I was at a country competition…. on a move on the back wall, I twirled and fell on my ass….. Got up, told my pro, Just Keep Moving! One of my competitors was standing waiting for her heat and told me I was spectacular. Another in my heat behind me evidently almost stopped dancing and her pro said, “Just keep dancing!” (This is the right thing to do!) Everyone asked if I was ok. I was absolutely fine.
Pat was recording, but I don’t have video yet. Video to follow. (I’d have waited for the video before posting, but post comments auto close after 30 days, and we are due!)
Other interesting things happened. Perhaps best not to discuss them. Well… unless I take to short story writing. Hehe!
I do not see a violent reaction to any extent for Trump being disqualified as a Presidential candidate. There might be an inept reaction from the crazy crowd that were involved in Jan 6, but even they may have learned a lesson. I doubt there are many even ardent Trump supporters who would risk their personal well-being for a jerk like Trump or even other politicians.
I also do not think that a threat of violence will prevent a Trump disqualification. The Supreme Court’s abortion decision was vehemently opposed by many and there was not a violent reaction.
I agree with Ken. If we’ve come to a point where the dispensation of “justice” is throttled by threat of physical violence, we might as well pack it in, and emigrate to ??.
I also suspect that many of the folks who swarmed the capitol on the 6th has no idea that they were inviting prosecution with the possibility of serious jail time. They probably have now grasped this possibility.
Ken,
The Supreme Court abortion decision was not popular with many people, but that seems to me a whole different issue. The SC said ‘leave it to voters in the individual states’. The removal of Trump from the ballot by Democrats says ‘we are not going to allow the voters to vote for their preferred candidate’; that is unprecedented and, IMO, reaches banana-republic levels of poor governance.
.
Yes, Trump is a jerk and a fool, and an overwhelming majority (75% ?) in the country wish he would not run. Which is why I think he is unelectable and his candidacy dooms the country to have a dementia patient in the presidency for the next few years, until Biden reaches the adult diaper stage of his decline. Followed by (good grief!) President Karmala and some unhinged lefty as Vice President.
.
But I think the ploy of removing Trump from the ballot has a real chance of causing politically motivated violence. I hope saner heads will prevail over the worst of the crazy Dems.
I also agree that removing Trump from the ballot is not a good idea failing action by legislative super majority in subject state and confirming SC review.
.
I don’t understand Tribe and Luttig’s view that one can be disqualified from the presidency for abetting an insurrection without some sort of judicial process to prove it.
.
Read Johnathan Turley on this subject.
I have been holding off reporting on the Ukrainian offensive. I keep expecting a significant breakthrough… but it just never happens. ISW posted this yesterday:
“ISW continues to assess that Ukrainian counteroffensive operations are significantly degrading defending Russian forces and that the overall degradation of the Russian defensive line creates opportunities for any Ukrainian breakthrough to be potentially operationally significant.”
And:
“Ukrainian forces continued offensive operations on at least three sectors of the front on August 18 and have reportedly advanced further near Robotyne in western Zaporizhia Oblast”
It looks to me that the offensive is taking ground on all three fronts, but very slowly. There are daily reports of explosions at supply and other Russian rear facilities, but their net effect is impossible to assess.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-18-2023
Ken Fritsch (Comment #223347): “I doubt there are many even ardent Trump supporters who would risk their personal well-being for a jerk like Trump or even other politicians.”
.
The issue would not be Trump or any other politician. The issue would be whether voters get to choose who they will votes for. I would hope that arbitrarily banning *any* candidate would result in violence that would make Jan. 6 look like a church picnic.
“I do not see a violent reaction to any extent for Trump being disqualified as a Presidential candidate.”
.
Good luck with that. If one party throwing another party’s leading candidate off the ballot isn’t concerning to you, so be it. TDS has obviously taken hold. It wouldn’t be about Trump, it would be about suppressing the will of the voters. Republican legislatures will just turn around and throw Biden off the ballot for … reasons. Then where will we be?
.
I think if you were to go down that route, a prerequisite would be charging and convicting Trump of actual insurrection from an impartial jury.
Russia faces public humiliation today as their first lunar lander in decades crashed into the moon. What is a bit surprising is how quickly they acknowledged the failure.
.
What will be even more humiliating is if India’s attempted moon landing on Wednesday is successful. India also failed a moon landing a few months ago, but got pretty close. Russia being perceived as being behind India in space exploration is going to make Putin pretty grumpy.
The issue with Trump can be slanted towards denying the right for one to vote for a candidate of their choice, while the real consideration in my view is what actions by a potential candidate can be disqualifying. Trump attempted to overturn the results of a democratically held election. He was attempting to subvert the voters choice. If he were successful there would be no doubts of his guilt. The fact that he failed does not make him any less guilty.
Threatening violence in this matter is not a good look and goes against the very principle that is being used to support no actions against Trump.
Tom Scharf,
“…charging and convicting Trump of actual insurrection from an impartial jury.”
