the conduit for deep state leaks designed to shape the narrative to support the war.

    Now of course, this domestic version of that war is our real threat to Democracy. The Ukraine war is the tool the cartel is using to keep this threat off the front page and out of mind for voters and refocus their anger at a cartoon version of “Russians.” This has been going on since 2016 and the Clinton campaign capture of parts of the FBI and CIA. Amazing the number of Pulitzer winning articles that turned out to be deep state propaganda.

  988. Couple of the better battlefield reviews on what’s going on around Bakhmut without the clickbait.
    .
    Somewhat long, but not excessive.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-97jRxB9RY
    .
    Another is a short update that gives a review using topo, which most of the clickbait articles don’t use. Trying to make sense of military operations without taking the topographical reality on the ground is a fool’s errand.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxeA5Qo7EVk
    .
    In short, Russia is pulling back on some areas of the flanks either side of Bakhmut in the low flatlands to positions on the high ground.
    .
    Bakhmut is basically in a valley with Russia having the high ground on one side and Ukraine having the high ground on the other.

  989. Tom, I do agree that most of our recent wars were counterproductive at best. In a lot of cases, we can probably accomplish our goals using special forces only and targeted strikes. But even here, mistakes happen like the 13 Afghan’s murdered by a drone probably as a botched way to distract from Biden’s totally incompetent withdrawal.

    It is also true that the US military is vastly superior to any other nation’s because of fantastic technology. We don’t need to go around the world interfering militarily for other nations to respect our strength.

    One other thing that has really surprised me is the seeming dissipation of the worst radical Islamic groups. I really thought that war and violence was inherent in Islam’s theology. I think a big part of this is just that countries like Saudi Arabia have started to modernize slowly and stopped funding some of these groups. Or maybe its just because the war on terror tactics have worked. Do you have an opinion?

  990. David Young,
    “A lot depends on how mature voters are and whether they can look past personality issues to the important issues where Trump is dramatically superior to the venal oval office mumbling corpse.”
    .
    A huge number of people, including lots of independents, would rather eat live maggots than vote for Trump. He is remarkably, almost comically, offensive, and his unyielding negatives over multiple years among voters prove that. You might hope that voters will see past his many offensive behaviors and vote for an administration with more sensible policies, but realistically, plenty in the middle will gag on Trump…. the same people who would happily vote for DeSantis or some other Republican, but never Trump. Then there is the ~35% who like the destructive Biden administration policies, and they also would never vote for Trump. Somehow Trump has to get to >50% in enough states to win the Electoral College. I do not believe he can. I find it very depressing.
    .
    Maybe a bolt from on high on some golf course will deliver us from Trump, but the odds are clearly against that.

  991. Ed Forbes

    In short, Russia is pulling back on some areas of the flanks either side of Bakhmut in the low flatlands to positions on the high ground.

    Whether low or high ground, they are pulling back from positions they fought hard to take and sure as heck seemed to want to hold.

  992. Steve, I of course can’t predict the future and neither can the polls. I do think though that if DeSantis is the candidate he will get the full court anal exam and smears. He is a lot more restrained and polite than Trump. I would be pleased to vote for him. I was hoping you could give some insight into how DeSantis won by a landslide in a formerly purple state given his very conservative policies. Was the local press friendly to him contrary to the national media?

    I continue to be amazed by how uneducated and unserious a lot of voters are. They seem to think elections are about who they “like” as a person or based on the candidates skin color (the reason Obama won). That’s how middle school students would pick their student body president.

  993. David

    They seem to think elections are about who they “like” as a person or based on the candidates skin color (the reason Obama won).

    Based on this I would suggest you do not have mind reading abilities.
    .
    Some superficial things make a difference; that doesn’t make them the main reasons someone won. And dislike of Trump especially maps into traits he holds that make him an unsuitable president. It’s rational to not vote for unsuitable candidates, and it remains rational even if you also don’t like them.

  994. ISIS is gone because we bombed the sh** out of them, ha ha. All the naysayers said this was creating more terrorists, but in this case crushing them militarily worked (notably with Russia’s help). It’s not always going to work this way and telling the difference is the key, but nobody knows how to predict the future. A bunch of posturing and over confident predictions in present time.

  995. It’s very, very, easy to understand why people don’t vote for Trump. It’s also easy to understand why people don’t vote for Biden. This may be another hold your nose election. I’m not voting for Trump again though. All he needed to do was concede a lost election (or produce evidence it was corrupt). That’s on him.

  996. Ed Forbes’
    “In short, Russia is pulling back on some areas of the flanks either side of Bakhmut in the low flatlands to positions on the high ground.”
    Do you have any proof of this? Those two YouTube videos you referenced present no evidence; they only make statements. Moskow and Kyiv are not publishing situation maps, and no one would believe them if they did. No independent journalists have published anything. Ukrainian war bloggers are tight-lipped. Is your proof Russian social media? Good luck with that. No one knows the situation to this detail. Proprietary commercial satellite maps will be available in a few days, but those cost money and will take days or weeks to fully analyze. I suspect your basis is Kremlin disinformation in some form or another, it sure looks and sounds like it.

  997. David Young,
    DeSantis is conservative, but what made his re-election landslide possible was a combination of competence and mostly sensible policies. The covid pandemic in Florida was far less destructive economically and socially than in many states, and that was 100% DeSantis. He forced crazy local officials to stop irrational Covid policies (school masking, efforts to force vaccinations, etc). He responded almost perfectly to the emergency of a major hurricane, returning a whole region to near normality in half the time I expected. Save for the 6-week abortion ban, just about every policy he has adopted has be popular with the majority of voters. Finally he gives not an inch to the lefty MSM that report dishonestly on everything he does.
    .
    He is smart, disciplined, and competent…… an exact anti-Trump. Biden could not beat him. After DeSantis won in 2018 (by a whisker) my very liberal daughter and son in law said they didn’t believe he could ever win re-election. By a year later, I told them he would easily win in 2022…. and his approval rating only got better until the election ended in a landslide.

  998. So if we now write Kyiv instead of Kiev, why don’t we write Moskva instead of Moscow? In Russian, it’s Mockba, which transliterates to the English alphabet as Moskva.

    I’ve also been breakfasting at McD’s with a gentleman who was born in India and who uses Bombay instead of Mumbai. I asked him about it and he said that he thought the people who demanded the change to Mumbai were idiots.

    And to David Young: If you were a participant in the Pfizer trial and suspected that you had been in the placebo group for the Pfizer trial, would you have stayed unvaccinated once you were eligible, along with everyone else, to receive it? Whinging about something that was inevitable because there was no way to prevent it does not make for a convincing argument.

  999. I was lighting my grill with an old newspaper tonight, the article from the local news in April 2020 was “Another day, another Florida hashtag”. It related that the national news media and Twitter were trending with #FloridaMoron because Jacksonville and DeSantis had opened the beaches for two separate 4 hour periods to allow people to walk on the beach with social distancing.
    .
    That didn’t age well.

  1000. I think we’ve established that Trump was a quite successful president or at least no one took issue with my list. It’s also clear that Biden has caused a train wreck. Under those circumstances it is emotional to allow your dislike of someone’s personality to cause you to vote for a mumbling corpse who is captive to the far left and has literally caused a whole host of problems that are costing lives and impoverishing the country. If you watch the view you will see the essence of the problem. Upper middle class women who know nothing except that they hate one candidate and are insulated from the real world.

    The real problem here is the Disinformation Cartel that makes it difficult for rational voters to get accurate information but promotes the View as a source of information.

  1001. DeWitt, I think you are wrong about the trial. Those who volunteered knew what the risks were. It was literally Pfizer and the FDA who terminated the trial. If most of them were not very old or very sick which is highly likely, their risks were not that high anyway.

    The point is that a longer trial would have made clear the limitations of these novel vaccines earlier. No other vaccine trial has done this in the past.

  1002. David,

    Under those circumstances it is emotional to allow your dislike of someone’s personality to cause you to vote for a mumbling corpse who is captive to the far left and has literally caused a whole host of problems that are costing lives and impoverishing the country.

    That Trump tried to get his Vice President to overturn the results of the election was absolutely inexcusable in my view. His behavior then and since, and his remarks on social media, have demonstrated both an appalling disregard of the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold and a disregard for the long term wellbeing of this country for the sake of another measly 4 year term in office.
    .
    Trump’s odious personality indeed pales beside the real issues I have with him. I have said before, and I say again, I marvel at the willingness of his supporters to overlook these incidents.

  1004. David

    or at least no one took issue with my list

    People who have participated a blog should be aware that no one taking issue with your list does not mean they agree with you.

    \…. Disinformation Cartel….

    Giving people spiffy nicknames is not an argument nor is it information.

  1005. Dewitt

    And to David Young: If you were a participant in the Pfizer trial and suspected that you had been in the placebo group for the Pfizer trial, would you have stayed unvaccinated once you were eligible, along with everyone else, to receive it?

    You didn’t ask me. But I would have gotten vaccinated. STAT.

  1006. Lucia:

    Some superficial things make a difference; that doesn’t make them the main reasons someone won. And dislike of Trump especially maps into traits he holds that make him an unsuitable president. It’s rational to not vote for unsuitable candidates, and it remains rational even if you also don’t like them.

    Lucia, I think its rational to look into what exactly defines a “suitable candidate.” This seems to me to be the disconnect between David and I’s view and those here that find Trump unacceptable under any circumstances. (Sorry for earlier using the commonly used anacronym for that.) Having an irrational view is not the same as being an irrational person. So, if you care to elaborate for David and I on what you define as traits that are needed for a successful leader of the free world that would be helpful.
    .
    SteveF:

    All he needed to do was concede a lost election (or produce evidence it was corrupt). That’s on him.

    .
    As I think Tom pointed out, Trump certainly had the right to exhaust every legal option. Certainly the Democrats would have as evidenced by their past elections maneuvers. Despite the National Review’s claim that the Eastman memo “bold option” is all one needs to know to determine what was asked of Pence, the circumstantial evidence, including Pence’s recent book quotes, points to the plan being following the Electoral Count Act, which was perfectly legal and constitutional. That plan required Pence to make a determination under the Act that there was enough objection that the electors could be returned to the states for their legislatures to directly certify. The state legislatures are usually out of session, and thus they delegate their powers to the governors. But if the ECA where invoked it would call the legislatures into session and require an investigative hearing, debate and vote. This process had already been started by GOP state legislatures in AZ, MI, WI, PA and GA, where they showed the infamous video of the observers being shoed out the State Farm center at 10PM due to a fake water main break only to have the workers pull out ballots from under a table and repeatedly run the same stacks two of three times through the counters until 12:45am, producing tens of thousands of illegal votes.
    .
    The State Farm Center shenanigans and the others were not weighed by courts and determined to be false or insignificant. They were never heard. The proper place for this to have been heard was the state legislatures after being brought into special session. January 6th protests ironically foiled that plan, along with perhaps Pence’s reticence to send the electors back to the states. I don’t think anyone was sure what Pence would do.
    .
    I realize it is hard to swallow that the election could have had shenanigans but a lot of things have occurred clearly that just a few years ago would never thought have been possible, like the challenging candidate to get the entire FBI and CIA and news media to cover up their evidence of selling influence to China, Ukraine, Romania, Kazakhstan and even to the first lady of Moscow (or Moskva).

  1007. Ron

    Lucia, I think its rational to look into what exactly defines a “suitable candidate.”

    Of course. Which makes David’s accusation that other people are “emotional” or only voting based on who they “like” incorrect .
    .

    those here that find Trump unacceptable under any circumstances.

    Who here has said “under any circumstances”? As far as I can tell, some people find him unacceptable under the particular circumstances that exist.
    .

    Having an irrational view is not the same as being an irrational person.

    Perhaps. Which is why people here may not jump to the conclusion that you are an irrational person. We simply point out that the arguments you advance are not rational, contains logical fallacies, yada, yada. You may, of course, be entirely rational.
    .

  1008. Well the View hosts are quite strong evidence that a large part of the electorate are driven by emotion and misinformation. I don’t know what “fitness” means. Sounds pretty subjective to me. It used to mean accusations of mental illness or incapacitation, or criminal activity, or things like abusing subordinates, drug use, taking bribes, etc. But wait are these people describing Uncle Joe and his family? With Trump it usually means his temperament is not like Mitt Romney who is a born loser and a mesh of contradictions and that he fights harder than virtually all Republicans. It took balls to nominate judges from the Federalist list only. Almost no one else would have done that and risked becoming an outcast and a constant target. Trump did it anyway. It took balls to threaten tariffs on Mexico but Trump did it and it worked miracles. The presidency is not the same role as husband or friend or coworker. I’m even glad that Trump went hard on the election rigging issue. The election was rigged. I don’t think the January 6 rally was a good idea though.

    Lucia, The Censorship Industrial Complex is quite large and very real. If you haven’t been following Matt Taibbi, Michael Schellenberger, Alex Berensen and the Twitter Files team (there are at least 6 or 7 good reporters) you need to read Matt’s recent piece listing the main component organizations and detailing their funding. They are not small time outfits. It’s a perfectly fine name for a massive collusion to control the flow of information to the public. The evidence is irrefutable too. You will notice that there is a virtual media blackout on this and the usual smears of and lies about the reporters. This is how you can tell they have nothing. The most disturbing part is the application of tactics from hybrid warfare domestically in the US.

    Anyway please read Taibbi’s substack post detailing the CIC or my Climate Etc. post. It is very well sourced.

  1009. David,

    Well the View hosts are quite strong evidence that a large part of the electorate are driven by emotion and misinformation.

    The existances of bad television programs is not evidence of what drives the electorate. I’m going to stop reading right there.

  1010. Steve F
    “my very liberal daughter and son in law ”
    –
    I have 3 very liberal green sons.
    I think I did everything right.
    Clear thinking.
    Fact check.
    Must be a result of negative psychology?

  1011. And Steve, I think saying DeSantis is the opposite of Trump is wrong. They in fact employed very similar policies and strategies. DeSantis was more low profile about it though. But he did attack in personal terms reporters and media who were dishonest just like Trump did. And both were successful. I do think that probably local media was a lot friendlier to DeSantis than the national media was to Trump. And Florida has a large Hispanic population which I think helped DeSantis win big.

    I still claim too that all this stuff about “fitness” is mostly just a cover for the real reason Trump was so hated. He opposed the absolute foundational doctrines of the US security state and the endless wars. That’s fundamentally why Liz and her dad hated him. That’s why he became the target of an illegal collusion to spread a massive fraud to charge him with a crime and then to impeach him. It was the most intrusive anal exam in world history but they came up empty.

    And then there is the fact that Trump assembled a huge group of loyal supporters. That’s not supposed to happen. The people should get their “information” from the deep state via corporate media and the CDC. This is the origin of the Fascism charge.

    I view the Charlottesville “good people on both sides” as a template for the modern political smear. It’s a lie to imply that Trump meant “white supremicists.” He was talking about the Confederate statues issue. Biden used this lie to launch his campaign and the media dutifully repeated it endlessly. Russian media may be more honest.

  1013. Angech, I was very green too when I was in college. Once I started working for a living that changed fairly quickly. I also cut my teeth on Bertrand Russell. I now recognize that Russell was a very flawed writer who had little conception of what science and religion really were. Give them a few years.

  1014. Lucia, The view has a large following among the electorate.

    Googling: Viewership of the view is 2.301 million. That would include some who vote and some who do not.

    .
    Number of votes cast in a presidential election: 159 million.
    .
    The number of people watching the view is trivial compared to the number of people voting. Moreover, I’ve seen the show, and I suspect you have. Some one happening to see the show doesn’t mean they agree with everything Whoopie Goldberg says.
    .
    Heck, I’ve also watched “Married at first sight” and, when at the gym on the exercise machines, I’ve seen Fox News. (Same place I’ve seen “The view”.) Doesn’t tell you much about how informed I am about politics.

    (https://www.dgepress.com/abcnews/pressrelease/the-view-ranks-no-1-in-households-and-total-viewers-among-the-daytime-network-and-syndicated-talk-shows-and-news-programs-for-the-week-of-march-6-and-season-to-date/)

  1015. Ron Graf,
    I did not write the quote you attributed to me.
    .
    David Young,
    I think Trump is an asshole, and terribly, unnecessarily offensive. That made him far less effective when he was in office. He should have conceded a close election and then shut up about it; he didn’t and won’t. But my biggest objection to Trump is that by running for office he is likely to do the country real damage by enabling the re-election of a demented, corrupt president, AND very likely giving that demented president control of Congress. Trump is bad news on every possible level. I wish he would go away and play golf 8 hours a day instead of 4. Greater chance for a bolt of lightning.
    .
    I am not looking forward to Biden resigning after reelection, and 3+ years of President Kamala and Vice President Gavin. If that happens, it will be 100% because Trump doesn’t care about the future of the USA at all.
    .
    DeSantis is smart, disciplined, and most of all, competent. Trump is the opposite of all three.
    .
    BTW, Desantis is of italian descent, not Hispanic. He does not speak Spanish, and in 2018 he got relatively few Hispanic votes outside the conservative Cuban community around Miami. He got a huge number hispanic votes in 2022… it accounted for most of the landslide. Nobody in Florida thinks DeSantis is latino. Most do think he is competent.

  1016. angech,
    “Must be a result of negative psychology?”
    .
    University indoctrination? Social pressure to conform? Lack of experience? I would quote Churchill on liberal v conservative, but I’m pretty sure you already heard that.

  1017. SteveF

    Ron Graf,
    I did not write the quote you attributed to me.

    Ironically…. Tom wrote it. Ironic, in an apparent attempt to explain why, something Tom is wrong, he starts by attributing is ideas to Tom.
    .
    Here’s what Tom wrote– (Ron attributed the italicized sentence to SteveF)

    It’s very, very, easy to understand why people don’t vote for Trump. It’s also easy to understand why people don’t vote for Biden. This may be another hold your nose election. I’m not voting for Trump again though. All he needed to do was concede a lost election (or produce evidence it was corrupt). That’s on him.

    .
    This is Ron responding to “Steve”

    As I think Tom pointed out, Trump certainly had the right to exhaust every legal option. Certainly the Democrats would have as evidenced by their past elections maneuvers…..

    .
    I’m guessing Tom probably isn’t going to change his stated opinion that Trump should have conceded based on what Ron thinks Tom said. 🙂

  1018. See, that’s not accidental. One has to go out of one’s way to screw up like that.

  1019. David,
    So – all the hoopla about the post at Climate Etc and disinformation and emotional voters and the View and so on boils down to ‘vote Trump’, is that pretty much the message you are trying to convey? Is there anything else?

  1020. Russia still occupies 18 % of Ukrainian territory. Let’s suppose Mexico invaded the US. At the height of their invasion, they controlled 25% of our land. We retaliated and after 16 months of bloody fighting, they still occupied Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico, or 19 % of the US, but we were on the attack. Would the “Negotiation Nuts” be justified in trying to force the US to stop its advance and accept the status quo as the price of peace? After all many of those states’ inhabitants are of Mexican heritage and many residents speak Spanish. Further, appeasement of brutal invading dictators has always worked in the past.

  1021. Tom, do you remember voicing the opinion that Trump should have had the right to be able to exhaust all of his legal options to challenge he election? If not, do you disagree with that concept now?
    .
    SteveF, sorry for the misattribution. I heard you voicing similar sentiments as I was going down and copying quotes to respond to and looked back and mistakenly attributed that one to you. Do you think Trump had a right to ask Pence to invoke the ECA without having some sort of smoking gun or confession of election fraud by an official in hand?
    .
    Mark, I am not intentionally misquoting as a scheme to get people to clarify their position or point. At the same time I feel that people should not be afraid to share their logic or the reasoning it is based. I always try to do that. I don’t complain about being misquoted or misunderstood without elaboration of my position.
    .
    Edit: I notice that nobody here is challenging the notion that the entire group was under the assumption that it was a fact that Trump had asked Pence to violate the constitution and appoint him president. And, nobody now is challenging yet my point that was untrue.

  1022. I don’t know why anyone thinks whether or not Trump had ‘a right’ to do something extremely stupid and potentially damaging has any bearing on the question of why people might no longer be willing to support Trump.
    I mean, Trump had a perfect right to do all sorts of things that could cost him my support. He had a right to declare he was a Maxist-Lenninist if he chose to. Seriously. So what? I don’t argue that he ‘had no right’ to try to overturn the election. I don’t know if he did or not, I don’t care if he had a right to or not. I argue that it was stupid and destructive for him to try to overturn the election, and that this cost him my support. His further remarks on the subject and claims that we could set aside the Constitution in this case (and these are his words) poured concrete over his tomb. He is done, as far as I am concerned.

  1023. Ron,

    dit: I notice that nobody here is challenging the notion that the entire group was under the assumption that it was a fact that Trump had asked Pence to violate th…

    “Assumption?” I don’t think anyone here assumed their views about Trump. The end result of applying reasoning skills is not an “assumption”. And the specific thing you say? Appoint? ehrmmm… no.
    .
    But for the most part, after the silly misattribution along with your attempt with prefacing your long paragraph with a statement that made it appear someone else pre-agrees with you, I mostly ignored it.
    .
    Your tendency to word things like you aren’t presenting your own view but agreeing without someone else previously (and often either distorting or contradicting their point) is one of the irrational argument strategies you have. It would be less time wasting, and lead to more productive discourse if you simply presented your own views as your own views.

  1024. Ron,
    I think Trump should have accepted his loss and shut up within a couple of weeks of the election. The conduct of elections are state responsibilities, and Trump, being Trump, caused a huge amount of trouble for the country for no reason other than his vanity. Yes there was some fraud, but not enough to flip multiple states, and yes, several states used covid as an excuse to ignore existing voting rules. But Trump could not/would not accept reality. He reminds me of a very spoiled 5 year old…. just as reasonable and responsible, and just as self-aware. He is such an asshole.

  1025. Are we going to do this for the whole of the [remainder of this] year, leading up to the election? Battle wave after wave of Trump zombies [figuratively speaking] who can’t grasp the reality that we aren’t backing Trump? It’s a depressing idea. I don’t know why Ron and David can’t accept that many of us here have solid reasons for not supporting Trump any longer that we aren’t going to change our minds about. Not even if we read a post at Climate Etc. Not even if somebody misrepresents what Tom said in a comment.
    It gets old.

  1026. Trump should be allowed to exhaust all legal options in challenging the election. There was quite a few people who thought Trump’s bad legal arguments somehow amounted to criminal behavior. He can make those arguments and the courts can dismiss them. It wouldn’t be the first election decided by the court system.
    .
    I, as a voter, get to make judgments on Trump’s behavior. Trump lost this election and would have needed to overturn several states to reverse the results. He never produced evidence that any of these states had enough fraud to be decisive.
    .
    From my view, the integrity of the US election system and system of government is more important than a petty man (whose policies I mostly agree with) having a temper tantrum because he lost. Losing an election isn’t the end of the world. You should allow the other guys their turn when they win. Hillary Clinton didn’t handle this well either after her coronation was cancelled by the voters. Gore handled the end of his election and SC judgment well, to his credit. I expect, actually demand, that people I am going to support concede elections when they lose. That’s my personal opinion.

  1027. I should add, it doesn’t bother me at all that people still support Trump. I also don’t feel any particular responsibility to convert them.

  1028. I don’t want to convert anyone. I want them to quit trying to convert me.

  1030. Tom Scharf (Comment #221124): “Trump lost this election and would have needed to overturn several states to reverse the results. He never produced evidence that any of these states had enough fraud to be decisive.”
    .
    There is pretty good evidence that in both Georgia and Arizona the number of illegally cast votes was several times as large as Biden’s margin of victory. Under the laws of both states, that should have required a rerun of the election. But both Secretaries of State refused to investigate. Of course, that would still have left Trump 10 electoral votes short.

  1031. Mike M,
    .
    “Of course, that would still have left Trump 10 electoral votes short.”
    .
    Yes the stupid SOB should have conceded the election and let it go. He wouldn’t. But it is worse than that. State courts were not going to get involved, Federal courts were not going to get involved, nor was the SC. He lost everywhere every time. The outcome quickly became obvious, but Tump would not (could not?) accept reality. Only an insufferable jerk would not accept it. What an asshole.

  1032. The following Letter to the Editor in today’s WSJ sums up in my mind that Trump, after ignoring all his character defects, was not the conservative hero many worshippers claim he was.

    Your editorial “Bill Barr’s Warning on Trump” (May 8) demonstrates that former President Donald Trump’s lack of discipline and focus limited his success in implementing conservative policy. One more example is the national debt, which grew by $7.8 trillion under Mr. Trump.

    Mr. Trump’s lack of discipline on budgets played out like clockwork. Each fiscal year, his Office of Management and Budget proposed deep spending cuts. These proposals never went anywhere in Congress, which instead passed big-spending omnibus bills that made debt-elimination even more far-fetched. And each year, Mr. Trump made comments such as: “I will never sign another bill like this again” (2018) before signing and inaugurating billions more in red ink.

    The national debt is a lien on the future of young Americans. We desperately need a president who, unlike Mr. Trump, is disciplined and focused enough to reduce the national debt.

    Declan M. Hurley

  1033. mark bofill (Comment #221120)
    May 13th, 2023 at 8:06 am

    Mark, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. It is what I would prefer a few others here to do. Put out views, opinions and judgements on subjects in no uncertain terms and let it go at that.

    If someone makes a reasonable reply or asks a reasonable question there might ensue an informative discussion. Otherwise ignore.

  1034. Thanks Ken. I’ll try that. [Edit: Er, I’ll try to continue in that vein. Some of my subsequent remarks already … are probably less than satisfactory in this regard.]

  1035. I failed to mention in a previous post on war, that I think it is rather self evident that when governments spend lots of resources on preparing for war they will probably at some time go to war or instigate a war because that is what governments do be it a military function or a domestic one. They need to find a reason for their existence.

  1036. “Trump lost this election and would have needed to overturn several states to reverse the results.’
    .
    Nope, you can’t make an asshole not an asshole. It is frightening, and clearly embarrassing to those who voted for him, that he so distorts reality. What an asshole.

  1037. Russell Klier (Comment #221118)
    May 13th, 2023 at 7:37 am

    I think you are leaving out of your hypothetical the suffering of life, limb and property to the involved parties who are mostly innocent bystanders. Leave that out and every war would be fought to near total death and destruction.

  1038. Mark, Tom, Steve, I agree that we should not be trying to convert anyone from strongly held beliefs. I see now my overzealous curiosity as to how those beliefs were founded made me assume to much willingness to share. I think everyone knows where my beliefs come from but if not please question away. I am not one of those who tries of get stuff without sharing myself.
    .
    Going back to David’s reference to exciting times. What I think is new is that we used to think disinformation or propagandized news was something we did not see in the mainstream media except maybe in WWI and WWII. At least I felt confident until that I was getting straight news until I started watching Fox in the early 2000s. (I still watch the others and CSPAN. I am a bit of a political news junky.) I came into climate in about 2014 from the huge contradiction in stories coming from different sources and wanted to get to the bottom of it. Since then disinformation has either exploded or its exposure exploded onto the scene. Either way, I think this is a time where we all should hold beliefs more tentatively than in the past.

  1039. Ron,

    I see now my overzealous curiosity as to how those beliefs were founded made me assume to much willingness to share.

    People have shared plenty.

  1040. Sorry Steve, but election integrity is an important issue that needs to be pursued. It’s why a lot of Red states have tightened up their voting rules and voting roles. Indeed, MikeM is right. In a random examination of Georgia voter roles and ballots I think something like 20,000 ballots were found where the person had moved and failed to notify the authorities, in some cases out of state. Under Georgia law those ballots are not legal ballots. Source Mollie Hemmingway. She has an excellent book on the 2020 election. A lot of people move to a different state. Under mail in voting where the roles are rarely cleaned up, those people have every opportunity to vote in more than one state. Typically states enforce voting laws so its virtually impossible to detect this without a massive examination of voting roles.

    In places like Pennsylvania and Michigan universal mail in voting left it wide open for fraud. Activists only needed to visit nursing homes and get similarly minded employees there to harvest ballots from people who were too infirm or demented to vote and “help” them fill them in and then forge the signature. Monitor mail boxes at recently vacated residences, etc. Of if you are in Fulton County you refuse to ever clean up the roles so that there are tens of thousands of illegal ballots floating around. Maybe someone at the post office is a rabid Trump hater and sees a bunch of undeliverable ballots.

    Even the Carter commission said that universal mail in voting was much more susceptible to fraud.

    Oh and when Wisconsin nursing homes ballots were examined in quite a few cases there was a 99% return rate. If you believe all those ballots were filled out with informed consent you are not thinking critically.

    Pennsylvania’s constitution says that the state legislature sets voting rules. Yet the Governor changed them to allow mail in voting for all without legislative consent. In Washington state, you don’t even have to put a stamp on the envelop. I know of at least one person who has received more than one ballot.

    There are tens of millions of illegals in this country. All you have to do is lie about that when you get your drivers license and bingo you get to vote in states like California and Washington.

    Look, I agree that Trump should have had a more nuanced position. “There was fraud and the election was rigged, but legally there is no effective way to overturn it.” Trump lost these court cases because of the practical impossibility of correcting all the illegalities and irregularities. But the issue is a very important one.

  1041. Sorry Ken, but the Wall Street Journal is wrong to blame Trump for the massive spending. A lot of it happened in 2020 when Congress just dumped trillions into the economy. Trump I think rightly realized that the panicked public would blame him if he didn’t sign off and that a veto would probably be overridden anyway. The other part of it was the tax cut that the Republican congress passed. Normally that would be called a “conservative” move. Look, there was a continuous riot going on nationwide throughout much of 2020. These were not normal or sane times.

    Fiscal responsibility is just no longer a politically winning issue. People are numb to it and don’t see the relationship of massive spending to inflation and possible default. BTW, interest on the debt is now larger than the defense budget.

    Overall, Trump’s administration was the most conservative since Reagan’s on the really big issues. Trump is not a social conservative but he was smart enough to realize that his core supporters were.

  1042. David young,
    “Sorry Steve, but election integrity is an important issue that needs to be pursued.”
    .
    Sure, but you and Trump are both quite crazy. Trump lost in 2020 because he did not adjust to reality on the ground: democrats in many swing states were setting up to make sure enough voters would show up (one way or another) to be sure Trump would lose…. and lose he did. This is not a complicated story. Good grief, let it go.

  1044. Ken Fritsch (Comment #221131)

    “The following Letter to the Editor in today’s WSJ sums up in my mind that Trump was not the conservative hero many worshippers claim he was.”

    The national debt is a lien on the future of young Americans. We desperately need a president who, unlike Mr. Trump, is disciplined and focused enough to reduce the national debt.
    Declan M. Hurley”
    –
    “Of the 45 Presidents, only 14 of them have overseen a decrease in debt. Calvin Coolidge was the last President to do so, leaving office in 1929, 15 Presidencies ago“
    –
    Ken,
    Disappointed in this take.
    I have added an addendum to Mr Hurley’s churlish comment on Trump and the reduction of the national debt as a measuring stick of the discipline, focus and ability of any President.
    In particular I would point out that the last President to achieve such a feat caused the Great Depression, not exactly a ringing endorsement.
    –
    I am interested in what you consider a conservative hero should have as qualities to attract nearly 50 million voting worshippers.
    Perhaps if you considered these qualities in a dispassionate way.
    “ after ignoring all his character defects”
    You might understand what conservative voters want in any hero.
    –
    My list would include
    – A love of one’s country
    -An expression of a love of that country’s values, eg life, liberty and the preservation of happiness.
    – A determination to improve the health and wealth of its citizens.
    – A determination to uphold the founding hence conservative principles.

    Trump promised all these thing.
    He was hamstrung by a hostile FBI, CIA and Justice Department, the mainstream press and the Democratic Party machinations plus the RINO’s.

    Achievements included ending the Afghanistan war ,
    Increasing American productivity and pride, the tax cuts you are about to lose and which would have led to reduced national debt if Covid had not intervened.
    His character positives.

    Failures, not coupling the overturning of Roe, Wade with a commitment to a sensible abortion policy.
    All his character defects.

  1045. angech,
    wow . Maybe you could state your thinking in something other than psychotic ramblings. Focus on actually saying something clearly.

  1046. Well SteveF, The data is out there. Since you have made up your mind long ago, you probably have insulated yourself from it. We will have to agree to disagree. I gave a host of facts and several fact filled sources. Hemmingway’s book is quite good and she is a very careful reporter.

  1047. Come on Steve, angech’s comment is not a “psychotic rambling.” It’s a credible view of what conservative means in a president.

  1048. David Young,
    I am a life-long conservative. I thought for some time that Jimmy Carter was objectively the worst president in history, until Obama, who operated much of the time outside the law, and then until Biden, who pretty much only operates outside the law, and is in fact a career criminal, now suffering dementia… a failing don Corleone is the best description I have.
    ,
    My rejection of Trump, based on his many personal failings, is carefully considered. I suggest you carefully consider continuing supporting such an asshole.

  1049. David Young,
    “We will have to agree to disagree.”
    .
    I can live with that. Really, I just don’t think there is any positive interaction possible. Everything you write seems to me wildly disconnected from reality, and especially so about Trump.

  1050. Angech: “life, liberty and the preservation of happiness.” [That’s pursuit of happiness. Americans founders were wise enough to know there was a big difference.] 😉
    .
    SteveF: “[@David:] I am beginning to think you are disconnected from reality…[@ Angech:] Maybe you could state your thinking in something other than psychotic ramblings. Focus on actually saying something clearly.”
    .
    I hope my tendency to be a magnet to controversy does not heat the atmosphere here. We are all on the same side. BTW, thanks for being relatively nice to me and not piling on. I make a goof now and again.

  1051. “We are all on the same side.”
    .
    I cringe when I see the Trump ads attacking DeSantis rather than Biden. I am not a Trump firster. But I honestly see us in a civil war (maybe worldwide) between socialism and capitalism. This in itself is a whole other discussion. My point is that the enemy of our rival can be our friend, may even hero. For example, Churchill was discarded as soon as WWII ended. I think David and I would be more revolted by Trump’s personality faults if he wasn’t a person proven to be willing to walk into firestorms for the American people. He may be doing it for personal glory. Who wouldn’t. The point is I do not see any signs he is corrupt or that his family or associates are. I see them all persecuted, however. That tells me there is a force that is a danger to us all, which may preclude us from the luxury of choosing a polite and personally reverent leader.
    .
    I am not discounting DeSantis. I am thinking he would also make a fine President. We just still have a lot of unknowns. Dems can make Trump a Russian agent. They may be able to make DeSantis a evangelical Christian, which the left would oppose more than a Trump. (This is also why Pence has no chance, though he is an extremely virtuous and ethical man.)
    .
    Edit: We talk about Trump’s self awareness. What about Pence? He should know that he would never get the GOP to unify behind him. He would just bring the party under attack as being the party of the Christian right. That would doom the GOP. So why is he running?

  1053. Okay, for Mark’s sake we can’t talk any more about presidential politics for a while.
    .
    Ed Forbes, Russell, Klier, what do you know about the allegations that certain Ukraine factions, maybe the whole central government, has an affinity to WWII Germans invaders? If true, are they true Nazi’s or just anti-Russian [anti-Soviet]. I hear the defense to this allegation being that Zelensky is a Jew. Is it possible that Zelensky supports the ideology of the Azov Brigade? Or, does he view them as simply enemies of the enemy of Ukraine?

  1054. Ron

    if he wasn’t a person proven to be willing to walk into firestorms for the American people

    He isn’t a person who is willing to walk into firestorms for anyone.
    .

    The point is I do not see any signs he is corrupt

    I consider his actions to try to over turn the election corruption.
    .

    That tells me there is a force that is a danger to us all

    Even if said “force” exists, that doesn’t make Trump the savior. He could make things worse (and there is good reason to think he makes that “force” stronger.)

  1055. Ron

    If true, are they true Nazi’s or just anti-Russian [anti-Soviet].