.
Where do you think we might find such a jury? Real question.
.
When the prosecution of Trump is perceived by half the voters as politically motivated and the other half as perfectly normal and correct, I believe there is no jurisdiction that Democrats don’t dominate where a jury would likely convict Trump of insurrection. He has not even been charged with insurrection. And of course, three of the four prosecutions have been brought in districts where the jury will convict Trump of most anything the prosecution charges. Note the urgency by the DOJ ‘special prosecutor’ and the judge in taking the case in DC to trial versus the lax pace of prosecution in Florida (where Republicans would be on the jury). The DOJ knows there is little chance of conviction in Florida, and near certainty in DC. It is just another manifestation of the utter dishonestly of these cases.
.
I think political disagreements (and this is the mother of all political disagreements) should be settled by the voters, not by biased politicians masquerading as neutral prosecutors.
Ken Fritsch,
“.. what actions by a potential candidate can be disqualifying.”
.
Those actions which make him lose the election.
.
The only people who should ‘disqualify’ a candidate are the voters. Trump is a loser. He is a jerk. He is an asshole. I do not believe he can possibly win election again, and I think, unfortunately, that means the country will suffer under dreadful policies instituted by a demented, corrupt, and lawless president and his lawless cabal. But keeping Trump off the ballot is a mistake that corrodes the fabric of the nation.
Ken,
There is a line here somewhere. Politicians can challenge election results to an extent without such challenge being an attempt to subvert the voter’s choice. I think Trump was right on the hairy edge of crossing this line. Did he conspire to? Maybe. Maybe not.
I hope that nobody here misunderstands me – I absolutely do not advocate or condone political violence in the US. My point was quite the opposite – I was trying to suggest that if there is any large scale violence that the left has in essence already won.
“Trump attempted to overturn the results of a democratically held election.”
.
Then charge and convict him, before Ken or other partisans get to personally decide who runs for office. If a majority of people already believe that then he won’t win anyway, if it’s a minority of people who believe that then they shouldn’t get to impose their will without first proving that. They just spent years investigating this and failed to charge him with “insurrection”. This seems relevant.
.
What you are suggesting is allowing people to be disqualified from even running for office by highly partisan actors. It’s not * what * necessarily disqualifies Trump here, it is * who * gets to decide. The case that it should be somebody other than the voters is weak.
They say no one wins a war but that’s not right, Lockheed Martin is the clear winner of this one. They are the manufacturers of the F-35 Fighting Falcon. NATO countries are replacing their existing F-16 Fleet with F-35s, with the old F-16s going to Ukraine. Denmark and the Netherlands are accelerating the replacement of their F-16 fleets and have pledged around 80 F-16s to go to Ukraine. It costs around 100 million dollars apiece and that adds up to a lot of money for Lockheed Martin.
Thrilling F-35 marketing video [why they want them]:
https://youtu.be/ok0XXDhkVn0
Some headlines and links for further reading:
“The F-35’s price per unit, including ancillary costs like depot maintenance, ground support equipment, and spare parts is $110.3 million per F-35A, $135.8 million per F-35B, and $117.3 million per F-35C.”
“Denmark Plans Early Phase-Out of F-16 Jets, Mulls Donation to Ukraine”
“Denmark has 43 F-16 Fighting Falcons”
“The Netherlands and Denmark will provide Ukraine with much sought-after F-16 aircraft in an agreement hailed by President Volodymyr Zelensky as “historic.”
“At this moment, the Netherlands still owns 42 F-16s”
“More F-35 Fighters on Dutch Defense Shopping List”
“Netherlands to increase F-35 order”
“For the airframe and mission equipment only, the Lot 15-17 cost of F-35s ranges “from $70.2 million to $69.9 million for the F-35A, $80.9 million to $78.3 million for the F-35B, and $90 to $89.3 million for the F-35C,” a Lockheed spokesperson said.”
https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/defense/news/53064381/denmark-plans-early-phaseout-of-f16-jets-mulls-donation-to-ukraine
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/20/europe/netherlands-denmark-f-16-fighter-jets-ukraine-intl/index.html
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2022-06-03/more-f-35-fighters-dutch-defense-shopping-list
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/netherlands-to-increase-f-35-order-and-double-mq-9-fleet/
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/30-billion-f-35-deal-will-see-prices-rise-deliveries-dip/
https://armscontrolcenter.org/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-costs-challenges/
At a minimum a jury that has 4 Democrats, 4 independents, and 4 Republicans would be enough to have some sort of legitimacy. There would need to be at least 4 Trump voters on a 12 person jury in my view for such a political case. That’s not unreasonable.
.
Having trials in metro DC and NYC is about the same as having them in rural Alabama or WV. The prosecution and judiciary has to know that legitimacy is much more important than just winning here in the long run. If you can’t win this case with a split jury than you probably shouldn’t bring it to trial.