    I get it. If you can’t spend time telling us how Trump is out savior (while also claiming periodically that you don’t like him– not that you can think of a single bad thing about himmm)…
    Anyway, if you can’t spend time writing lauditory things about Trump, you want to spend time likening people to Nazi’s and debating how much they are like Nazi’s.

  1057. Lucia:

    He [Trump] isn’t a person who is willing to walk into firestorms for anyone.

    .
    I think you must admit there are a s-load of people that think otherwise. How did they get that wrong impression? Well, the guy was famous, wealthy, had his own successful reality TV show, had his name on scores of fabulous hotels. He was a cultural icon, a legend in his own time. Then he came down the escalator and got laughed at, eggs and tomatoes thrown at him by the MSM. You know the rest up until the present. They finally got his long talked about tax returns published to the public by force a couple of months ago and we see the hotels have been taking a beating, Of course, people are shunning them. He is losing his fortune. He may get criminally convicted as things are going. We all know none of this is justified. His sons and in-laws are sticking by him. He lost his daughter’s support out of concern for her young family.
    .
    Do you think that he deserved all that for giving us the best economy we have had in over fifty years, the lowest gas prices, making us temporarily an energy exporter, which by the way neutered Russia and Iran. He gave Israel Arab allies for the first time. He actually tried to pull US forces out of Syria once ISIS was eliminated. (The Kurds ended up fine.) He got NK to stop testing missiles. He took out Soleimani. He would have likely withdrawn from Afghanistan in a much less humiliating way. He fought with tooth and nail for the border wall that nobody else, even GOP, would support, becuase of fear of looking racist. He produced the most secure border we have had in our lifetime. No inflation. I’m missing 10 more probably. Warp Speed, all while being the target of the FBI and CIA in an attempted domestic coup.
    .
    Lucia:

    I consider his actions to try to over turn the election corruption.

    .
    Just think of what you would view about the Ukraine war if you only got reporting here from Ed and not also Russell. This is exactly the same now for everything else. None of the conservative media believe of report he “tried to overturn the election.” This is why they support him. The question then posed is that the only reason I still support him? No, I look at both sides. I came to the climate blogs to do a deep dive into the issue. I do the same on many others, like the Covid origin debate. David and other did a much deeper dive into the Covid vaccine debates so I defer to them. I got vaccinated because I am old. I tried to stop my mid 20s daughters from getting the second shot but one did anyway. I can only nudge.
    .
    Lucia:

    Even if said “force” exists, that doesn’t make Trump the savior. He could make things worse (and there is good reason to think he makes that “force” stronger.)

    .
    To be an effective totalitarian one must first have the secret police and media on your side. Right? certainly so.
    .
    Nazis are a handy tool because everyone knows you can’t offend them. This is why video games use Nazis and zombie’s and Nazi zombies.

  1058. I got no inside Ukraine war information. My reliable guys and gals are posting no real news. Mr. Google knows as much as I do for a change.
    Finally, something interesting was reported on a normally reliable OSINT site:
    “At least 3 U.S Air Force KC-135R Stratotankers are currently conducting Flight Operations over the South China Sea between Taiwan and the Philippines, they are most likely also being Accompanied by roughly 1-2 Combat Aircraft each”
    As of 3:50 AM Florida time they were gone [if they ever were there]. There was a US Army spy plane CL60 Bombardier Challenger 650 ARTEMIS out of Singapore traversing the area but I don’t think that was connected.

  1059. Ron,

    I consider his actions to try to over turn the election corruption.

    Just think of what you would view about the Ukraine war if you only got reporting here from Ed and not also Russell.

    It’s as if you think Lucia is an imbecile who falls for propaganda and fake news. It’s really quite condescending and rude of you, not to mention absurd, since Lucia probably has more brains in her left buttcheek than you have in your head. She’s not an imbecile, none of us are. We can sort through the news just fine by ourselves.

    To be an effective totalitarian one must first have the secret police and media on your side. Right? certainly so.

    Wrong, certainly so. Fidel Castro is an example. He took dictatorial power by revolution without first having the secret police on his side. History is full of examples like this.

  1060. Ron,

    None of the conservative media believe of report he “tried to overturn the election.”

    In Donald Trump’s own words:

    If the Vice President (Mike Pence) had ‘absolutely no right’ to change the Presidential Election results in the Senate, despite fraud and many other irregularities, how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election? Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”

    Trump is literally saying here that he thinks it is unfortunate that Pence did not overturn the election. In his own words, using the exact words ‘overturn the election’. Unfortunately Pence did not exercise that power, he could have overturned the election.

  1061. David Young,

    Pfizer was not originally planning on unblinding the participants after showing effectiveness. Moderna, OTOH, planned to do exactly that. Pfizer was put under a lot of public pressure. A friend of mine who was in the trial had a letter published in the WSJ demanding unblinding. He made the front page, above the fold, of the local paper twice. Once for the original complaint and the second for his vaccination.

    Note, however, no one in the trial in the placebo arm was forced to be vaccinated by Pfizer. If they wanted to stay unvaccinated, they could. I doubt very many of them did.

    And Nixon, in 1960, who probably had a much better case for claiming the election was stolen than Trump, refused to press the issue. Nixon was nominated and elected in 1968. I seriously doubt that Trump can be elected even if the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate him in 2024.

  1062. I have to wonder when some conservatives give credit to their Presidential favorites for positive outcomes that are very much in the domain of the the private sector and not the government. The best these politicians can do is get out of the way. When I hear politicians say things like: I or we accomplished this or that I am always thinking, no it was accomplished in spite of you.

  1063. David Young,

    “…mostly young and healthy…”

    I seriously doubt that. The people I know volunteered for the trial because there was a 50% chance of getting a very probably effective vaccine early and they were old enough to be at risk for a severe case. As it turned out, everyone I knew in the Pfizer trial was in the placebo arm and they all got vaccinated as soon as they could. And they would have done that even if Pfizer hadn’t unblinded the trial. I see little reason for Pfizer, Moderna or J&J to recruit young and healthy individuals who are at low risk of severe disease for the trial. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.

  1065. Mark Bofill:

    It’s as if you think Lucia is an imbecile who falls for propaganda and fake news.

    Half the country thinks the other half falls for propaganda and that other half is outraged that that half the country thinks they are imbeciles, which explains a lot of why we are at each other’s throats.
    .
    Russell:

    I got no inside Ukraine war information…

    The amazing thing is that every individual in a free country now has access to all sorts of inside information if you have the time and skills to dig. For example, it was just a guy on Twitter in India that had the neat idea of searching Chinese medical paper archives and using Google translate and found the 2012 Mojiang mine incident that looked a lot like a case of bat SARS zoonosis. That was a major clue, and still is, that Zhengli Shi was lying. Even her closest US collaborators likely had no idea about this 2012 event. Were they imbeciles? No.
    .
    Another example is my own digging and research on the 2020 election fraud brought me to witness exactly how the lies about the State Farm Center were handled in real time day to day that were not being adequately reported in the press. And I was able to watch each of the hearings in all the swing state in almost real time. I saw more evidence than any judge or jury would have seen. I saw John Eastman lay out the Jan 6 plan in late December, maybe the same Youtube that the White House lawyers saw that hired him. This is what I said I thought exciting time meant in David’s comment. Maybe reporting had always been this bad and we just never knew. Look at climate change reporting.
    .
    Edit: Perhaps the overall point is that as staff independent reporting got defunded by corporate media the availability for individual investigation has grown, leaving us in a weird information environment.

  1066. Ron

    He [Trump] isn’t a person who is willing to walk into firestorms for anyone.

    .
    I think you must admit there are a s-load of people that think otherwise.

    Some. Otherwise I wouldn’t be contradicting them. But they are mistaken. Nothing you say shows him walking into firestorms for anyone.
    .

    To be an effective totalitarian one must first have the secret police and media on your side. Right? certainly so.

    Well…your changing the subject to what might make a totalitarian effective. I don’t agree with your claim but it’s a tangent and I’m not going there.

    I consider his actions to try to over turn the election corruption.

    .
    Just think of what you would view about the Ukraine war if you only got reporting here from Ed and not also Russell.
    Oh sheesh. (Metaphorically), I don’t get my reporting from Ed only and not Russell. You seem to suffer the delusion that the people only disapprove of what Trump has done because they are misinformed. Look: Yes. The press is against him. He also is corrupt. It just happens to be in different ways from some other people.

  1067. The amazing thing is that every individual in a free country now has access to all sorts of inside information if you have the time and skills to dig.

    Yah. We all have access to the same intertubes. Which is what makes this: Just think of what you would view about the Ukraine war if you only got reporting here from Ed and not also Russell. This is exactly the same now for everything else. arrogant, condescending, and presumptuous.

  1070. Re Trump quote

    how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?

    .
    When you were given that quote I suspect it was not in an article that was sympathetic to Trump. If it had been they would have explained he was talking about the ECA. I could be mistaken but when Mark first brought up his main objection to Trump being related to his disregard for the Constitution and the transition it seemed to me that the ECA was a new piece of information that I had brought to the conversation. IIRC Lucia was completely unaware even of the purpose of the joint session. It was not just to have a formal ceremony in lieu of a coronation, it was to allow the federal government to certify the state’s results, allowing for objections, which have been brought many times in the past, (mostly by Democrats in the last few elections). This is not to take an smidgeon off of my respect for Lucia”s superior intelligence. I had never heard of the ECA. I would have not known what Trump was talking about there without knowing the pro-Trump angle on the story. And his point was absolutely valid: if the VP did not have the power to affect the election results why change the law to prevent him from having the power to affect the election results? (Trump’s rhetorical)

  1071. I agree with (most of) this post:
    “A partial list of Trump’s very bad hires:
    -Bill Barr
    -Chris Wray
    -James Mattis
    -John Kelly
    -Scott Gottlieb
    -Robert Redfield
    -Anthony Fauci
    -Mark Milley
    -Mark Esper
    -Wilbur Ross
    -Chad Wolf
    -Deborah Birx
    -Rex Tillerson
    -Gina Haspel
    -Elaine Chao
    -Mike Pence
    -Jerome Powell
    -Jerome Adams
    -Alyssa Farah
    -Matthew Pottinger
    -Alex Acosta
    -Stephen Hahn
    -Moncef Slaoui
    -Rod Rosenstein
    -Kirstjen Nielsen
    -Seema Verma
    Many of the people on this list did irreparable damage to our country.
    What indications are there that any of this would change in term two?”
    https://twitter.com/jordanschachtel/status/1657399303470546944?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ

  1072. Ron,

    None of the conservative media believe of report he “tried to overturn the election.” This is why they support him. The question then posed is that the only reason I still support him? No, I look at both sides.

    Everybody ‘believe of report’ he “tried to overturn the election.” [sic] because in his own words, he tried to overturn the election.

    I could be mistaken but when Mark first brought up his main objection to Trump being related to his disregard for the Constitution and the transition it seemed to me that the ECA was a new piece of information that I had brought to the conversation.

    You are absolutely mistaken. I know this will astonish you, but I had already done my own ‘deep dive’ long before that conversation. (Unlike you, I actually read the fucking Eastman memos, FWIW). I’m sure plenty of people here had already heard every bit you brought up already. Just because you are the first in a thread to think that something is worth mentioning is not evidence that nobody else is aware of the material you are referring to.
    I’m becoming glad that you are advocating endlessly for Trump. I think it’s fitting that rude, arrogant, condescending fools such as yourself are the champions of that rude, arrogant, has been pig. Keep talking and cement the association for everyone.

  1073. Lucia:

    But they are mistaken. Nothing you say shows him walking into firestorms for anyone.

    The only way I can accept this is if you are claiming he creates the firestorms on his own, that order and normalcy would rule if only the agitator would leave. If you would like to debate this I am happy to. Because I think this is the fundamental point that affected Gabbord, Taibbi and all the other Clinton-Obama Democrats to leave the party. It was not to defend Trump, it was to recognize that the naĂŻve, arrogant Trump had unveiled something very alarming and unhealthy that we did not see clearly before, that was there independent of Trump.
    .
    Angech:

    Thanks, SteveF.
    Sometimes I just need to be reminded not to be upsetting.

    I need that about every comment. (Maybe I am too much like they guy with red hair, except without the hotels.)

  1074. Russell, I would put at the top of your list Jeff Sessions and John Bolton. But even these people I did not object to at the time he hired them, neither did I object to any that you list. In fact, I had very high hopes for Barr.
    .
    What do you think happened to all of them? Why did they harm the country? Was Trump the problem or an unseen dynamic? Real question.

  1075. Have you guys defined what you mean by “overturn an election”? I suspect you are talking past each other.
    .
    Which of these are attempts to overturn an election?

    Using force and/or other illegal means.

    Using legal if questionable means.

    Convincing electors to be unfaithful.

    Redoing an election where fraud occurred (like NC-9 in 2018).

    Suing to get districts redrawn to produce a different result.

    Trying to shame George Santos into resigning.

    Garland’s prosecution of Santos.
    .
    If all of those qualify, than there is no question that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. But that is not so unusual.

    If only the first qualifies, then Trump did not try to overturn the election.

  1076. Mark, why don’t you and I just refrain from addressing each other to be fair to the rest here. What do you say? Let’s just agree we have a personality conflict.

  1077. Roman Hryshchenko, commander of the 127th Brigade of the Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine in Bakhmut called for a ‘gag order’ on situational information.
    He has no authority to do this, but it is being obeyed… by people of many nationalities. It’s why I am suddenly in the dark about what is going on.
    The video has gunfire and explosions in the audio. English subtitles
    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1657659034856570881?s=20

  1078. Mike,
    Since Trump himself uses the term freely, I think that those who hedge about also using the term are the ones who need to ask themselves what that term means. I’m not afraid to use it, Trump was not afraid to use it. I mean what Trump meant.

  1079. Ron,
    If you would like to be fair to the others here, I have a better idea. Stop using the Blackboard as your personal Trump evangelism platform. Do that, and I will happily never exchange another remark with you for the rest of my days.
    As long as you continue your quest to make sure that everyone has accepted Donald J as their personal lord and savior, I’m afraid I will continue to remark as I see fit.

  1080. Ron,
    “Was Trump the problem or an unseen dynamic?”
    It was Trump. He had the most chaotic inner circle of any organization I have ever heard of, public or private. Remember Anthony Scaramucci? I don’t think he lasted a week. It was Trump’s normal pattern….. Hires someone with great fanfare and a lot of Tweets. A short time later, he’s fired. Then Trump spends a week trashing him. I always thought to myself when I read his scathing attacks on one of his ex-associates: “You hired him you jerk!”

  1081. If I was addressing Mark I would telling him that I gave up the idea of a lord and savior as illogical at about the age of 11. I remember being cornered in the classroom and threatened by a mob of otherwise friends, that I better get my act together before it was too late. I kept silent on the subject after that.
    .
    They prevailed. Were they correct? Maybe. They were just 11-year-olds, but our nature does not change that much with maturity and age. We just become more aware of it to some degree.
    .
    Getting back to my favorite topic, besides Trump, I think every HS student should be required to study Shirer of Tolland or some other Third Reich documentarian with the goal of teaching the importance of open society’s responsibility for exercise and respect open dialogue, inclusion and use of ideas for persuasion rather than intimidation. The main failure in the forward looking ideology of Nazism was not realizing that without the above there is always going to be a necessity of purges, ultimately lethal ones if reconciliations cannot eventually be achieved. In all his vulgarity, I think Trump had a much better understanding of this universal view than most presidents.

  1083. Russell:

    I always thought to myself when I read his scathing attacks on one of his ex-associates: “You hired him you jerk!”

    .
    I agree. This was a very disturbing pattern. It could also be said that they should have known what there were getting in to when they accepted the job. It’s amazing how much got accomplished despite “the chaos.”
    .
    Ken:

    I have to wonder when some conservatives give credit to their Presidential favorites for positive outcomes that are very much in the domain of the private sector and not the government. The best these politicians can do is get out of the way.

    .
    I have the same belief. Ronald Reagan once said the most terrifying words one can hear is, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
    .
    That said, Trump did a lot of meaningful statesmanship with allies as well as adversaries. Getting rid of over-regulation is not so easy either. Other improvements are harder to notice than things like the border wall. Trump placed into effect some of the rudiments of my healthcare reform vision of transparent pricing with the Transparency in Coverage Rule and the No Surprises Act. Although I lobbied my senator with a personal meeting for this and other reforms I have no indication that they got to decision makers.

  1084. Come to think of it I think I posted my heathcare reform early draft here to get input. IIRC, Tom was the only one who gave it a thumbs up.

  1085. Germany is in it for the long haul:
    Scholz said Germany would support Ukraine for as long as needed.
    “Without the withdrawal of Russian troops, there will be no talk of peace,” the German chancellor said.
    And the Germans have been leading the parade of European armaments to Ukraine:
    “Germany Announces Its Biggest Military Aid Package Yet for Ukraine
    The nearly $3 billion package is part of an effort by both sides to reset rocky relations, which have become increasingly important to maintaining European unity in backing the war.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/13/world/europe/ukraine-germany-zelensky-weapons.html

  1087. I’d like to know what evidence you have that Trump is “corrupt.” He’s undergone the most invasive anal exam in American history and it came up pretty much empty.

  1088. David,
    Are you asking Lucia? Me? Somebody else?
    [Edit: Must be Lucia, looks like she is the one who said

    I consider his actions to try to over turn the election corruption.

    ]

  1089. Thanks Mark. I don’t agree with some of the things Trump did regarding the 2020 election, but I see little evidence that any of it was illegal or corrupt. If anything it is Trump who is the victim of totally corrupt DA’s using the legal process to persecute political opponents. And that’s overwhelmingly the most critical problem we are facing in this country, a rigged political and criminal justice system.

  1090. David,
    Fair enough. I don’t want to argue whether Trump did anything illegal. I think if Trump had done something clearly and incontrovertibly illegal, he’d already have been tried and convicted.
    I don’t think that’s what Lucia meant, but perhaps I’m wrong.

  1091. Yes Mark, “Corruption” is often used as a catch-all description of personality traits or utterances people don’t like. A more objective definition might be something like taking bribes or influence peddling, money laundering, etc. But wait, should we be talking about Uncle Joe and career criminal Hunter Biden?