Tom Scharf,
“If you can’t win this case with a split jury than you probably shouldn’t bring it to trial.”
.
Nice idea, but there is no way a judge (any judge anywhere) would allow selection of a jury based on political affiliation. That the outcome of a trial could depend on which party dominates politically the district where the trial is held fairly well screams that the verdict on Trump should come from voters, not from a jury.
Mark wrote: “I was trying to suggest that if there is any large scale violence that the left has in essence already won.”
.
Right. The possibility of violence, as with the possibility of unrest at the capitol, is too big an opportunity to be allowed to go to waste. The stage is being set. Violence will happen and authoritarianism will be left with no choice but to ride to the defence of “our democracy”.
SteveF,
.
I get the impression that your discomfort with the legalities of our present circus is not just in how the law is proposed to be applied, but with many elements of the law itself.
.
You seem to be advocating a system where the ballot box, and possibly impeachment are the only methods for curbing runaway crime or attempts at tyranny.
.
And this in an environment where 30% of our electorate doesn’t trust the ballot box?
.
I’m sure that there are many more subtleties to this than what I suggest above, but if the problem is with our legal system not just in how it is used, then we have a very high mountain to climb, don’t you think?
This post reaches back to a subject from early last year on the effectiveness and use of cope cages on tanks. Purely technical
.
It seems they may work completely different than as understood by the lay public (such as me) at the time.
.
An interesting post pulled from the comments section on shaped charges.
.
“Quick correction: The cages are not designed to defeat EFP and shaped charge warheads by increasing distance. The distance would be significantly greater than you could reasonably create with a secondary material for anything resembling a modern anti-tank round. RPG-7s even this will be true. Looking at their optimal detonation distances, it even makes the penetration BETTER if you slightly increase standoff.
.
The reason they are there is the piezoelectric point initiated, base detonated mechanic of the common anti-tank round. That nose of an RPG is piezoelectrically actuated, but you can potentially cut the line to the base detonator before the tip hits a target. The slats of proper cage armor the US uses are called statistic armor, because it is specifically a statistics problem. If you get wide enough, you can sometimes hit the sides of the imitation set in the standoff cone of an RPG before the tip hits anything, stopping the jet from forming at all. You can also fail if the tip hits a slat instead of in-between them. That is why the distance, number, and orientation are a “statistics” problem.
.
I worked at Aberdeen for a bit doing EFP shots on hybrid armor research back in 2009 and we were doing all manner of defeat approaches for shaped charges at the time for MRAPS.”
.
Article comment pulled from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4NmOss83XI
John,
“we have a very high mountain to climb, don’t you think?”
.
Yes, I do think that. That a local prosecutor in a district ~100% opposed to Trump (or for that matter, opposed to any Republican!) thinks it is a good idea to bring RICO charges against Trump and his advisors over claims of election fraud is a very big problem for the whole country… 40% of the country things the same!
.
The covid-inspired 2020 voting changes (mail-in ballots to everyone, etc.) have reduced confidence in election integrity for many people, at exactly the time we need 100% confidence in election integrity.
.
“You seem to be advocating a system where the ballot box, and possibly impeachment are the only methods for curbing runaway crime or attempts at tyranny.”
.
Well yes, that is exactly what I am advocating, along with citizens being armed as an insurance policy. I do believe Joe Biden is a criminal, and do I think that Donald Trump tried to “find” the votes in Georgia and a few other states to flip the election in 2020. But I don’t believe my analysis is without flaw or fault…. nor is anyone else’s. I honestly believe Biden is a criminal, but should not be impeached for bribery by a partisan House, and I honestly think Trump did try to flip critical states by any means available to him, but should not be indicted or tried for that effort.
.
Bi-partisan impeachment? Sure. Criminal charges untainted by politics? Sure. If Trump attacks someone with a hatchet, then have at it. If bank records show Joe Biden kept his bribery pay-offs in offshore accounts (rather than the accounts of his family), then a bipartisan impeachment is almost certain.
.
I am 100% for complete investigation, 100% for complete disclosure, and 100% for complete presentation of the facts of everything that has happened in the past. Then let voters decide.
SteveF,
Thanks for this thoughtful reply. there’s a lot to munch on. I’ll munch.
Definitely Trump would have to be convicted in a court of law for him being disqualified. And further his disqualification would have to met judicial review. That would be at the state level.
I am of the oft stated opinion that politicians are given too much leeway when it comes to being held accountable for actions for which ordinary citizens are penalized. Politicians have the privilege of using government coercion that is denied private citizens and they thus need to be held to a higher standard and not the lower one that is defended by reference to facing the next election – and with only the prospect of losing and with no legal punishment given.
SteveF (Comment #223366): “I am 100% for complete investigation, 100% for complete disclosure, and 100% for complete presentation of the facts of everything that has happened in the past. Then let voters decide.”
.
Well said.
.
Politicians should not be immune from prosecution. But such prosecutions, especially of opponents, should be made to clear a high bar in terms of the seriousness of the crime, the clarity of evidence, and the probity of the proceedings. All four Trump prosecutions fail on all three grounds.
.
And, of course, politicians should not be criminally prosecuted for purely political “crimes” or for trying a questionable legal theory or for purely procedural errors. But nobody else should be so prosecuted either.
.
Now if Trump had clearly advocated violence against Congress, that might well be something that should be pursued in court.
.
Biden’s crimes re the border are far more serious than anything Trump ever did. Ditto for his misuse of the Department of Justice. And Biden’s apparent corruption is unmatched, at least in recent US history. Even so, I am skeptical of either impeachment or criminal prosecution unless much more damning evidence is turned up.
Ken Fritsch (Comment #223368): “I am of the oft stated opinion that politicians are given too much leeway when it comes to being held accountable for actions for which ordinary citizens are penalized.”
.
I don’t know what you mean. Examples might help. My guess is that in many cases, I would say the problem is that the ordinary citizen got screwed.
Attorny General Robert H. Jackson (later, Supreme Court Justice):
https://www.seeking-justice.org/the-federal-prosecutor/
Mike M,
The underlying problem is always the political motivations of those able to bring charges.
.
Yes, the J6 protesters/rioters/insurrectionists broke the law in DC over a few hours. So did the many thousands of BLM rioters/arsonists/protesters/looters over weeks in cities across the country post the Floyd killing. The Biden administration targets the J6 lawbreakers for maximum penalty because of their political beliefs, while ignoring rioters/arsonists/looters because of their political beliefs (and their race!). The Biden administration is profoundly corrupt, both morally and politically. Sadly, I fear 6 more years of this corruption is almost inevitable due to Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Well, the Russian nuclear threat took a hit yesterday. A Tupolev Tu-22M3 [aka Backfire] supersonic strategic bomber was destroyed and another one was damaged. A $10,000 Ukrainian quadcopter did the deed.
Photo of the conflagration:
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1693529708204335472?s=20
So, how did a 100-mile capable drone fly 600 miles from Ukraine to the Novgorod region of Russia you may ask? Good question.
On a related note, at one AM [Florida time] I noticed on my aircraft tracking map that there was mayhem in the sky around Moscow. Every commercial aircraft was in a holding pattern or was turned away from all four airports. I investigated and found the cause was drone attacks in the region.
All comments from 8/20 and before were moved here from the previous thread.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2023/updating-for-php-8-0/
Lucia,
I sympathize. I quit karate some years back but I had a small share of spectacular and embarrassing falls too. I think my favorite was when I was practicing a really simple move, trying to put more power into it. I got the power part right. I got the balance part very very wrong. Boom! Down I went.
Good for you though. Shit happens, just get up and keep going.
Everyone has been through their version of falling down. I have given a few live engineering demos that didn’t go well. They are traumatically imprinted on my brain.
Humorous post from India news service:
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/chandrayaan3-will-not-go-russias-luna-25-way-experts-reveal-how-isro-is-ready-for-any-eventuality-11692609793112.html
“Radhakant Padhi also added that during the Chandrayaan-2 mission, the scientists at ISRO were “overconfident” in their approach and this time for Chandrayaan-3 the design philosophy has been resilience and adaptability.”
“Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has learned the right lessons from Chandrayaan-2 and has prepared for any eventuality. As per aerospace scientist Radhakant Padhi, the Chandrayaan-3 incorporates “salvage mode” which will ensure a successful event in case of unforeseen circumstances.”
“The scientist asserted that all such problems are avoided in Chandrayaan-3 with enhancements in Lander’s structural designs which will ensure a stable landing.”
.
Hmmmm … sounds like overconfidence is still a problem. Explain how the descent engine failing to fire or cutting off early will ensure a stable landing, or trying to land on a giant boulder is going to work ha ha.
.
What is really happening here is tunnel vision on fixing the last problem, a software issue that once the landing trajectory went out of the expected parameters the software lost its mind. Anyway, I hope they are successful, it’s apparently really popular in India.
Lucia,
Been there! I’ve been a klutz my whole life. The best story is that one time I sprained my ankle…while doing a crossword puzzle stretched out in a Lazy Boy recliner.
‘Our Daily Bread’ today is two French-ish loaves. (Similar hydration ratio and ingredients to French, but my own variation.) pic:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1693666495245451647?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
mark bofill,
It gives me a good story. And honestly, everyone watching secretly enjoys seeing falls if no one gets hurt! I’m waiting for video.
mark,
I should add, everyone has been congratulating me on the fastest bounce back up and dance they’ve every seen. ( Makes me think of Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer: “Bumbles bounce!”
Rummer has it that Trump is expecting a new indictment coming soon.
He is said to being investigated for removing mattresses tags.
Mike M,
“And Biden’s apparent corruption is unmatched, at least in recent US history.”
.