    I always come back to the fact that Trump was the target of the biggest and most consequential disinformation and election interference campaign in American history. That proves that most of our big institutions are corrupt, i.e., they are willing to lie almost all the time to bring about political outcomes. That needs to be our top priority and a few mean tweets or the fact that Trump tends to have a lot of churn among subordinates is irrelevant by comparison.

  1092. A definition of corruption might run along the lines of the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, googling quickly.
    Trying to overturn the results of the election he’d lost, yeah. I can see that that could be viewed as an abuse of entrusted power for private gain, sure.
    Are the Biden’s corrupt? Absolutely. Is our government rife with corruption? Perhaps. These are separate questions, obviously. I don’t think any one of these questions precludes asking any of the others.

    and a few mean tweets or the fact that Trump tends to have a lot of churn among subordinates is irrelevant by comparison.

    I am quite certain that I have never complained about either of those things.

  1093. “ Trump tends to have a lot of churn among subordinates is irrelevant by comparison.”
    .
    I understand Trump on employee churn. Finding extraordinary employees is like panning for gold…….you need to go through a lot of gravel to find that gold nugget.
    .
    One example is in sales management.
    .
    An organization has, for example, 10 salesmen and has a sales competition twice a year.
    .
    1st place gets a paid vacation, 2nd place gets a set of steak knives, 3rd place keeps his job.

  1094. From the conclusion of the Substack article

    What happened to Glenn Greenwald?” is something of a rhetorical trope among online leftists. The simple answer is “nothing.” He’s the same ferocious skeptic of American state and corporate power that he’s always been. The better question is, “What happened to the left?”

    .
    I will take a stab. Obama transformed the administrative state, including the USIC, by purge and careful hiring. My neighbor was a DEA field head and was conservative. He got forced out. I also had and IRS career man acquaintance that experienced the same. They both said they had “never seen it like it is now, so political.”
    .
    We got a little picture of what its like in the top of the FBI and DoJ with the Strzok-Page texts.

  1095. Ron, I tend to agree that Obama was a trojan horse president. He seemed thoughtful and highly intelligent to white Americans, but deep down was always a radical. If the media weren’t totally corrupt we would have heard more about this in 2008 and 2012. It’s the same college educated whites who are behind radical ideology in every aspect of our lives (discussed in the piece) who put Obama in office.

    I also agree that the US security has been remade by Obama. The result is grotesque with violations of the Bill or Rights virtually every day now. You know like sending a SWAT team to arrest a peaceful abortion protester at home in front of his children who are in tears and charging him when he was clearly the injured party.

  1096. Yes Ed, When I hired into Boeing I supported a boss who was like that. He had very high standards and went through quite a few people before he found one who worked out.

    In the Federal government, its much much harder. Places like the FBI are staffed by clueless people like Jeff Sessions, Christopher Rey, and Rod Rosenstein. And those are the one who aren’t crooks like Comey, Stoaek, Paige and James Baker.

  1097. He seemed thoughtful and highly intelligent to white Americans, but deep down was always a radical. If the media weren’t totally corrupt we would have heard more about this in 2008 and 2012. It’s the same college educated whites who are behind radical ideology in every aspect of our lives (discussed in the piece) who put Obama in office.

    What’s with the ‘whites’ thing? Obama didn’t appear thoughtful and highly intelligent to black Americans? There’s no college educated blacks behind radical ideology? [Edit: Derrick Bell?!]
    I mean, pardon my outdated (and I know it’s outdated) colorblind ideology but in my view when skin color is irrelevant to the topic (as it often is) I like to ignore it. [Edit: And when people make a point of mentioning it I wonder what the relevance of the distinction is.]
    Also, so I guess ‘radical’ has gone back to being a negative word here. Suits me.

  1098. Well, It is true that middle class whites and college educated whites turned out in high numbers for Obama. That’s all I meant. Sure blacks voted for Obama, but they always vote very heavily Democrat.

    While it is true that there are some blacks who have played a role in originating critical race theory, the main proponents of it are white and highly educated. The whole DEI industry is dominated by people like the Bud Light executive who decided to hire Mulvaney.

    The piece I linked to discusses at length the switch in party allegience of college educated whites and working class people of all races.

  1099. Johnathan Turley is appropriately horrified by Biden’s obvious corruption: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4003066-americas-state-media-the-blackout-on-biden-corruption-is-truly-pulitzer-level-stuff/
    .
    I doubt it will make much difference. Selling access/influence pedaling to enrich oneself (and ones family) is completely acceptable to today’s Democrats, and obviously has been acceptable since the Clintons extracted half a $billion from foreign interests to fund their Clinton Initiative. It is frightening, but obviously true. Democrats accept political corruption as normal. The MSM simply will not report on the personal corruption among well known Democrats.

  1100. There is something decidedly ironic about not giving Derrick Bell credit for CRT, but instead crediting white people. I can’t decide if I’m amused or appalled. A smidge of both, perhaps.
    I don’t know the truth of this, but I do know Bell is widely credited with playing an instrumental role. But I’ve no direct knowledge, only what I’ve read.

  1101. It is a bit like ‘green’ activists dismissing the obviously non-green actions of their advocates (like Al Gore) who emit more CO2 with private jet flights in a year than most people would in a lifetime; actually ‘walking the walk’ is irrelevant for green crazies. And if you point out the inconsistency in the company of green crazies, you are attacked as a backward, evil, luddite. Same with Biden’s corruption among Democrats. Almost unbelievable.

  1102. Ron Graf (Comment #221169)
    May 14th, 2023 at 8:12 am Edit This

    Re Trump quote
    Ron Graf (Comment #221169)

    how come the Democrats and RINO Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the Vice President to change the results of the election?

    Ron,

    When you were given that quote I suspect it was not in an article that was sympathetic to Trump

    Oh geeehhh.. You think we haven’t read articles from “both sides”. Most of us have. And you are providing a widely circulated (but lame) justification all of us have read and rejected. The lame justification doesn’t become not-lame merely because you accuse us of not not having read it.

    ——–

    Ron Graf (Comment #221172)
    The only way I can accept this is if you are claiming he creates the firestorms on

    .
    Ok. You won’t accept it.
    .
    You not accepting the truth doesn’t change it. (I also don’t have a burning need for you to accept the truth. If you don’t, you don’t.) Notwithstanding your not accepting they are mistaken, they remain mistaken.
    .

    Ron

    If I was addressing Mark I would telling him that I gave up the idea of a lord and savior as illogical at about the age of 11.

    Erhmm… If? You are addressing Mark. Putting and “if” in the sentences doesn’t change that fact.
    .

    Ron

    Getting back to my favorite topic, besides Trump, […]

    Ok… but you are leaving your favorite topic (telling us why Trump is ok and why we are all mistaken) and veering off on a tangent. Unsurprisingly, your tangent tangent is about Nazis. And telling us how and why Trump better is than the Nazis. (Why you veer off on the tangent is somewhat of a mystery. No one else is comparing Trump to Nazis or trying to explain he is either better or worse than Nazis! They aren’t even alluding to Nazis.)
    .
    Mark/David

    I don’t think that’s what Lucia meant, but perhaps I’m wrong.

    Mark is correct. (And I can’t even imagine why David or anyone might think I consider the words “corrupt” and “illegal” to be synonyms. They. Aren’t.)
    .
    Not all corrupt acts are illegal. So arguing something is not illegal does not rebut it’s corrupt. (I already said I think a certain act is corrupt.)
    .

    David

    But wait, should we be talking about Uncle Joe and career criminal Hunter Biden?

    Are you under impression that either Trump is corrupt or the Biden are corrupt but it’s impossiblefor both to be? Or that we are not allowed to observe Trump is corrupt if the Bidens are also corrupt.
    .
    ‘Cus that’s just silly.
    .
    Ron

    From the conclusion of the Substack article

    So now you want to bring up a question no one here asked, on a topic no one here as talking about, tell us the question was at some undisclosed (and paywalled) substack, ad then anser it? Sorry…. I’m not interested in your answer to the uninteresting question someone asked somewhere in the intertubes.
    .
    Phew… (I was busy all day helping someone cram for college final. But oy!)

  1103. 1
    a
    : morally degenerate and perverted : DEPRAVED
    b
    : characterized by improper conduct (such as bribery or the selling of favors)
    corrupt judges
    2
    : PUTRID, TAINTED
    3
    : adulterated or debased by change from an original or correct condition
    a corrupt version of the text

    You will note that the examples of improper conduct are illegal. I just don’t see how legally challenging the result of a rigged election is corrupt. I’m actually glad someone is taking on this issue because it really is a threat to democracy.

  1104. David young
    You will note that the examples of improper conduct are illegal.
    Reading the example, I note legality or illegality are irrelevant to what is “morally degenerate” or “perverted”. Same with “adulterated”.
    Of course, some illegal things are also immoral. So one can certaingly find examples of things that are both illegal and immoral. But finding examples that are both illegal and immoral doesn’t mean all immoral things are illegal.
    .

    I just don’t see how legally challenging the result of a rigged election is corrupt.

    First: Whether it was “rigged” is entirely debateable.
    .
    Second: Challenging elections when you will clearly lose the challenge in court, and working to cast doubt on an outcome that would be held up because whatever evidence you think you have is inadequate to change the outcome and so on, is highly unstablizing to democracy. And I consider that immoral even if you don’t see things as I do. Immorality is a value judgement. I get to hold my values and state them.
    .
    Third.

    this issue because it really is a threat to democracy

    Trumps rhetoric has been a threat to democracy.

  1105. David,
    Personally, I don’t know that quibbling about the word ‘corrupt’ is a hill I’d care to spend a lot of time fighting on, but if you really want to discuss this, I’ll get back to you on this tomorrow. As has been mentioned, it wasn’t the legal challenges Trump brought that bothered me, it was pushing Pence to overturn the election. I think adopting preposterous legal theories and pushing one’s VP overturn an election is also a threat to democracy and damaging to our system and institutions. People will argue endlessly over whether or not this move could have been legal by some trickery; I don’t even care about that. Even assuming it was perfectly legal, it was a really horrible and potentially damaging thing to do. When Presidents do really horrible and potentially damaging things to the country for their own benefit, I think ‘corrupt’ is a perfectly appropriate description.

  1106. mark

    When Presidents do really horrible and potentially damaging things to the country for their own benefit, I think ‘corrupt’ is a perfectly appropriate description.

    Yep. Thing can be immoral and/or corrupt without being illegal.
    .
    This is soooooo obvious, I’m amazed some people want to suggest otherwise.
    .
    Long winded arguments why something was not “illegal” in an attempt to prove something immoral are idiotic. Because things can be immoral without being illegal. And nearly everyone knows this. (Heck, things can be illegal, and many people will still think they are not immoral or corrupt. Illegal ?(immoral or corrupt).)

  1107. OK, If you want to use corrupt as a substitute for immoral, that’s fine with me. But its an area where each person’s opinion will be different. Plenty of great people do immoral things. The Bible is full of them.

    I just think its a poor standard to use in deciding who to vote for. What the candidate will do and whether it will help the country is more important. Voting is a responsibility to choose the lesser of two evils, not a vehicle for punishing the more immoral candidate.

  1109. David

    If you want to use corrupt as a substitute for immoral, that’s fine with me

    .
    Yes. I want to use it the way the dictionary defines it. Glad that’s fine with you.
    .
    Jaywalking is illegal in places. It is not corrupt.
    .
    And we can go beyond the dictionary.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

    Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption.[1]

    Some of Trumps acts were misuse of his power and position of president were to change (overturn/stall) the results of an election. He wanted to do this by pressuring Pence to do that which Pence thought wrong and illegal. (And Pence was right). This was corruption.

  1110. Lucia, I respect that this site is your living room, as Stephen Mosher liked to point out. So I am going to offering criticism in as polite fashion as I can. I think it would make the conversations progress in a better fashion if we didn’t try to give a lecturing tone to misstatements made, (of whatever the fact or proper definition or quote or attribution), without also giving a polite correction, one that holds the most positive assumption about the perceived misstatement as possible. I am not saying I or anyone else is not guilty of this (if you even accept what I am saying is true). But I have come to admire your wisdom in making a rule against rhetorical questions as a same sort of observation in that it makes conversations avoid traps of compelling someone to answer a question that does not need an answer.
    .
    For the present example of what I am speaking about, perhaps you could just give the more precise parameters of what you feel Trumps corruption is and how it is a danger or disqualifier in your mind. Clearly, you know I don’t think his is corrupt. Though I would never go so far to say he is above a corrupt act. Remember, there is a difference. We all lie from time to time. I doubt any of us would consider any of the others a liar if we knew of each of those instances and the reasoning or circumstance involved. This again comes back to taking the most positive assumption. It is almost like a corollary to Occam’s razor of first working from the assumption of the simplest explanation.
    .
    I did read David’s linked article and I felt I didn’t need to subscribe to the extended part of the article to understand its conclusion or quote it. The article does make an attempt to answer a question on a lot of people’s minds of “what’s going on” in the USA as far as the political swing?
    .
    Here is a UK perspective on that question and Trump in particular today in the Telegraph. America’s dream is dying. That is why Trump may still win
    .
    The article is fairly objective, though noticeably anti-Trump and slightly anti-American. For example, they leave out the part of Trump’s outrageous teenage locker room Access Hollywood quote that “women let you.” They also assume that America first is a reference to the “fascist” 1941 America First Committee to keep America from joining the war in Europe. That committee was made up of German sympathizers, pacifists, isolationists and yes, fascists.

  1111. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption.[1]

    Are you saying the Trump’s governance embodied these points, or his opponents? I suppose the answer depends very much on where one gets their political news analysis.
    .
    Trump saw the Biden family laptop at first sequestered from the news and then lied about as Russian disinformation from 50 former intelligence leaders and officers. Was that corruption? It was in my book. He saw Biden make a boldfaced lie about it at their debate. He saw the PA Supreme court overrule the PA legislature, unconstitutionally allowing the newly created mail in ballot system, (overseen by Zuckerberg funding), to be counted even without signature match, post mark and late arrival of up to days after the election. He then saw all the corruption allegations in the affidavit sworn witnesses heard in six swing states, all telling similar stories of rule violations and improprieties, including middle of the night arrivals of trucks of ballots that we 95% for Biden in PA, MI and other places, the State Farm Center video. David mentioned Mollie Hemingway’s book covering a lot more.
    .
    Trump and his lawyer, Giuliani, were collecting this information. They had a better view than you or I. They truly believed [as do I] that there was high level coordinated corruption in the election.
    .
    Ivanka did not believe it because Barr told her it was horse s—, because he was told it was garbage by the same FBI execs that oversaw the laptop (I kid you not).
    .
    As I said before the courts did not listen to evidence. The proper place for it to have been heard was in the states legislatures in special sessions. That could only occur if Pence sent back the electors. I never heard Pence say that was illegal or even that is what he was asked to do. He was very vague and said thing like he didn’t think personally he had the power.
    .
    Despite all that I agree that a J6 plan was a bad idea because I don’t think the states could muster the investigative muscle to prove anything concretely enough to impose their own solution. It would have been a huge mess. But I don’t know why we should blame Trump for the mess unless you are confident there was a clean election and that mail in voting is secure in PA and that signature checks are a waste of time and voter ID only disenfranchises poor people of color.

  1112. Ron
    When giving advice on tone, perhap you ought to look at your own tone and behavior first. I get that you may feel pointing out you liken people you don’t like to Nazi’s sounds like a “lecture”, or your “misstating” my position to be I wasn’t going to vote, because you “conflated” me saying I would vote with I wouldn’t vote, but I don’t honestly know how to state those things any other way than to simply state them.
    .
    And, of course, your first paragraph certainly sounds like a lecture.
    .

    For the present example of what I am speaking about, perhaps you could just give the more precise parameters of what you feel Trumps corruption is and how it is a danger or disqualifier in your mind

    .
    I already gave one action that constitutes a precise parameter, and also described the danger.
    .

    I consider his actions to try to over turn the election corruption.

    In other words: his actions to try to overturn the election were a form of corruption.
    .
    There are additional things: but as President asking Pence and pressing him to take actions that would stall or potentially change the outcome of an election is enough to be corruption.
    And later

    Some of Trumps acts were misuse of his power and position of president were to change (overturn/stall) the results of an election. He wanted to do this by pressuring Pence to do that which Pence thought wrong and illegal. (And Pence was right). This was corruption.

    .
    As for why this is a “disqualifier”– a person who would use the power and position of the presidency to change, over turn or stall the results of an election should be disqualified from office. (And note: that is an “or”. Merely stalling is enough.)
    .
    I thinks that’s given a precise parameter of something that is a danger and disqualifies Trump from office. Of course, I bear in mind that voters each get to decide who they consider qualified or not, and they get to decide what personality traits of past actions result in disqualification. After all: it’s a value judgement to each voter. (Legally, the qualifications are listed in the US constitution; the list is short.)
    .
    I’d comment on more. But after the first two paragraphs. I don’t know what point/argument your are trying to make or idea you are tyring to convey. I did not read David’s linked article. Among other things, I was tutoring 6 hours today. I don’t follow all links. I generally only follow them if someone writes some surrounding text that suggests it contains content that is interesting. Even if something surrounding the link suggested the material at the destination was interesting and relevant to a topic that intersted me, I would need to have some time. Which I did not have today.
    ..
    As for the link you are now providing– to a ‘UK perspective’– you seem to be telling me the article at the link is poor and inaccurate. Among other things, you suggest “they” assume something or someone are ” German sympathizers, pacifists, isolationists and yes, fascists.”. It’s 11:07 pm here. I see no reason to reading the article you link criticize which is written by someone somewhere on the intertubes (and not commenting here) Going to bed seems a better use of my time.
    .

  1113. Ron

    Are you saying the Trump’s governance embodied these points, or his opponents?

    Assuming you meant this as a real question addressed to me, please read what I wrote immediately after the sentence you quote. It tells you what I am saying wrt. to the quote.
    .
    The remaining paragraphs have nothing to do with what I wrote. Certainly, I didn’t say anything about Hunter’s laptop nor the corruption on the part of the Biden clan.