I would argue that the Clintons were far more successfully corrupt, at least in terms of how much money they wrung out of foreign nationals. They were also a lot more clever in how they practiced their corruption (payments to the Clinton slush-fund ‘non-profit’… which just happened to fund all kinds of things the Clintons wanted, like private jet travel, junkets to exotic places for “conferences”, paying Hillary’s many government-in-waiting staffers, etc.). The non-profit never actually gave funds to charitable causes, but seemed pretty good for the Clintons and their many lackeys. Of course, all the enormous “donations” to the Clinton’s “non-profit” dried up when Hillary lost in 2016….. funny that.
.
Joe Biden’s corruption is tiny in scale by comparison, and is closer in approach to a cop taking a couple of folded hundred dollar bills during a traffic stop.
Lucia,
See, that’s great. I don’t remember, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t just ‘bounce’ back up. My kid could do this to get back up at will, but the process of getting back to my feet was always more involved for me. 🙂
SteveF (Comment #223384): “I would argue that the Clintons were far more successfully corrupt, at least in terms of how much money they wrung out of foreign nationals.”
.
Good point. $500 million for the Clintons but “only” $50 million for the Bidens. But then Biden was only a VP.
.
“They were also a lot more clever in how they practiced their corruption”.
.
True. They sent the money into a foundation of which only a portion benefited them.
.
But the Clinton’s cashed in after Bill was out of office. Biden cashed in while still VP. Biden appears to have actually altered government policies to collect bribes from foreign sources. But the big tell is that the Bidens saw the need to launder their filthy lucre; the Clintons did not.
.
I don’t measure corruption just by dollars taken in. Damage done is more important. Biden takes the crown.
Tribe may be referring to the 14th amendment theory. That amendment disqualified anyone who fought for the Confederacy from holding federal office. Dershowitz demolishes this theory as a desperate ploy. The quite novel theory is that the language can be stretched to make January 6 rioters be covered. But Trump didn’t participate in that riot. It would be unprecedented and probably illegal election interference (in my view) if some corrupt state AG keeps any major candidate off the ballot based on some fringe theory. Even during the Civil War, Democrats were not kept off the ballot even though many of them were rather openly declaring sympathy with the rebellion. But hey, Biden’s America is Putin’s Russia. Putin only put his rival in jail for a decade. Biden’s “hand” is trying to put Trump in jail for the rest of his life based on some extremely novel legal theories and extremely selective prosecution.
You know the Dobbs decision did lead to widespread illegal protests complete with an assassination attempt. It is a federal crime to intimidate or try to intimidate a judge or other official. Schumer’s incitement on the steps of the Supreme Court was a felony. But no one even seemed to care. Just another example of how corrupt law enforcement has become. I won’t go down the list but you know how long it is.
But we live with a dual system of justice. Democrats (or their storm troopers like Antifa or BLM) are allowed to burn it down. You also know we had in essence a 4 year insurrection during Trump’s term including a long siege of the White House in which a lot of federal agents were assaulted and injured. A church was set on fire and attendees at the Republican National Convention were threatened as they walked to their cars. But the corporate corrupt media portrayed this as a “peaceful” protest that was justified. After the Russian collusion fraud how can any honest person believe they are “journalists?”
Whichever way you slice it, the country is on the verge of a divorce. I believe Biden is too corrupt and senile to care, but it is the ultimate irony that he ran as a unifier. Probably one third of the country believes Biden and his various minions have already filed the papers and are literally daring us to respond.
Ken
“ Trump attempted to overturn the results of a democratically held election. He was attempting to subvert the voters choice. If he were successful there would be no doubts of his guilt. The fact that he failed does not make him any less guilty.”
–
Trump tried everything he could to get elected.
–
Full stop.
–
The winner takes it , the loser has to fall, people can be fools, playing by the rules ,Abba.
–
Anything within the rules is fair game, is it not?
–
The rules of this election are one collect the votes legitimately, a very important point, yes?
–
Secondly tally the legitimate votes, follow the process of taking them to the house, checking that they are legitimate and announcing the result.
–
Full stop.
–
Where in this process did Trump interfere in a way to overturn an election result?
Serious and important question.
The problem you refuse to see is that all Trumps efforts were pre an announced result.
He was legitimately entitled to use all available avenues at his disposal as the current President at the time to ensure that the vote was properly collected and properly counted for the American people.
–
I hope you could reconsider your position taking this into account.
–
How to put it?
If Trump attempted to overthrow the actual declared results after Jan 6th, illegitimately, and he failed he would be guilty of anything you wish to throw at him including insurrection.
–
If he succeeded I guess you would agree problem solved, successful coups are called a change of government.
–
Despite being elected legitimately provisions must exist to overturn the result in exceptional circumstances.
–
For instance Truckloads of legitimate Trump votes illegally hidden in three states that would have changed the results discovered by the FBI on Jan7th.
Not sure on that but like the hanging chads surely it could be appealed to the Supreme Court to declare said election illegal an either reinstate the votes or order another election, legitimately one would add.