  1114. Lucia, All I can say is read my Climate Etc. post. It’s very well sourced. The vastly bigger threat to democracy is the Disinformation Industrial Complex where the tactics of the War on Terror are applied domestically in the US to “enemies of the state” with the FBI and CIA leading the charge through a 2 tiered justice system. As Battacharia says in his great Tablet article, Democracy can’t function when citizens are fed a steady diet of carefully censored material and are unable to judge for themselves. Trump is the enemy of this DIC and therefore he is my ally. In fact Trump has exposed and clarified this war for our democracy. If you focus on the wrong threat, you will be party to the Russification of the US.

    Bear in mind that disinformation is defined by the censors as anything that could “sow distrust in our institutions.” This is really the bringing of Putin’s Russia to the USA.

  1115. Becoming a very full post.
    Putin still alive, war continues.
    18 months til we know our fate.
    I am considering
    Sell in May and go away.
    Any wise words out there on that much more pressing subject?

  1116. David Young,

    Lucia, All I can say is read my Climate Etc. post. It’s very well sourced.

    I have no interest in reading what you wrote about the “Disinformation Industrial Complex”.

  1117. angech,
    Sell what? Everything?
    .
    WRT our fait: we will all someday die. I try to pay more attention to what I do between now and then.
    .
    If you are talking about the political outcome of the 2024 elections in the USA, then I can only suggest Trump’s continued presence as a candidate makes the outcome of the 2024 elections likely to be very bad for anyone in the world who values personal liberty, and very good for anyone who wants to eliminate most personal liberty, substitute public control for personal choice, and substitute politically mandated outcomes for merit based outcomes. I fear Trump will do terrible damage by running and losing (again).

  1119. David,

    Voting is a responsibility to choose the lesser of two evils, not a vehicle for punishing the more immoral candidate.

    I don’t know who you think you are, telling me that I have a responsibility to vote for evil. I assure you, I have no such responsibility, and additionally that you are way out of line to suggest such a thing.
    In point of fact, Alabama (where I live) and Illinois (where Lucia lives) are not swing states. The outcome of the Presidential vote is not in doubt for either of our locales. Realizing this, we use our votes as we think best. This is actually what I think my responsibility is, mine and all citizens; to use my vote as I think best.

  1120. David,

    Voting is a responsibility to choose the lesser of two evils, not a vehicle for punishing the more immoral candidate.

    .
    First: there are more than two candidates on my ballot.
    Second: voting third party (or even not voting) isn’t “punishing” either of the larger party candidates.
    Third: I don’t support candidates who are corrupt. I’m not going to do it even if you hallucinate that I have some “responsibility” to vote for a corrupt candidate.
    .
    My vote doesn’t “belong” to any party or any candidate. It is my vote. Not bestowing it is not “punishing” someone. I also am not required to bake the candidates chocolate cake and not doing so is not “punishing” them.

  1121. Ron
    I was busy yesterday, and was a bit brief. I want to elaborate vis-a-vis your suggesting that “we” not try to give a lecturing tone to “misstatements made” (see Ron Graf (Comment #221209) ). I will point out that “we” now have a policy about your fairly constant misstatements. “We” described that in “our” discussion with Mark Bofill. See lucia (Comment #221055) .
    .
    (And btw “we” admire your ommitting who consistently makes misstatments by crafting ” to misstatements made”. )
    .
    For your convenience, and that of others, I will summarize the discussion here:
    .
    Mark broached the subject of dealing with “someone’s” constant mistatements, quoting me responding to you:
    .

    mark bofill (Comment #221051)
    May 12th, 2023 at 8:17 am

    Lucia,

    You frequently put claims in people’s mouths. It is time wasting and does not contribute to useful rational discussions.

    Yes. I am still wondering if this is just a natural and uncontrollable artifact of Ron Graf’s method of thinking or if it is a deliberate device he employs to steer the topic in the direction he wants. Either way, it’s pretty clear that it’s the way Ron rolls and it’s not going to stop. I haven’t decided how to handle this yet personally. The questions I’m considering (and I don’t have answers yet) Do I ignore the guy? If I don’t, I’d better be prepared to flush gobs of time down the toilet correcting him? Is there some better option I’m overlooking?

    I would welcome constructive suggestions on these specific questions from my friends if any of you have any.

    .

    lucia (Comment #221055)
    May 12th, 2023 at 8:40 am

    Mark

    Yes. I am still wondering if this is just a natural and uncontrollable artifact of Ron Graf’s method of thinking or if it is a deliberate device he employs to steer the topic in the direction he wants.

    No matter the cause, it is time wasting and results in poor, fruitless discussions. How to deal with it is difficult. My current thoughts for different types of ‘putting words in my mouth’:
    (1) When he just outright says I said something or he “thinks” I said it, I’m going to only comment on that part of what he wrote, pointing out I did not say it. I will also remind him that he frequently misconstrues (which is the more polite way of viewing things.) (See Comment #221050 for most recent part of that strategy.)
    (2) When he asked a statement that significantly distorts something I wrote to make it look like he’s asking a question for “clarification”, I will answer by merely repeating what I actually wrote. I will make exceptions if I think what I wrote was even slightly unclear.

    mark bofill (Comment #221056)
    May 12th, 2023 at 8:43 am

    Thank you Lucia. I may try that.

    This is my current policy. I thought it out. As long as you persist in the sorts of misstatements described, it will continue. The reason is that your constant misstatements and distortions of what people say is time wasting and degrades discussion. And so, no I do not agree with your thought that

    I think it would make the conversations progress in a better fashion if we didn’t try to give a lecturing tone to misstatements made, (of whatever the fact or proper definition or quote or attribution), without also giving a polite correction, one that holds the most positive assumption about the perceived misstatement as possible.

    I think the cure to the conversational problems involving your constant misstatements is responding using strategies (1) and (2) above.
    .
    It may not cause you to take care to avoid misstatements, but at least we can avoid wasting further time beyond simply pointing out at, (once again) you misstated either in the form of a statement or by inserting a false premise– in the form of mistateing or distorting someones previous statement– into your “question”.
    .
    As for the recommendation of what opinions people should form vis-a-vis your constant mistatements: Neither you, I nor “we” can make a policy dictating what theories or opinions people will have vis-a-vis your mistatementd. They will form opinions based on what they observe.

  1122. Pope Francis, Italy, Germany, France, the UK, and the EU. A diplomatic tour de force for Zalenskyy this week:
    Vatican City:
    They agreed on the ongoing requirement to continue providing humanitarian aid to the population, and the Pope highlighted, in particular, the need for “gestures of humanity” towards the most fragile, the innocent victims of the conflict.”
    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-05/pope-francis-ukrainian-president-zelensky-audience-war-peace.html
    Rome:
    Upon his arrival at the courtyard of the Quirinal Palace, Zelenskyy was greeted with military honors by Italian President Sergio Matarella. “We are fully at your side. Welcome, president,” Matterella told Zelenskyy. Italian sources said Mattarella later assured the Ukrainian leader that Rome would continue to aid the country with military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.
    https://www.laprensalatina.com/italy-pledges-continued-military-financial-aid-to-ukraine-in-war-against-russia/
    Berlin:
    Scholz on Sunday reiterated Berlin’s firm backing, telling Zelensky directly: “We will support you for as long as it is necessary.”
    Berlin unveiled a new military package for Kyiv worth 2.7 billion euros ($3 billion), its biggest yet for Ukraine, just before Zelensky’s first visit to Germany since Russia’s invasion
    https://www.thelocal.de/20230514/zelensky-calls-germany-true-friend-as-ukraine-readies-riposte
    Paris:
    On Sunday evening, Zelensky met with French President Emmanuel Macron at the ElysĂŠe after being welcomed by Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne at Villacoublay air base just outside Paris. On the military front, the French President assured his Ukrainian counterpart that “new deliveries are being prepared which take into account Ukraine’s most immediate needs in strengthening its defense capabilities.
    https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2023/05/15/zelensky-prepares-for-counteroffensive-with-tour-of-european-capitals_6026714_143.html
    London:
    President Volodymyr Zelensky met the UK’s Rishi Sunak as part of his tour of Western allies. “They need the sustained support of the international community to defend against the barrage of unrelenting and indiscriminate attacks that have been their daily reality for over a year.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65594540
    Kyiv:
    The European Union’s chief executive said In this fight, the European Union and its Member States stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine. Kyiv as the capital of Ukraine is the beating heart of today’s European values. Ukraine is on the front line of the defence of everything we Europeans cherish: our liberty, our democracy, our freedom of thought and of speech.
    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_23_2661

  1123. Ron is starting to sound like a polite Trump AI chatbot and David seems just a little bit paranoid. I can’t say I have learned a single thing in the last 90% of the discussion.
    .
    If the Republicans have a less odious candidate I will vote for them, otherwise they will lose by their own hand. Good luck.

  1124. Michael Medved used to make fun of Losertarians and other third party voters. Look, its a free country, but in American elections there are only two real choices and I believe its my responsibility to vote for the lesser of two evils. Throwing away your vote in order to feel virtuous is your choice but its not a responsible or intelligent choice.

  1125. David Young,

    Michael Medved….

    I never have never will lose sleep worrying about what Michael Medved thinks or says.
    .
    You can believe whatever you want about your responsibility. Your having an opinion doesn’t elevate the idea to ground truth.
    .
    Voting 3rd party is not throwing away a vote. It is a responsible, intelligent choice.

  1126. Wait, this Michael Medved?

    But Medved was not on that “Decision 2016” national tour in September, where Hewitt, Gallagher, host Dennis Prager and actor Jon Voight toured the country’s swing states to talk politics and meet their fans. Medved, who has been part of such tours in the past, said he offered to participate this year in order to help talk up the need to support down-ballot Republican candidates. In response, tour organizers asked if he’d be willing to express support for Trump. Medved said he could not, and was left off the tour.

    Huh. Well maybe I should go rethink my position then.
    [ SARC ]

  1127. It appears Medved has some interesting things to say about all of this stuff, when you get right down to it. I won’t quote it here, but I’ll link this for anyone who’s curious.
    https://mynorthwest.com/2459855/medved-trump-impeachment-wrong-side/
    [Edit: well, maybe just a bit:

    “The reason for it — and this is really the essence of the entire matter — has Donald Trump been good for our politics?” Medved continued. “Has he been good for America’s public discourse? Is it a good thing to have him out there campaigning for a return to power in 2024? Even though I believe he has no chance of winning the presidency again, he has a great chance of wrecking the Republican Party forever,” Medved added.

    ]

  1128. The real problem at the heart of the republican party is unfixable. The old adage about people voting themselves more money is true and democrats have increasingly come to offer people exactly that.

  1130. I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said.

    I am beginning to believe this for some voters, based on the arcane rationalizations I hear for his bad behavior.

    When Trump won the Republican primaries I said then that he would be the death of the opposition to the Democrat party and was the reason I voted for a third party candidate (Libertarian). It was an intelligent statement vote in my mind.

    I do have to question the awareness and political savvy of those voters still all in for Trump. In my mind a vote for Tump is vote for the Democrat party.

  1132. Tom Scharf (Comment #221222): “Ron is starting to sound like a polite Trump AI chatbot”.
    .
    I wouldn’t know since I stopped reading his posts some time ago. I find them tedious, even though I mostly agree with him.
    .
    But lately I have been finding this site tedious. Disappointing since it is usually far from tedious. Maybe it is me, but I think it is the endless loop over well plowed ground.

  1133. Mike,

    But lately I have been finding this site tedious. Disappointing since it is usually far from tedious. Maybe it is me, but I think it is the endless loop over well plowed ground.

    I’m sorry for my contribution to that. I’ll quit arguing with Ron and David. I’m sick of it too, honestly.

  1134. Russell Klier (Comment #221230)
    May 15th, 2023 at 1:22 pm

    Russell what’s to discuss. It is more for watching.

    I once told my son and daughter-in-law that as I have gotten older I look at younger ladies in a different way and as they looked like they were going to be deeply embarrassed I told them that I look at some young ladies and think that girl could beat me up if she wanted to. I think Tulsi would be one of those ladies.

  1135. Mike M,
    “I think it is the endless loop over well plowed ground”
    .
    Yes, but even more is the endless restatement of “nothing but Republicans winning matters”, always coupled to unquestioning support for an unelectable asshole named Donald Trump.
    .
    Even if the first part of the statement were true, the second part is internally inconsistent: Trump as the Republican presidential candidate will likely cause Republicans to lose the White house, and I fear lose control of Congress as well. It is an irrational, fall-on-your-sword position, repeated dozens of times on this thread. Which is what makes it tedious. Republicans need somebody other than Trump!

  1136. Ken Fritsch,
    .
    Yes, I saw photos of her working out in the gym. She probably could beat up on lots of older men. Unless you have a rigorous exercise program, by age 80 you have likely lost 50% of the strength you had at age 30. Tulsi is only 42, and appears to be fit for her age. Don’t cross her. 😉

  1138. Ken Fritsch,
    “ I look at some young ladies and think that girl could beat me up if she wanted to”
    Video of Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard being a badass at US Army Lightning Academy Jungle Operations Training Course, January 2023
    Look closely, see’s just one of the soldiers in camo and grease paint. [Hint, she’s the short one]
    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1620016003785826304?s=20

  1139. SteveF (Comment #221234): “but even more is the endless restatement of nothing but Republicans winning matters”.
    .
    No, it is the entire loop, all sides.
    .
    As for me, nothing but Democrats losing matters. 🙂

    Specifically, racist, woke, perverted, anti-American Democrats. That is, the only sort of Democrats who have a chance. Which is why I won’t vote for Trump in a primary but will vote for him in the general election in the unfortunate event that he gets the nomination.
    .
    I would never vote for Tulsi Gabbard in a Republican primary. She is a liberal Democrat. But she is a traditional liberal Democrat, not the sort of trash I refer to in the previous paragraph. So I would gladly vote for her in a general election over any viable Democrat and even over some Republicans. But that will never happen.

  1140. I am not a military guy but this seems like an odd strategy. Wager Group continues on the attack in Bakhmut city proper. There is evidence that they continue to make slow progress toward the West. At the same time, the Russian Army that is protecting their flanks to the North and South are retreating toward the East? … it’s a lot like leaning into a left hook.

  1141. OK, trying a new topic.

    I am getting really annoyed at the way Biden, Yellen, etc. are talking up a default. The only way there will be a default is if Biden chooses to default. Even if there is no increase in the debt ceiling, there is more than enough revenue coming in to prevent a default. They are using the threat of default in an attempt to bully Republicans and/or to try to justify a blatantly unconstitutional power grab.
    .
    With the media on their side, they might get away with it. But with the Republicans being the only ones to have done anything about the debt ceiling, it might not work out the way Biden thinks.
    .
    Hurrah for Kevin McCarthy! I never thought I would say that.

  1142. I would never vote for Tulsi, but I would give her creds for being in great shape. I did notice she is small in stature and the young ladies I think could beat me up if they wanted are mostly in great shape and six feet tall or more. I am 6 feet, 185 pounds and consider myself in, at least, good shape. But as my sons say and now my doctor says, “but you are old”.

  1143. Mike M,
    The Democrats passed most of the spending deluge via reconciliation, without any Republican votes. AKA, no compromise on anything of substance, which seems to me pretty much their take on every policy disagreement. They do not want to ever go back on any of that spending, since that would be, well, a compromise.
    .
    So I think a “default” is a real possibility. Of course, what is defaulted on is up to the Biden administration. To maximize economic damage/disruption, I predict they will default on debt payments.

  1145. Just suffice it to say that medved never was a conservative. He really liked the GW Bush republican brand of ignoring real problems. He was right about the 3rd party thing until he got terminal TDS. Just another issue where he changed 180 as he now votes 3rd party. He is like that on most issues. Terminal confused flip flopper and driven by emotion not principle. Medved’s Republican Party is dead as DeSantis and a host of others have proven.

    BTW Durham report proves FBI was effectively working for Clinton and then semi-successfully sabotaged Trump’s administration.

  1146. Just to correct Steve. I despise the Republican Party. I’m a social conservative which is how I vote. There is a reason why evangelicals were all in for Trump. He promised to remake the Supreme Court and defend gun rights and he really did it. Of all recent presidents, Trump was the best at fulfilling his campaign pledges. Some would call that integrity or maybe just good politics. Social conservatives were really fed up with Republicans talking a good game and then never acting almost as if they were lying to get elected. I care about issues not institutions. But I do think we need a Teddy Roosevelt to once again break up big business snd the information cartel. Roosevelt could be an asshole too. I’m not seeing my ideal candidate out there yet.

  1147. Russell “ Wager Group continues on the attack in Bakhmut city proper. There is evidence that they continue to make slow progress toward the West. At the same time, the Russian Army that is protecting their flanks to the North and South are retreating toward the East? ”
    .
    It’s mainly the difference between static and mobile defenses.
    A large portion of the Ukraine army is Territorial Defense Brigades, mainly leg infantry with a severe lack of armored transport. Moving under artillery fire for these is asking for heavy casualties.
    .
    Russia, in contrast, has all of their regular infantry supplied with armored transport. Not only can these move easier ( not “good”, but better ) under artillery fire, they can be deployed in depth and quickly reinforce critical areas or quickly withdraw to prepared positions farther to the rear.
    .
    Russia has consistently chosen to retreat in the face of large attacks or pull back from exposed salients to reduce their casualties.
    Russia is currently trading a small amount of space on the flanks to target advancing enemy forces now moving in the open with heavy artillery fire.
    .
    The Russian goal is the destruction of the Ukraine army, which “meat grinders” such as in the area of Bakhmut is being accomplished.

  1148. NYT: Nothing to see here, just move along.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-investigation-durham.html
    “John H. Durham, the Trump-era special counsel who for four years has pursued a politically fraught investigation into the Russia inquiry, accused the F.B.I. of having “discounted or willfully ignored material information” that countered the narrative of collusion between Donald J. Trump and Russia in a final report made public on Monday.

    Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry, known as Crossfire Hurricane, and it failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations accusing the bureau of politically motivated misconduct that former President Donald J. Trump and his allies suggested Mr. Durham would uncover.”
    .
    That would be all the the FBI misbehavior the NYT rarely if ever acknowledged which has now immediately turned into “not news fit to print”. All the breathless coverage for years worthy of a Pulitzer prize for this rag being negated can be summed up as “little substantial new information”.
    .
    One could also have ignored the entire Jan 6th show trial and made the same proclamations at the end. Media selection bias at its finest.
    .
    It wasn’t just the FBI willfully ignoring information that countered the narrative, it was the NYT and the other self adulating media.
    .
    What an embarrassment for these guys. I don’t suppose they will be returning their Pulitzer anytime soon.

  1149. David

    I’m a social conservative which is how I vote.

    Am absolutely not a social conservative. I am fiscal conservative.

    He promised to remake the Supreme Court and defend gun rights and he really did it.

    I don’t care about gun rights one way or the other.
    .
    Obviously, I’m going to be even slightly angry if Republicans focus on fiscal policy and stop caving into social conservatives.

  1150. Angech: “Sell in May and go away.” Are you talking about selling now because of the pending US default? I think the Dems are well aware by now that almost any crisis can be used for justification for action toward their desired agenda. The current impasse will give Biden the excuse to do away with the debt limit using a “bold option” reading of the 14th amendment, something even the most corrupt Republican would never do and never get away with if they tried.
    .
    Ken F:

    I do have to question the awareness and political savvy of those voters still all in for Trump. In my mind a vote for Trump is vote for the Democrat party.

    .
    Steve F:

    Republicans need somebody other than Trump!

    .
    Mike M:

    Which is why I won’t vote for Trump in a primary but will vote for him in the general election in the unfortunate event that he gets the nomination.

    .
    Mike M, I hope you saw that I voiced the same sentiments. I think it makes perfect sense to vote for the best person in the party in the primary, without staking oneself against any of their primary opponents. The reason is because you may later want to be supporting them in the final stretch against the other party, the one you clearly find more unpalatable. This is in essence what David and I have been trying to point out. Best not to set wagers against your family, party or country. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992. My Democrat friend laughed at me when they found out.
    .

    At least Ron is a polite chatbot, it can definitely be worse.

    Thanks Tom, you have always been very thoughtful and I do appreciate it. I am really doing my best to pause, think more and react less.
    .
    Mike M: “Hurrah for Kevin McCarthy! I never thought I would say that.” Yes, Kevin is doing a superb job herding a split party.
    .
    Tom S: “I don’t suppose they will be returning their Pulitzer anytime soon.” That is because they are protecting institutions but not journalism, truth, justice or what used to be the American way. I will never give the NYT a dime. If I need to read an article badly enough I will use the archive.org.

  1151. Russell:

    I’m interested in Gabbard for one.

    Me too. I think she is a top pick now for VP, along with Ramaswamy and maybe Kari Lake. Gabbard is extremely principled. My only worry for her is the same that I had for Rand Paul, in that she is too transparent on her anti-interventionism, which ironically becomes a green light for ambitious world actors, which then necessitate interventions.

  1152. SteveF from Wiki,
    Sell in May and go away is an investment strategy for stocks based on a theory (sometimes known as the Halloween indicator) that the period from November to April inclusive has significantly stronger stock market growth.
    –
    Never used it but tempted at moment due to the fact that gross overspending should lead to inflation which initially good (shares go up) the n causes a depression and loss of stock value due to increased costs.
    This has all gone out the window with Covid.
    –
    As with many decisions the feared event never happens or things go the other way.
    – would anyone care to explain why the economy seems so steady.

  1153. angech,
    Many companies, especially large ones, drastically reduced debt burden or at least locked in long term low interest rate financing during the long period of near zero interest rates (having sold 3% bonds with a 30 year maturity looks smart right now). Inflation is dragging down real incomes for workers, but there is a long delay between slowly falling income and falling market demand for goods and services. What cold trigger a significant recession is a collapse of asset values: homes, commercial RE, and stocks. Right now homes and rental apartments in much of the USA are less affordable than any time in decades, only a drop in prices will return them to affordable.

  1154. “The Biden Admin’s border policies are opening the floodgates for anyone who can get across the southern border, and enabling the Cartels’ criminal activity. Anyone helping the Cartels with human trafficking, child prostitution & importing drugs like Fentanyl, is an accessory & must be held criminally liable, no matter who they are.”
    Tulsi, today…
    https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1658102519195914240?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ

  1155. Ed Forbes,
    “The Russian goal is the destruction of the Ukraine army, which “meat grinders” such as in the area of Bakhmut is being accomplished.”
    Thanks, Ed. I assumed it was Russian military brilliance in play.
    Even though it is completely contrary to the wild chaotic retreats that have typified most of the Russian army’s reaction to Ukrainian army attacks over the last year.

  1156. From the Russian news outlet TASS:
    “Kinzhal hypersonic missile system proves invulnerable to air defenses in Ukraine — military chief”
    From Oleksii Reznikov @oleksiireznikov, Minister of Defence of Ukraine
    “Another unbelievable success for the Ukrainian Air Forces! Last night, our sky defenders shot down SIX russian hypersonic Kinzhal missiles and 12 other missiles.”
    The facts on the ground support the Ukrainian version. This is a major surprise to me and a major setback for Putin. He has been touting his hypersonic missiles as unstoppable.

  1157. So the New York Times says the Durham report says nothing new, just like the Twitter Files. Same pattern. (1) “Baseless conspiracy theory”. (2) Clear confirmation of the “conspiracy theory”. (3) “We knew that all along”.
    .
    And they say there are no blockbuster revelations of misconduct since the conspirators stayed just inside the provable bounds of the law while breaking many formal rules of conduct and violating all standards of fairness. As if not quite breaking the law is a sufficient standard for the FBI and DoJ.
    .
    Ill take Trump over that any day.

  1161. This says Russia lauched a HUGE attack on Kyiv May 16
    https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-rubs-it-in-with-fierce-kinzhal-attack-on-patriot-battery-in-kyiv-aerospace-war-heats-up-in-ukraine/

    Early morning on May 16, 2023, Russia convincingly drove home to Ukraine and its Western allies that it could deal with the supply of sophisticated Western weapons to Ukraine with an attack on a US-supplied Patriot battery positioned in Kyiv.

    The attack was vividly captured on video that is now viral on the web.

    The Russian Aerospace Force (RuAF) apparently unleashed a coordinated attack on the Patriot battery triggering a response that was reminiscent of an epileptic fit triggered by rage.

    .
    Today’s Russian claim to hit a Patriot system must be related to that attack. The article linked does not go so far as to say the Russians took it out, but does say one “seemingly darkened into gloom”.

    We’ll know more in a few days.

  1162. Lucia, Russell,
    One reason Russia might choose attack with a lot of missiles at the same time could be that the Patriot system has proved to at least be somewhat effective, and the Russians are gauging how many missiles it takes to overwhelm the Patriot defenses. Doubtless there are other explanations that haven’t occurred to me, but that’s what I thought when I read this.
    [Edit: Lucia, yep. We’ll know more down the road.]

  1163. Steven McIntyre is one of the foremost experts in North America on the Russia Hoax. He singlehandedly uncovered that the ICIG whistleblower form was changed for Eric Ciaramella to be able to remain anonymous in the Ukraine impeachment hoax. McIntyre led a crowd sourced effort that successfully identified Steeles primary source for the dossier and all of that source’s alleged sub sources. Barr should have hired McIntrye rather than Durham.
    .
    Durham’s was a very weak and lethargic investigation that failed to go after anyone that worked inside the government of in the Clinton campaign. Danchenko and Sussman were acquitted mainly by the successful arguments by their lawyers that their lies to the FBI were immaterial since the FBI obviously knew they were lying.
    .
    Durham did uncover some eye opening tidbits. The source of the Moscow Ritz Carlton hookers story was Clinton operative, Charles Dolan, who went to Russia to feed the story to Olga Galkina, who fed if back to Danchenko, who fed it to Steele, who fed it to Simpson, who fed it the Perkins Coie, who fed it to Clinton, the FBI and every leftist reporter in Washington. Even three years after the election, and a year after the Horowitz report, former FBI director Comey went on CBS 60 Minutes and said, “The Moscow hotel story could be true. I honestly don’t know to this day.” Comey admitted he knew that the source of the story was the Clinton campaign but he felt that was an unnecessary piece of information to share when he briefed Trump on the allegations against him on Jan 6, 2017, fourteen days before his inauguration.
    .
    McIntyre’s Twitter page: https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit

  1164. Lucia, mark,
    I am seeing a lot of evidence from sites I follow that six of the hypersonic misled were intercepted. For example:
    “Missile fragment that landed near a bus stop in Kyiv, appears to be the motor section from a Russian Kh-47M2 Kinzhal” [with pics]
    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1658291162354941956?s=20
    And:
    “A busy night. The Air Force reports that during the night Russia fired 6 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles, 9 Kalibr cruise missiles, 3 unspecified ballistic missiles and 6 Shahed-kamikaze drones across Ukraine. All targets were shot down by Ukrainian air defense. In addition, 3…”
    https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1658362626068430848?s=20
    I have no confirmation that a Patriot battery was hit.
    However, I have no denials that a Patriot battery was hit either??? Are the Ukrainians playing mind games with the Russians? Maybe they are concealing a hit, and maybe they are concealing a miss.
    One analysis I am trying to make…. What are the relative costs of the Knzhals vs the Patriots and how many Patriots does it take, on average, to bring down a Kinzhal.

  1165. Democrats tell us that no one is above the law, and if that means they have to throw it into the deepest trench in the ocean to ensure the “guilty” are punished and the “innocent” go free, that’s exactly what they will do.

  1166. Charles Dolan was also introduced to Danchenko directly by Dr. Fiona Hill, according to Durham. Yes, that’s the same Fiona Hill that was a primary witness against Trump at the first impeachment hearing. She admitted oddly at the hearing that she had been given an early draft of the Steele dossier by Strobe Talbot, her boss at the time at the Brookings Institute. Talbot was Bill Clinton’s college roommate and Deputy Secretary of State. Speaking of college roommates Fiona Hill’s was the wife-to-be of Christopher Steele. Hill, in fact introduced Steele to Igor Danchenko when Steele was looking for a US operative to employ illegally as a spy in Washington DC. Danchenko, a Russian national and former student of professor Hill’s, had recently lost his job at the time (2012) working under Hill at Brookings due to a felony DUI. He was going to be deported unless he could find employment. His new job under Steele actually triggered a FISA put on him by the FBI for his suspicious undertakings. Danchenko temporarily left the country and the FBI permanently lost track of him until 2016.
    .
    Hill came to the White House NSC from Brookings after Trump’s election at the urging of Eric Cairamella to “help” the new administration.

  1167. Unless they are moving those Patriots around like crazy or they are capable of hitting everything that is shot at it (unlikely) they are going to be vulnerable. I would expect they will get taken out if the Russians really want them taken out.
    .
    In any case an assumption that air defenses are going to be impenetrable against an advanced foe is probably a fantasy.
    .
    The question is whether it costs the Russians more to eliminate them than it costs the US to replenish them, or which side thinks it is worth it.
    .
    There are the missiles themselves (basically in a transporter box) and the missile control system and the radar. These can be separated so you take out one or the other. Generally speaking the control system is worth more than the missiles. Radar seeking missiles will seek the radar which might be easily replaced. Knowing where the site is can be generally targeted with lots of stuff.
    .
    If the Patriot site is moved every day then the Russians historically aren’t so good at time constrained targeting, but will get better eventually. Any non-mobile targeting site is going to be very vulnerable.

  1168. People continuously underestimate Trump. How many top people in the FBI have gone down for this investigation? Plenty. Trust in the FBI has declined. The media has lost almost all credibility in reporting in an unbiased manner. Congressional investigations have been exposed as farcical clown shows.
    .
    Where is Trump now? The leading contender for the Republican nomination and currently ahead in the poll against Biden by some sources.
    .
    If you are going to tangle with Trump you are not going to come out unscathed. He brings everybody down with him. As I have stated before the only people who handled him correctly was China. They refused to mock him, ignored his antics completely, and dealt with him in respectful transactional basis.
    .
    His arrogant political opponents think he is an easy target, he is not.

  1169. That the Clinton campaign would attempt no end of dirty tricks is unsurprising. That’s the political style they learned to engage in (and were attacked with). The fault here lies with both the FBI and the media who refused to uncover this themselves and became enablers of this charade. Imagine the media and the FBI being seriously interested in HRC’s PizzaGate story. It’s about that bad.
    .
    I expect political campaigns to do this kind of sleezy stuff in our less than honorable system, the FBI and media need to be less credulous when being led around by the nose by these people.
    .
    The FBI’s no comment policy becomes destructive when the media is running around with false allegations that are being planted by anonymous sources of the same organization. At some point they have a responsibility to stop the madness.

  1170. The only “proof” I have found of the Patriot system purportedly being hit is this video:
    https://twitter.com/Spriter99880/status/1658472852897808387?s=20
    It might show that, but I doubt it. Other pictures are presented as proof showing parts of Patriot missile tubes on the ground, proving nothing. Without ground confirmation of targeting success, I don’t think Russia would have any way of knowing if its missiles actually hit anything. If there were ground confirmation, it would be posted everywhere.
    Oddly, there is still no mention of it either way from official Ukrainian or US channels.
    Interesting first-person account. “‘Like a scene from Apocalypse Now’: I was there when the missiles shook Kyiv” https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ukraine-kyiv-russia-missiles-attack-defence-b2339806.html

  1171. Tom wrote: “FBI and media need to be less credulous when being led around by the nose by these people.”
    .
    You’re not honestly suggesting they”re just far too trusting and naive, are you Tom? There are usually severe consequences for people who piss off the FBI and the media. Neither seem particularly perturbed about it.
    .
    “At some point they have a responsibility to stop the madness.”
    .
    Like using backdoors to twitter to advise that the hunter laptop was russian misinformation? When the public comment is the wrong one, I’m certain steps are taken to make corrections.

  1172. I think there is lots of wishful thinking about there being saveguards of individual liberties even with a rapidly growing government and the existence of government agencies that are assumed to need to be very opaque in order to operate efficiently.

    Liberals at one time promoted larger government but at least gave out words supporting civil liberties. Now they appear to be in bed with the deep state at least when it follows the agenda that they approve – which ironically is more government.

  1173. Tom,
    Yes. I agree raining down hypersonic missiles at the two Patriot systems makes sense as a strategy. That’s especially true if the Patriot system is known to work. The idea would be too send so many missiles they can’t all be hit.It’s costly, but weapons are costly.
    .
    I agree on the idea that Patriots if stationary will be hard to defend against this defense.
    .
    And as several have agreed: We’ll know if a Patriot system was taken out eventually. I’d say inside a week. If it starts firing missiles it was not taken down. If it is silent for a while…. gone.

  1174. I do not see where Trump has countered a growing and opaque government even when he has been a victim. The media pretty much ignores the facts of the matter and Trump rants about so many situations that when he has a legimate complaint it comes across as his usual ranting.

    There is a problem with ever bigger government, but when Trump becomes a victim it does not make him a better person or even a fighter against the system. Someone who outwardly shows near exclusive interest in themselves is not going to even see the problem as systemic.

  1175. Ken,

    There is a problem with ever bigger government, but when Trump becomes a victim it does not make him a better person or even a fighter against the system. Someone who outwardly shows near exclusive interest in themselves is not going to even see the problem as systemic.

    .
    I agree with you. Trump generally complains about everything that inconveniences or annoys Trump-the-individual. That doesn’t mean he is complaining about the general issue as it affects everyone else nor that he acts to implement any fixes that apply to everyone. Generally, he appears happy with (and may even prefer) being given a special exemption, not caring if the burden still falls on others.

  1176. US confirms it is assessing ‘damage’ to Patriot system.
    The Patriot missile system is on wheels. There are three major components and a bunch of minor ones. They are situated in scattered formation and can be moved independently so they are hard to take out completely. Damage to one or more components doesn’t take out the whole system.
    Image: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1658547957208080441?s=61&t=q3_InP1

  1178. Turns out there has been more than one Patriot system built … for reasons. The US has 1100 launchers (250 total systems?) and 10,000 missiles, been in service since 1981 with upgrades along the way. $1B for the entire unit, an inviting target.
    .
    The Russians either target it because it is effective or because it is useful for propaganda. Or both. Both sides are learning and will adapt, but it takes more time to adapt very sophisticated equipment.
    .
    Targeting air defense systems means you aren’t targeting something else potentially more useful, so expensive barrages can be a distraction from real targeting, but a necessity if they are stopping your missiles from getting to their targets. It then becomes about economics and production capabilities.
    .
    Real air defense systems are going to be multi-faceted and layered. It’s unclear what is in Ukraine.

  1179. I think the Durham report is old news to me who has been following Nunes and others closely. What it shows is the FBI and the White House (including Obama) acting as an arm of the Clinton campaign to spread the lie that Trump was colluding with “Russians” in order to rig the 2016 election for Clinton. This is the biggest scandal in American history I think. It shows that elections are rigged by the deep state, the corporate media (who report uncritically leaks from this same deep state which are often classified material), big tech, and the new NGO disinformation industry.

    The flip side of this is the willful ignorance and failure to show any curiosity about crimes by Clinton and Biden. Biden is perhaps one of the most crooked politicians in Washington, he has a credible rape allegation too and a long history of blatant plagiarism and obvious lies even about trivial details like his law school record.

    I don’t see how we correct this through the typical RINO solutions of compromise. We need Teddy Roosevelt. Is Trump or DeSantis the answer? At least partial answers but they will need to be Patton style SOB’s to get it done.

  1180. Lucia, I think you are projecting something onto Trump that is contradicted by a lot of evidence. When Trump complains about the Russia Hoax, he also points to other victims of it such as Mike Flynn, Ruddy Guiliani, George Popadopalos and others. Trump always points it out when his fans were attacked for example outside a rally. He is constantly shining light on these abuses that affect others. And he pardoned a lot of them before leaving office. I think he would have pardoned Snowdon if the wasn’t afraid of the political implications of having every Washington swamp creature (including Republicans) calling him names and impeaching him again.

    I feel confident that if Trump promises to clean out the deep state, he will do his best to do it.