–
Or Biden having been born in Ireland or being a Russian spy, sorry, that was the other two was it not?
–
Now SteveF might be right and his actions on finding the 10000 votes was illegal.
But only if someone did manufacture them, that is illegal!
Finding a missing trunkful, hoping to find a missing trunkful, praying to find one are all 100% legitimate.
–
As per the constitution as it existed on Jan 6th for Trump to ask Pence to make sure the votes were all really valid and if not to ask the states to decide.
–
Wow what a rant, and without even falling over.
The Clintons were professionals with their corruption IMO, almost worthy of respect ha ha. They knew exactly where the legal lines were and knew exactly how to avoid or cover up their misbehavior, and people were pretty loyal to them. Nary a word every came out of their mouths that wasn’t triple checked by a lawyer. Perhaps deplorables and “I didn’t have sex” were ill advised, but that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is, as we all know.
Yesterday I questioned how a Ukrainian drone could have flown 600 KM to blow up the Russian Backfire Bomber. The UK MOD is skeptical too. Their theory is that these drones are being launched inside Russia.
“Ministry of Defence @DefenceHQ (3/5) If true, this adds weight to the assessment that some UAV attacks against Russian military targets are being launched from inside Russian territory. Copter UAVs are unlikely to have the range to reach Soltsky-2 from outside Russia.”
So, now we wonder, are there Ukrainian operatives inside Russia, or are these drones being launched by Russian revolutionaries?
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1693864216107643122?s=20
With NATO country’s defense budgets being cranked up, the US defense industry prospers:
“US State Dept OKs possible sale of Apache helicopters to Poland for $12 bln -Pentagon”
“The Pentagon said Boeing (BA.N) and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) are the prime contractors for the weapons”
I have seen similar purchases of IFVs, HIMARS, Patriot Missiles, F-35s, you name it.
The European NATO countries are finally taking the defense of their territories into their own hands.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-state-dept-oks-possible-sale-apache-helicopters-poland-12-bln-pentagon-2023-08-21/
Yesterday, the Ukrainian army liberated the town of Robotyne. The media is calling it ‘strategically important’ but I think it is just another town. Moving video of elderly residents greeting their soldiers:
https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1693953760265978241?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
“First there was no water, then no electricity, then no bread”
angech,
I understand your position. I am not one of them, but there are many millions in the USA who disagree. Which is why I am for full investigation and full disclosure of all candidates’ claimed past wrongdoing, then let the voters decide. Forget the damned lawsuits.
.
Sadly, you won’t get to participate. 😉
Tom Scharf,
The Clintons didn’t need lawyers to check everything there were going to say…. they were both lawyers from Yale, and practiced liars. Bill only got caught because he didn’t know there was air tight proof of having had sex with Monica. I suspect Hillary had one too many glasses of Chardonnay when she made the ‘deplorables’ comment, and that really cost them. Imagine how rich they would be today if Hillary had won in 2016!!
.
I agree they were consummate pros at corruption…..in addition to the payments to the “non-profit”, Bill personally took in millions in “speaking fees” from countries with business before Hillary when she was Secretary of State. Obviously, everyone in Russia wants to pay $500K to hear an ex-president of the USA talk for an hour! The Clintons were very good at what they did. I am glad they are gone.
Russell Klier (Comment #223390): “So, now we wonder, are there Ukrainian operatives inside Russia, or are these drones being launched by Russian revolutionaries?”
.
I would guess it is a combo. Ukrainian operatives hooking up Russian rebels with weapons and intelligence.
Steve F.
“Sadly, you won’t get to participate. ????”
Probably a good thing.
–
Newsom and Desantis will have to get their chance to run soon.
Problem is burning Joe is harder to do than throwing Trump in jail so next few months will be very interesting to watch as the strategies evolve.
I believe Apache helicopters are too vulnerable to ground fire and MANPADS, pretty much useless. The tank’s role in modern combat is debatable, but the helicopter is an easy target.
Lucia, bouncing up from a fall has become an issue as I have aged. A fall where I could immediately bounce up in my younger days was not nearly as embarrassing as being witnessed struggling back to my feet with more recent falls – not that I fall that frequently. The exercises coming out of my recent physical therapy will greatly help me bounce from a future fall. I am not planning a test, but I can get up from the floor after my exercises much faster and efficiently now.
My younger sister who is old enough to be your mother recently fell attempting a new move in line dancing and broke her hip. She is recovering nicely but falling and aging are not a good combination.
Tom Scharf,
“The tank’s role in modern combat is debatable..”
.
My only doubt is whether there is usually enough remaining of the crew for burial, or if the tank itself serves as a cremation coffin. I guess it depends on if there is much of a fuel fire.
.
I wouldn’t want to be in a tank in the Ukraine (on either side). Of course, I wouldn’t want to be a soldier on either side for that matter….. shades of WWI.