  1181. David,
    Mentioning people doesn’t mean he gives a rats ass about them. If he weren’t embroiled in it, he wouldn’t talk about it. And he doesn’t care how people who are not hi fans are affected.

    I’m confident Trump will do very little that is not self-serving, or just his whim.

  1182. Ken:

    There is a problem with ever bigger government, but when Trump becomes a victim it does not make him a better person or even a fighter against the system. Someone who outwardly shows near exclusive interest in themselves is not going to even see the problem as systemic.

    .
    Ken, you found the crux, I think, of the differing points of view here. Republicans that don’t like Trump’s flashy boasts and arrogance judge he is getting what he deservers by inflaming the delusional Democrats. But even if one grants this, that does not explain the backlash coming from the FBI, CIA, DOJ of State of NY, unless one admits they are filled with and led by delusional Democrats. The question then becomes how is this reversed.
    .
    If one sees Trump as a narcistic fool that somehow fell into riches and success then he will be unable to deal with the same deep state that plagued his first presidency. Clearly, half the GOP voters currently see Trump as the most apt to deal with it. This is even true in Florida, according to a recent poll. The next largest block of GOP voters believe DeSantis is the most apt. Why is that not reversed? DeSantis is a national figure who has drawn 300,000 net new Floridians, the fasted growth in the country. My explanation would be as follows:

    1) People who feel injustice has been done to Trump and his close allies and J6ers feel the surest way to ensure justice would be to put Trump back in the WH.

    2) Trump had a very good track record on the most important policy issues of governing as President.

    3) He is a known quantity. GOP voters have been betrayed too many times by weak leaders that let the Dems, whenever they held one house of congress, win battles because of the press having their backs. Trump does not care what the NYT or Wa Po say. He fights. DeSantis is not battle tested against the full weight of the national press and deep state. He may have a skeleton in the closet. He may cower when a skeleton is fabricated. We saw Senator Jeff Sessions turned to mush, Mike Flynn falsely prosecuted and bankrupted, Bill Barr wimp out and a dozen others sell out to save their skins.

    4) Many people are willing to believe Trump cares about them if he takes actions that preserve their freedoms and way of life. They can’t read his mind, so why not think the best? Some people are like that.

  1183. Well Lucia, you can’t read his mind and neither can I. But his actions suggest he does care. He wouldn’t have bothered to pardon so many people if he didn’t care. He obviously cares less about those who don’t support him. Surely, you can’t think he didn’t care about all the suffering during Covid. He did send the hospital ships to New York and had the military set up the hospital in the Javitz center. New York City where almost no one was his fan. He invested a lot of effort on things like ventilators, PPE, etc. I guess that’s because he doesn’t care.

    Just because Trump says mean things about people he doesn’t like doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about people generally.

  1184. Trump cares so much, that instead of standing aside and letting somebody who has a fighting chance of winning get the nomination, he is going to stomp DeSantis and grab the nomination for himself and go on to be beaten, again, by the Dems. Obviously the guy cares deeply and passionately, about himself first and foremost. His ego permits nothing less.

  1185. Mike,
    I know you complained about the argument. But I’m not listening to David and not responding. I mean, what for. If it really bugs you, why not ask him to give it a rest. I will drop the subject of that asshole Trump as soon as everybody else does.

  1186. Here is the part that is truly sad, in my opinion. We have Ron and David here, wasting their time and ours extolling Trump’s virtues to us. Why? Trump is already the favorite to win the nomination. They ought to be spending their time preaching to people who are currently likely to vote for Biden. They might both be unable to grasp this, but nobody here is voting for Biden.
    Take the show where it can do some good boys. This ain’t the place.

  1187. David

    Well Lucia, you can’t read his mind and neither can I. But his actions suggest he does care.

    To me, his actions suggest he does not care about others. And those include the actions you list. That’s what I was pointing out.

    Surely, you can’t think he didn’t care about all the suffering during Covid.

    I think he didn’t really care.

  1188. Mark

    I will drop the subject of that asshole Trump as soon as everybody else does.

    Yep. That’s the problem. “Some” keep wanting to extol Trump, laud him and so on. Others merely point out that the exhaltation of Trump is mistake.
    .
    I would be happy to not discuss Trump. But not if people keep arriving and proactively telling us all how great, laudable yada, yada he is, given really poor “evidence” and so on.

  1191. I’m talking about Trump because some here keep saying counter factual things about him that seem derived from corrupt media narratives about him. There is a book titled Letters to Trump containing adoring letters to him form hundreds of prominent people many of whom started hating him when he ran for president. Included are Schumer and Andrew Cuomo. Even for very smart people, it’s hard to see through the mountain of lies and smears of Trump that the corrupt media (not to mention the FBI) have put forward in the last 7 years.

    So were these admirers turned haters of Trump lying then or are they lying now?

    But I can drop it if that’s what people prefer.

  1192. But I can drop it if that’s what people prefer.

    Please do, I prefer that.

  1193. David,

    counter factual things

    If you think you are responding to a counter factual thing someone actually wrote, please quote the counter factual thing. The explain how that specific thing in the quote did not happen.
    .
    It seems to me you (and Ron) are generally responding to things you think someone wrote somewhere (though not hear.) Or you are complaining that people view the meaning of things differently from you.
    .
    Opinions can’t be conterfactual. Nor can conclusion.

  1194. David

    So were these admirers turned haters of Trump lying then or are they lying now?

    Huh? Some people held one opinion before, and honestly report they held that opinion. The held an opinion now and honestly report they have a new, different opinion.
    .
    None of this involves lying.
    .

    But I can drop it if that’s what people prefer.

    If you are going to ask us whether people who changed their opinion where “lying” at some point because they changed an opinion, it might be best if you drop it. Because asking that question suggest you have made a rather ginormous category error. And the only answer to that question is “huh?”

  1195. David, don’t do it. I started with the idea that I could correct the counterfactual assertion made here that Trump shredded the constitution by asking Pence to overturn the election. I argued that it was not unconstitutional to have pence accept the objections made by senators and representatives in writing. They answered that it can’t be right that Kamala Harris would have the power to overturn an election then. I responded that is not correct unless there is a controversy as to one or more state’s validity of electors and at least one senator and one representative objects in writing. But the election is not overturned by the VP. There is more. At least one house of congress has to support the objection with a majority vote. Then it the certification is delayed as the state legislatures determine the proper electors after an emergency session.
    .
    That is the law as it stands now. The Democrats tried to change the Electoral Count Act but failed. Trump made a comment about that and of course the media took it as a confession of trying to overturn the election.
    .
    It’s just the fine people hoax or when Trump asked Russia to look for Hillary’s deleted emails and supply them to our FBI, (with tongue in cheek). Peter Strzok wrote in his book that Trump’s apparent confession of working with Putin is what triggered Crossfire Hurricane. (In truth Strzok forgot why or was covering it up. It was Popadopolous getting reported on by Clinton Foundation donor, Alexander Downer.) Trump’s statement occurred later.

  1196. It seems that the big division here is between those who perceive Trump as caring only about himself and those who see him as a guy with a huge ego who also cares about the country and the ordinary people. I think that correlates perfectly with which of us despise Trump and which don’t.
    ———

    Dang. I bit. Now I will get people explaining why their view of Trump is correct. Please don’t. We all have heard it.

  1197. Look, I meant what I said both about thinking this whole discussion is pointless and being more than ready to drop it. I can keep my opinions about Trump more or less to myself if you guys do as well. Within reason; I’m not going to open fire just because somebody remarks on Trump. But I’m not listening to a steady stream of ‘Trump is great and this is why everyone needs to get behind him’ for very long without shooting back.
    Nothing is being accomplished by the ongoing argument. Nobody’s mind has been changed, nothing positive has been accomplished. I hope you guys agree with me that we could all move on, because all we are doing is wasting time and energy on these fruitless arguments.

  1198. Ron

    counterfactual assertion made here that Trump shredded the constitution by asking Pence to overturn the election

    Shredded the constitution? Maybe you should quote the person who said he shredded the constitution? Do a word search on Pence. You aren’t going to find this particular “counter factual” advanced by anyone (except, perhaps, you in some claimed “rebuttal”.)
    .

    They answered that it can’t be right that Kamala Harris would have the power to overturn an election then

    You might also want to do a word search on either “Harris” or “Kamala” and then show us who “they” are.
    .
    This is why I suggest you and David quote the “counter factuals” you think someone else advanced.

  1199. If you want to tune out the Trump discussion don’t read this comment. 🙂

    Lucia, I need to say one more thing because your response on the Letters to Trump I think is not fully correct. It is odd behavior don’t you think to write a gushing letter to someone praising them as a person and then just a few years later talk about how they are a narcissist and a liar. Trump appeared to be a great and generous guy. I don’t think Trump’s personality changed. That means those other people are not being fully honest. Maybe lying is too strong a term, but it seems to fit to me.

    The most likely explanation is that Trump ran for president, started a populist movement, and contradicted all the dogmas of the US security, the Washington swamp, and the Information Cartel. Questioning NATO was perhaps a final straw for many. They hate him because he threatens them and their jobs and power and genuinely connects with ordinary Americans. The proper rulers of this country are not the ordinary people but the elites and the deep state, you see. Woodrow Wilson’s racist and elitist dream come true.

    I’ve followed this very closely because it seems to me to be a seismic shift in American culture and government that is very troubling. One can trace it all the way back to the 1980’s and the economic changes that were happening then. It is very analogous to the Gilded Age when economic conditions were very similar to today and the government was exceptionally corrupt. Then the Feds had very little power but it matters a lot more today when the Federal government intrudes into every aspect of our lives and the legal code is massive and often vague making law enforcement objectivity all the more important.

  1200. [If you find these military aircraft posts boring or useless let me know!]
    Another curious middle-of-the-night military aviation conundrum. At one AM Florida time, two US military planes are on a track from GUAM to U-Tapao airport in Thailand. It is home to the Royal Thai Navy First Air Wing. One plane is innocuous, a US Navy Boeing C-40 Clipper. It is a military version of the Boeing 737 Next Generation used to transport cargo and passengers.
    The other bird is more suspicious. It’s a US Army secret spy plane, called Artimus. It’s a bit murky: “Leidos just unveiled its newest special mission aircraft” and “ a novel intelligence-gathering aircraft prototype known as ARTEMIS — a Bombardier Challenger 650 that’s been souped up with military-grade sensors for tracking ground troops, flown on behalf of the US Army by defense contractor Leidos.”
    I have seen it a few times in the Ukraine battle space.
    The Artimus turned off its transponder and when dark as it approached Viet Nam.
    Screenshot of the flights:
    https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1658714059007557632?s=20
    About Artimus:
    https://www.leidos.com/insights/leidos-just-unveiled-its-newest-special-mission-aircraft
    About the contactor/operator/developer Leidos Defense:
    https://www.leidos.com/sites/g/files/zoouby166/files/2018-08/FS-Defense-Intelligence.pdf

  1201. David,

    If you want to tune out the Trump discussion don’t read this comment. ????

    Lucia, I need to say one more thing

    So… first, you warn me I can tune this out, and then you address it to me directly?

    It is odd behavior don’t you think to write a gushing letter to someone praising them as a person and then just a few years later talk about how they are a narcissist and a liar.

    Not odd. Lots of people hold one opinion, then learn more about the person and change their mind based on new observations. It’s even the norm in science. 🙂
    .
    Your ideas of “most likely explanation” is merely the explanation you prefer for some reason.
    .
    I get it. You love Trump and want to view every bit of information as showing he is great and his detractors are bad.

  1202. I loath Trump in part because he is an extremely unpleasant person, and an extremely incompetent administrator, but even more because he is so obnoxious that he is going to damage the country by helping elect leftists who will continue the destructive policies we see being implemented today (No fossil fuel generated power, not by law, but by decree of the EPA?). The country would be much better off if Trump left politics permanently.
    .
    On a personal note: if someone offered me $1,000 to play a round of golf with Trump, I would turn it down. He is so offensive that it would not be worth it. But I’d pay $2,000 and play a round of golf with the asshole if that meant he would withdraw his candidacy.
    .
    The fact that the MSM and the Federal government lie about Trump by commission and by omission changes none of that. The fact that he is being harassed by prosecutors on dubious charges changes none of that. Trump is very likely unelectable and that fact alone makes him bad news for the country. Trump as candidate will very likely hand control of Congress to Democrats, and that is horrible for the country.

  1203. SteveF

    The fact that the MSM and the Federal government lie about Trump by commission and by omission changes none of that.

    .
    Yep. The ideas that either
    (a) we should vote for him because others lie about him or
    (b) his manifest flaws do not exist and are only fictions made up about liars
    .
    are both nutso.
    And many, many negative things said about him are not lies.

  1204. Turns out the US and Royal Thailand militaries work together a lot:
    “ RAYONG PROVINCE, Thailand — The opening ceremony for the 42nd iteration of Exercise Cobra Gold took place in Rayong province, Kingdom of Thailand, Feb. 28, 2023.
    The exercise is co-sponsored by the Kingdom of Thailand and the United States and also features full participation from the Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Republic of Singapore, Japan and Malaysia, as well as other limited participants, planners and observers from more than 20 additional nations.”
    https://www.army.mil/article/264353/42nd_annual_exercise_cobra_gold_begins_in_thailand

  1205. Russel,
    I like the updates.
    (I am eager to hear more reports on the Patriot missile system. I did read it might be damaged.)

  1207. lucia (Comment #221305): “Yep. The ideas that either
    (a) we should vote for him because others lie about him or
    (b) his manifest flaws do not exist and are only fictions made up about liars
    are both nutso.”
    .
    Yes, such claims would be nutty. Are people making such claims? I very much doubt it other than at the flat earth level. I have never encountered either.

    Some pundits interpret polls in a way that implies (a). But I don’t think that is because they believe (a). It is because of their limited capability for logical thought.

  1208. Lucia,
    There is a lot of chatter about the Patriot damage, but nothing that shows proof of the extent of damage. The US has been very cagy. It may all be misinformation to lure the Ruskies into a trap, but probably not. My guess is there was some damage, but the system is spread over an area too large for a lot of components to be hit and the system has built in redundancy. Also the components are all on wheels and can be flown in on military transports from anywhere in the world,so I don’t expect a lot of downtime (if any).
    Pic of system components…. https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1658547957208080441?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ

  1209. MikeM

    Are people making such claims?

    Directly? Here? No.
    .
    But several people here are posting multi-paragraph discussions that, in the aggregate, seem to amount to making such claims or to at least come very near those ideas. Lecturing about throwing away a vote in some posts, and then going on about the lies by “pithy-name-of-group du jour” on the other hand, gives the impression that’s a major idea of (a).
    .
    Eagerly jumping in to decree any and every actual real flaw somehow a lie by the press gives the impression of (b).

  1210. lucia (Comment #221311): “posting multi-paragraph discussions that, in the aggregate, seem to amount to making such claims”.
    .
    I think it a good policy that when people seem to be saying something unreasonable, one should carefully consider the possibility that one misunderstood.

  1211. I don’t know why this is so hard. I never liked Trump very much to begin with because he’s a blowhard drama queen. I never voted for him in a primary but voted for him twice in the main election because I viewed him as the least worst option. His behavior at the end of the last election changed my opinion of him enough that I will no longer vote for him period. He is no longer the least worst option, the most likely outcome for me is I will not vote for anyone in the next election. If that means a barely awake drooling octogenarian is in office then so be it. I have standards, you can have different standards.

  1213. I’ll add — all of this incessant argument about why we ought to vote for Trump makes it considerably less likely that I will relent in the end. I don’t appreciate being harangued. In fact it is more likely (as a result of being harassed to support Trump) that I’d vote for Biden out of spite, although this remains extremely unlikely. It’s not as if my vote in Alabama in our winner take all system makes any difference in that regard.

  1214. Lucia:

    Eagerly jumping in to decree any and every actual real flaw somehow a lie by the press gives the impression of (b).

    .
    If you were referring to me I have always readily admitted that Trump has obvious issues that undermine his effectiveness. I am not surprised that his opponents would try to take full advantage of any weaknesses and even embellish upon them. The Blasey Ford allegations against Kavanaugh fell to the wayside once Kavanaugh’s and even Ford’s witnesses attested to his character and having a spotless past and family life. Trump could not do the same thus Clinton’s people, (or maybe Hillary herself), knew the Moscow Ritz Carlton allegation would be hard to refute and easy to believe. Comey still believes it, along with a good portion of the country.
    .
    The argument that Trump is bad because people that are casual news consumers see mostly the smears and thus would never vote for him is interesting. Is the opposite argument that someone whose flaws are covered up by the media to casual observers deserve to be supported for the good of the party, the midterms, etc..? I don’t think it would. Obviously it would not happen. The same media that are slandering Trump will do it to any GOP that is a threat. The media did it to Bush, McCean and Romney. They all recovered their reputations by joining the attacks on Trump.
    .
    I admit that part of my defense of Trump has been to point to that the majority of the GOP polled currently are supporting him and that is not a valid reason. It’s the “join the bandwagon” fallacy. But isn’t looking at the polling of the opposite parties opinion of Trump even more illogical? I suppose this question would then be about the independents, who are mostly casual political news consumers or split on the party’s issues.
    .
    Right now it is a statistical dead heat in a head to head Biden-Trump race among polled independents. This is after the rape trial. https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/not-biden-vs-trump-again-the-disgruntled-voters-who-could-decide-the-2024-election/
    .
    If you dislike both, like I did in 1992, then one can vote third party but usually just helps the candidate one likes the least win, like it did for me.

  1215. Trump is a Loooser, with a capital L and three O’s. [I’ve said this before]
    He lost to Joe Biden for Christ’s sake. It’s like losing to a cantaloupe.
    He is a Loooser in all aspects of his life… marriage, business, and persona.
    I will only support a candidate who I think is a winner. The End!