Ken Fritsch,
I played golf last week with a father/son pair; father late 40’s, son late teens. When I told the father I am 73, he said “Oh! That is not so bad, you still play pretty well!”
.
Which reminded me a bit of the old joke about the impressive part of a dog walking on his hind legs: that he does it at all is impressive, not that he does it well. 😉
.
I hope your sister recovers quickly and completely, and that you don’t fall any more.
angech,
“Newsom and DeSantis will have to get their chance to run soon.”
.
I seriously doubt either will be their party’s nominee in 2024. I’d give DeSantis a 10% chance and Newsom <1%. Even if Joe Alzheimer withdrew (and based on being mentally incompetent, I think he should), Newsom would have to get past Kamala Word-salad, which is essentially impossible in a party which values race and gender over all else. Socialists-racists, like all racists, are obliged to discriminate by race.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223397)
“I believe Apache helicopters are too vulnerable to ground fire and MANPADS, pretty much useless.”
Perhaps. But DOD is touting the new “COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURE (CIRCM)” as a defense against MANPADS. It has been mounted on Apaches for almost a year. I don’t believe they have been battle tested yet.
As for groundfire, they have been dealing with that since Viet Nam. A chopper pilot who worked for me in Mosquito Control told me he took off his Kevlar vest and sat on it in his Huey. Attack helicopters are hardened against that these days [but not invulnerable].
Tech:
“CIRCM integrates defensive IR countermeasures capabilities into existing, current-generation aircraft to engage and defeat man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The CIRCM system is comprised of a pointer-tracker unit, IR laser, and system processor unit.”
“US Army AH-64E Apache attack helicopters are now being equipped with the service’s Common Infrared Countermeasures self-protection system, or CIRCM. A directional infrared countermeasures system, CIRCM gives the helicopters a valuable additional layer of defense against incoming heat-seeking, short-range surface-to-air missiles. This includes shoulder-fired types referred to as man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/army-apaches-are-now-flying-with-new-infrared-missile-thwarting-lasers
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/common-infrared-countermeasure-circm/
mark bofill,
I used to kip (from the ground, or hanging from a horizonal bar) between 20 and 30 YO (5’10” 165 lbs). Not so much now (5′ 10″ ~195 lbs… and old). Tell your son to expect the inevitable decline in physical capacity.
I don’t think I want to be the first Apache pilot who battle tests the anti-missile tech.
.
My guess is that it could work against a lot of the older existing MANPADS but that some relatively simple tuning might defeat the anti-IR device. Aiming a laser at a seeker head might be difficult and the missile could be trained to wobble in flight on purpose, and of course the missile could be trained to track right to the convenient laser designator (if it can prevent total blindness by the laser)!
Steve,
Nice! For my part, I’ve never been able to do that. To be fair, I don’t recall ever trying to in my youth.
.
[Edit: Apaches have vulnerabilities. Essentially all systems have vulnerabilities. ‘Has vulnerabilities’ is not the same as ‘pretty much useless’.]
mark bofill,
“Essentially all systems have vulnerabilities.”
.
Yup. When people say otherwise they have no clue what they are talking about (which is AKA idiots or Democrats… hard to separate).
Just the News:
“Just weeks before then-Vice President Joe Biden took the opposite action in late 2015, a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department officials declared that Ukraine had made adequate progress on anti-corruption reforms and deserved a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee, according to government memos that conflict with the narrative Democrats have sustained since the 2019 impeachment scandal.”
Was it just a coincidence that Biden overrode the experts on Ukraine at the same time Shokin was getting ready to freeze Zolchevsky’s assets and kill the multimillion influence peddling scheme with the Biden family?
Not many helicopters flying around in combat in Ukraine from either side except for propaganda videos. I don’t think things for the Apache have improved much since this failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
“Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes. One Apache took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines, and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again. The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use”
.
They have their uses but flying over heavily contested areas doesn’t seem to be one of them. They did work better in Afghanistan.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1693761723230990509
I’m not sure on the facts of the Ukraine situation with the propaganda on both sides and all. If Macgregor is even half right that Ukraine has lost 350,000 military fatalities in this war, we need to urgently end it. He seems to me to be right that the much vaunted Ukrainian offensive has failed at least based on BBC reporting.
David Young,
Nobody is going to be honest about the casualties nor about the current situation on the battlefield. That said: continuing the war indefinitely is way beyond stupid. Someone needs to tell the geniuses in the State Department that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the USA and allies, and that continuing the war by providing the Ukraine with ever more advanced weapons only makes use of those nuclear weapons more likely.
.
The stupid, it burns.
Tom,
The Apache is the most numerous and widespread attack helicopter in the Western world. Boeing Defense, Space & Security has produced over 2,400 AH-64s as of 2020.
Militaries around the world are standing in line to get them…..Recent headlines:
Boeing has signed a contract to produce six AH-64Es for the Indian Army, with deliveries scheduled for 2024.