  1216. US officially [but anonymously] comments on Patriot damage:
    From Natasha Bertrand CNN “The damage to a Patriot air defense system following a Russian missile attack near Kyiv on Tuesday morning is minimal, three US officials tell CNN, with one official describing it as “minor” damage.’
    And:
    “The system itself is still operational, the officials said, and the radar component of the Patriot, one of its most important elements, was not damaged. US officials do not believe the Patriot will need to be removed from the battlefield for repairs.”
    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.html

  1217. Russell,
    You see anything anywhere that gives a clue as to whether it’s the German system or the one we just sent (the one the Russians targeted), and whether they’re using PAC-2 or PAC-3 missiles? I haven’t been able to uncover either of those things.

  1218. mark, I assumed it was one from the US since we were the ones looking at it to assess the damage, but that may be wrong.

  1219. Thanks Russell.
    I read someplace that at least some Patriot batteries have a mix of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles, so it could be the case as well that they have both types. Sorry I didn’t keep the link.

  1220. The main problem with Patriot systems is a general shortage of ammunition. Saudi Arabia uses the system to defend its oil storage and refinery infrastructure and has trouble getting adequate stocks.
    .
    NATO has never prioritized ammunition production which is going to bite them where it hurts.

  1221. Ed,
    I don’t disagree. The Patriot systems aren’t fundamental game changers in Ukraine. I think they are still interesting though.

  1222. Tom Scharf (Comment #221313): “If that means a barely awake drooling octogenarian is in office then so be it. I have standards, you can have different standards.”
    .
    I too have standards.

    No senile, barely functioning fools.

    No giggling idiots.

    No obnoxious jerks.

    No narcissistic, self-obsessed egotists.

    On second thought, scratch the last since it pretty much automatically eliminates anybody who would run.

    No potential autocrats who ignore the rule of law and the Constitution.

    No crooks who sell out the country to foreign powers.

    No demagogues who demonize half the country.

    No traitors who refuse to defend our borders.

    No spendthrifts who would bankrupt the country.

    I could go on.

    I am pretty sure I will have to compromise my standards.

  1223. Mike,

    I am pretty sure I will have to compromise my standards.

    You don’t actually have to compromise your standards. You can elect to. It’s your personal choice, that’s fine.
    .
    [Edit: I don’t hold out for a perfect candidate. I do insist that they not publicly say stuff like this:

    A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution

    I don’t feel like I’m [reserving my vote] for the second coming of Christ by doing this. YMMV]

  1224. mark bofill (Comment #221325): “You don’t actually have to compromise your standards. You can elect to.”
    .
    Please explain. I honestly have no idea how to “elect” to not compromise at least some of my standards.

    Not voting would compromise every single one of my standards.

  1225. Mike,

    I too have standards.

    No senile, barely functioning fools.

    No giggling idiots.

    No obnoxious jerks.

    No narcissistic, self-obsessed egotists.

    On second thought, scratch the last since it pretty much automatically eliminates anybody who would run.

    No potential autocrats who ignore the rule of law and the Constitution.

    No crooks who sell out the country to foreign powers.

    No demagogues who demonize half the country.

    No traitors who refuse to defend our borders.

    No spendthrifts who would bankrupt the country.

    Don’t be a wad. Not voting does not violate these standards you just supplied of things you don’t want to vote for, so don’t claim not voting violates every one of your standards.

  1226. mark bofill (Comment #221327): ” standards you just supplied of things you don’t want to vote for”.
    .
    Those were not things I don’t want to vote for. Those are things I don’t want in a President. Not voting says that I don’t care or that my standards don’t matter enough to force me to make a difficult decision.
    .
    Voting is not about me. It is a duty I undertake for the public good.

  1227. Mike,

    Those were not things I don’t want to vote for. Those are things I don’t want in a President.

    Those were your examples of standards. None of them are compromised by not voting.
    .
    You know what, more power to ya buddy. Go do your duty for the public good. I’m not the one who has a problem with what you are doing.
    .
    [Edit: How about you don’t whine about your standards being compromised in this case tho]

  1228. Ed Forbes,
    “..which is going to bite them where it hurts.”
    .
    Pray tell, where is that?
    .
    NATO countries have pretty routinely skimped on material stockpiles and focused funding on soldier salaries.

  1229. Trump, being the endlessly destructive force that he is, can get a blog frequented mainly by people who would vote for a Republican to get into an endless pissing match. I loath the guy.

  1230. I would also add that one of my main reasons for voting for Trump was the Supreme Court balance. That no longer looks in danger. I still consider that vote worth it in the long run, but there was risk there.

  1231. Ed, mark,
    “The Patriot systems aren’t fundamental game changers in Ukraine”
    …and neither are the Russian Kinzals. Both Kinzals and Patriots are more effective for PSYOPs than battlefield advantage. This is a war for the minds and hearts of the man on the street in Berlin, Moskow, London, Kyiv, and Washington. Hyperblast missiles and shooting them out of the sky is great theater.

  1232. Trump likes to assign derogatory nicknames to his opponents. I hereby designate this as the official nickname…Trump the Loooser [maybe ‘Don Loooser’]

  1233. I see nothing at all wrong morally, civically or patriotically about not voting at all in a given election. Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you are voting for evil.

  1234. First it was Anheuser-Busch, now it’s Molson Coors. I wonder what sorts of emails VPs of advertising and marketing of the other remaining beer companies are receiving from their CEOs? Maybe:

    To: (Directors of sales and marketing)
    Subject: Don’t you dare…

  1235. Ron Graf,

    If you were referring to me I have always readily admitted that Trump has obvious issues that undermine his effectiveness.

    Just saying “I admit he has issues” and leaving it at that is not admitting anything.

    Name them. And for each give a paragraph description of how we know this is an issue.

  1236. Ken Fritsch (Comment #221335): “Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you are voting for evil.”
    .
    No. You are NOT voting for evil. You are doing the only thing available to minimize the evil. It is unethical to not do what one can to minimize evil.

  1237. mark bofill
    Coors ” saying there’s nothing “remotely controversial” about it.”.
    Uhmmm… if it causes controvery, there is something controversial about it.
    .
    You know, it is true that in the past, many commercials were sexist, and beer commercials certainly often were. And changing that is fine. But you don’t need to write a mea-culpa as a commercial. And the mea-culpa’s the do write tend to end up slamming their customers. Mind you, I have no doubt a certain number of beer drinkers both past and present may be sexist. But many aren’t. And ads can’t do nuance.
    .
    Coors could have just written a commercial that celebrated female brewers of your without going into past sexism. They didn’t have to do it!

  1239. Lucia,

    I haven’t actually listened to the commercial yet. I probably should have held off remarking a while longer. I’ll listen to it tonight and then I’ll be able to speak more intelligently about this. I hope. Heh!

  1240. mark bofill,
    I think I saw it a while ago. I thought it might not be a bad discussion in a show about the history of sexism in commercials. But as a commercial? In some sense, people can write any sort of commercial they want. But the goal of a beer commercial is to sell more beer. Some things are counter productive.

  1241. https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1658558064222699520?cxt=HHwWgIDUlbTxsIQuAAAA
    .
    “EXCLUSIVE: Last year, Texas Children’s Hospital announced it was stopping “gender-affirming care” on minors.
    .
    But I’ve obtained internal records indicating that TCH secretly restarted its child sex-change program three days later—and has continued it en masse ever since.
    .
    Texas Children’s, which is the largest children’s hospital in the US, openly promotes transgender medical procedures for kids, recently hosting a “pediatric grand rounds” titled “Medical and Psychological Care of Gender-Diverse Youth,” with Baylor College of Medicine.
    .
    TCH and Baylor encourage doctors to begin treatment with puberty blockers and hormones during adolescence, and then consider surgeries, including breast removal and genital reconstruction, in adulthood and sometimes “adolescents on [a] case-by-case basis.”
    .
    According to internal records, Dr. Richard Ogden Roberts has managed patients ranging in age from 12 to 17 years old for “gender identity” and “gender dysphoria,” with indications for “medication,” “testosterone levels,” “medicine refill,” and “specialty services.”
    .
    Another Texas Children’s doctor, Harvard-trained surgeon Kristy Rialon, inserted and removed “non-biodegradable drug delivery implant[s]” for “gender dysphoria in pediatric patient[s]” throughout 2022 and 2023, including the puberty blocker Supprelin, on 11- to 15-year-old kids.”

  1242. Russell,
    on the Patriot and other air defenses, not having air superiority is not in itself a losing issue.
    .
    All one really needs is contested air space. Not having contested air space vs an opponent with large amounts of air assets is a losing position.
    .
    Ukraines main and overriding issue is they are losing the battle for a contested air space.
    .
    Ukraine has lost the battle for contested air space on most of the front lines. As Ukraine air defense runs short of ammunition, Ukraine will lose contested air space that protects the eastern Ukraine provinces from which Ukraine supply from NATO flows. The point that the air is no longer contested will mark the final stages of the war.
    .

  1243. Also in the news:
    .
    Parents file a police report after teacher offers LGBTQ-themed book to her middle schoolers
    .
    https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/parents-file-police-report-teacher-offers-lgbtq-themed-book-middle-sch-rcna84629
    .
    I bet you’d never guess the books involved explaining sex acts like rimming and blowjobs, included explicit images that would probably get you banned for posting, and how to hook up for a little one on one action using apps like Grindr…
    .
    The FBI are probably moving in right now to investigate this new case of domestic terrorism aimed at teachers…
    .
    I wonder what the story would be if she was handing out bibles…

  1245. Thanks for the link Lucia.
    Actually, if I’d watched it first I might never have mentioned it. It’s pretty tame and .. well, is it even woke by modern standards? I mean, those all looked like biological women to me. Biological women standing up for biological women is so 2010.
    Lucia, do you think it’s sexist to run ads with physically attractive women? Women in bikinis?
    I don’t actually know. I’d like to not think so, but maybe I have this wrong. What is your take?

  1246. mark Bofill

    Lucia, do you think it’s sexist to run ads with physically attractive women? Women in bikinis?

    Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
    .
    Generally no if it’s a commercial for bikinis, beach vacations or sun tan lotion.
    .
    But I could probably find some commercials using women in bikinis that are sexist. I might have to find “archives” of old commercials with someone first finding all the ones with women wearing bikinis. I do seem to recall there were once commercials that seemed to be suggesting that a beautiful young woman was included in each purchase of X. And I think in many case that was intentional. Those were generally sexist.

  1247. Fair enough, thanks. Things reached a point where I honestly had a hard time figuring out what I thought about sexism. There seemed to be groups arguing things like ‘celebrate sex workers’ on one end of the spectrum, and then people arguing that women using sexiness to sell products was sexism on the other side of the spectrum. The best I could do in trying to extract something meaningful from both ends was the idea that any way you slice it, women are female humans and ought to be treated considerately and as humans.
    I don’t think polite or chivalrous behavior is actually sexist by this standard, but I quit worrying about it. I actually began to identify as sexist at one point, much as I had identified as a climate denier. From time to time I will still identify as a racist bigot, again for the same reasons I did with the denier label.
    Anyways. Thanks for your thoughts.
    [It’s hard for me to nail down exactly. Considerately. Compassionately? Respectfully? When I add too many descriptives I feel like I’m getting hand wavey.]

  1249. Lucia,
    So the overall message is sex right? I guess the general implication is ‘drink this and have sex with gorgeous women’. Sure, there’s some objectification going on there. I can see how that’s degrading, OK.

  1250. “Rep. Paulina introduced a House Resolution Wednesday to expel Schiff from Congress, saying, “Schiff lied to the American people. He used his position on House Intel to push a lie that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars.”
    .
    Yeah, the allegations against Santos look pretty insignificant compared to what Schiff lied about.

  1251. Mark
    We really don’t see those sort of commercials any more. I don’t think those who made them really need to write other commercials deploring them. Just make commercials that don’t do that. And if, in the past, the demographic was sexist men, but you now want women, just make commercials that appeal to women.

    That might happen to include women with agency doing cool things. It doesn’t have to be a campaign to dig up all the old billboards, send them into a beer company and turn them into mulch. I mean… really, how does the mulch help women? I don’t see it.

  1252. Alright, now I understand your original point. Yes. It was meant to appeal to activists, or wanna be activists. Hash tag warrior women perhaps.
    Whatever.. If they think there’s a market there. I’d be careful were I Molson Coors!
    [And that’s the similarity to the Bud lite problem. They are likely to antagonize their existing customer base doing this. Yep]

  1253. Rasmussen polls finally returning to their normal range.
    Real Clear Politics overall Biden approval showing signs of severe tanking.
    Border crossings.
    Hunter.
    Durham.
    Debt ceiling crisis.
    Nominally Trump Biden.
    Practically De Santis v Newsom.
    Democrat strategy to pull Joe at last minute on health grounds inserting Newsom.
    At same time one of the three remaining Trump charges to result in a conviction and inability to run, potentially after becoming the nominee.
    Republicans to put up a De Santis/Haley ticket.
    –
    I expect a massive fall in Biden polling within the next month, 5% drop in popularity. Interesting popcorn times ahead.

  1254. Mark: “Yes. It was meant to appeal to activists,”
    .
    Dove and H&K(!) have recently come outnwith similar stuff. It’s almost like it’s orchestrated…

  1255. I am calling total complete Bullsh** with a capital B on this “women in bikinis” are bad and * beer makers * are sinners. Jesus, Hollywood, TV, and the advertising industry has been churning this stuff out for a century by the epic truck load. No, no, no. Beauty (or sex when the out-group sinners do it) sells. It always has, and always will, until such a time as our genetic programming is obliterated.
    .
    Let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist. We don’t really have desires and preferences, we are just programmed by beer people. Why does Dylan Mulvaney dress the way she/he does? What’s with all the war paint? Maybe it’s an attempt to maximize attractiveness. Aaaaagghh! Put her in the Miller Lite shredder.
    .
    Yes, lots of advertisers appeal to base genetic programming, but the dumping on the beer industry by the holier than though media is just too much. Do they watch the commercials they air? They can start by banning beauty there.
    .
    The only problem here is mostly the beautiful bikini women are “privileged” by winning the genetic lottery. Life’s not fair, but don’t hate them because they are beautiful. It’s all a bit too nanny state for me. No more prom queen, no more cheerleaders, let’s just take all the frivolous fun out of life. Geeeyyaaaad.
    .
    EDIT: Yes, the beer people are condemning themselves, but you get the point.

  1256. There appears to be a rather truck sized opening now for the “Trump of Beers”. Trump running around with bikini clad women on the beach and elsewhere hawking some low cost swill. Maybe we can even bring back the good old days of Billy Beer.

  1257. Mark

    It was meant to appeal to activists, or wanna be activists. Hash tag warrior women perhaps.
    Whatever.. If they think there’s a market there.

    Yeah. I sort of have to wonder if “feminist women activists” is a huge “cheap light beer” demographic. But who knows. And yes– could the gain possibly be large relative to the “frat boy beer drinking” demographic? I also don’t know.
    .
    I think this was did not tank swiftly the way Mulvaney did because “Transheiser Busch” really goes against the self identify of a pretty large cheap beer drinking demographic. And having Mulvaney’s face on the can was really saying “face of Bud” (even if it was only one can– it still says it.)
    .
    In contrast, I don’t think many in the existing beer drinking demographic were going to see the commercial as accusing them of sexism. It was more accusing ad writers of the past generation with that. And most people aren’t ad writers. And lots of people will see it as something someone else was doing in the….oh….70s? So it probably didn’t inflame people as much.
    .

  1258. Lucia wrote: “In contrast, I don’t think many in the existing beer drinking demographic were going to see the commercial as accusing them of sexism.”
    .
    I think you’re missing the rather obvious link between ad writers and their audience. The writers are just doing their job. The historical perspective doesn’t really change anything because it’s not considered to be history.

  1259. The Coors commercial starts off by saying that women were the first brewers of beer in ancient times. I don’t know about that, but as a long-term bread baker, I know that you make a little grain alcohol every time you proof bread dough. [that’s the yummy aroma of rising bread dough] I also know that if you experiment with sourdough cultures and let a jar age too long, you make a measurable amount of ethanol. Ancient women were culturing bread; it’s only a small culinary step to fermenting beer.

  1260. DaveJR,

    I think you’re missing the rather obvious link between ad writers and their audience.

    I assume you mean the ad writers wrote for who they think their audience is. If so: sure. I still think many in the existing community will not think the current ad says anything about them personally.
    .
    Because notwithstanding that connection, individuals are just going to think, “Yeah. Those 70s ad writers were writing about someone who wasn’t me.” They’ll think this even if the 70s writers were writing precisely to that person– back whenever.
    .
    We aren’t talking about something completely logical here. Just how someone is going to react.

  1261. Ed,
    You wrote: “Ukraine has lost the battle for contested air space on most of the front lines. As Ukraine air defense runs short of ammunition, Ukraine will lose contested air space that protects the eastern Ukraine provinces from which Ukraine supply from NATO flows. The point that the air is no longer contested will mark the final stages of the war.”
    This is another of your predictions that sound like those ridiculous Kremlin talking points. Do you have any idea how many times you made one of these predictions about a rout of the Ukrainian army and it didn’t happen? I know… every time. Sometimes the exact opposite of what you predict winds up happening. Like at Izium where for weeks you predicted a pincer movement that traps the Ukrainian army in a cauldron and wipes them out. The opposite happened Russia took a lot of casualties at Izium and retreated. [Bakhmut may turn out the same way. The Russian ‘pincers‘ on the flanks are now retreating.] Go back and show me your predictions of Ukrainian defeats that actually turned out that way. I’ll wait.

  1262. Russel

    The Coors commercial starts off by saying that women were the first brewers of beer in ancient times. I don’t know about that,

    I thought the same thing. Beer has been made for a long, long time. Supposedly something like 10,000 BCE I doubt we know if the “first” beer makers tended to be women or men.
    https://www.brewscruise.com/blog/where-did-beer-originate-from/
    This does describe a beer goddess:

    Archeologists also found an ode to Ninkasi, the patron goddess of brewing. This poem also contained the oldest known recipe for making beer using barley from bread.

    Not sure that means the beer makers were all women.
    I mean, Demeter was something like the goddess of agriculture. I’m not sure if that meant all farmers were women.
    .

    Ancient women were culturing bread;

    Ancient men may have cultured bread also.
    .
    Generally speaking, I don’t expect commercials to give accurate history lessons.

Comments are closed.