Boeing has signed a contract to produce 184 AH-64Es for the U.S. Army and international customers, including the first Apaches for Australia. Australia is the 18th nation to select Apaches as their attack aircraft.
Poland has a signed contract for 96
Morocco Orders 24 Boeing AH-64E Apache Helicopters
Deliveries are expected to begin in 2024
Israel uses Apache helicopter fire in West Bank, June 2023. Israel flies 46 Apaches.
Boeing Secures Saudi’s $437M Apache Helicopter Deal
“Trump Employee 4”… will be remembered like “Deep Throat” is remembered.
It’s never the crime, it’s the cover-up:
“Trump Employee 4’ retracts testimony after changing lawyers, implicates former president”
“after being advised that he was a target of the investigation and that his lawyer might have a conflict of interest because of his representation of others in the probe, the witness received a new attorney from the federal defender’s office and provided the Justice Department with information that helped form the basis of the revised indictment against Trump”
Maybe they finally nailed the bastard.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-employee-4-retracts-testimony-changing-lawyers-implicates-former-president-prosecutors-say
India successfully lands on the moon, congratulations to them. They still have to send a picture though to prove it, ha ha.
.
I wouldn’t want to be the head of Roscosmos today.
I am probably wasting my time, but I intend to watch the Republican debates tonight. Just a reminder for anyone who might be similarly inclined to probably waste their time, this is tonight around 8 pm Central I believe.
I think in the early ’60s, USSR claimed to have photographed the back side of the moon. I wonder if their work has been checked against subsequent work.
I too am planning to watch the debate. 9:00 eastern time on Fox News.
Videos of a flaming plane crash… The plane belonged to Prigozhin
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1694409034965651965?s=20
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1694411339773464906?s=20
I still cannot believe Trump is so far ahead, pretty depressing. He won’t be at debate tonight, probably the right decision for him.
.
I suppose Republicans could throw him off the ticket, but that won’t end well. Let’s hope the Republicans can thin the herd to get one challenger against Trump.
The Soviets successfully landed on Venus and sent back some pictures in the 1970’s. The lander only survived an hour or so because it is very nasty there. It was a major technical accomplishment.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-venera-program-interplanetary-probes-from-behind-the-iron-curtain/
.
They have much to be proud of, just not lately. A lot of these are vanity projects like climbing Mt. Everest, but I find them very interesting. A lot of people wouldn’t find $10B for the Webb telescope to be worth it, that’s about $67 per taxpayer.
mark and Mike,
.
I hope you will give us a summary. I find these things very close to torture, although without Trump it might not be quite so bad.
On Ukraine/ Russian casualties, it is accepted by both parties that most casualties on both sides are by artillery and that both sides use of drones make this artillery fire very accurate.
.
As it’s also accepted that Russian expends 8:1 (or more) artillery ammunition per day more than Ukraine, Ukraine casualties should also be correspondently higher.
.
Russia is daily hitting the Ukraine logistical supply line deep into Ukraine by missile and drone strikes where Ukraines ability to strike Russian deep rear areas is very limited.
.
Combine the above with the fact that Ukraine is now generally attacking over open ground, through dense minefields, without adequate air or artillery support where Russia is generally defending from trenches with overwhelming air and artillery support, Ukraine losses would also be expected to be much higher than Russian losses.
.
Not a good picture for Ukraine
.
I am very glad Trump will not be on the stage. Without his disruption, one or more of the others should have a chance to shine. But I fear that the moderators will try to make the debate about Trump.
.
Trump is definitely beatable, which is not to say that someone will beat him. Republican voters want a candidate who will energetically and fearlessly push populist policies. Trump fits the bill and is one of the most famous people on the planet, if not the most famous. So of course he is way ahead until voters start paying attention and learn more about other candidates.
The tank in modern warfare is useless, unless you don’t have any, and that is disaster.
Prigozhin dead in a plane crash.
.
Shocking and entirely unexpected.
I have to admit, Putin finds a lot of different ways to rid himself of opponents… falls from hospital windows, fires, ‘suicides’, nerve agents, radioactive poisonings, and now… anti-aircraft missiles!
.
I had expected Prigozhin to meet an untimely end, just not so quickly, and not so public a death. I guess Putin is warning the rest of the Wagner Group.
Putin is taking a risk in getting rid of Prigozhin: unlike most of his adversaries, the Wagner group mercenaries know how to kill people. Putin needs to be very, very careful. Of course, if Putin were to meet an untimely end, that could change things in the Ukraine…. for better or worse.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223418
“suppose Republicans could throw him off the ticket, but that won’t end well.”
‘Em,Er,what?
Who?
What universe are we talking about?
–
RINO, never Trumpers and Democrats in disguise, Mitch McConnell, Pence, Bolton, Barr, Romney, Cheney, Murkowsky.
Yep, that’s the real Republican Party underneath.
Pass the sick bag, Alice.
–
On a lighter note the world is one villain better off, shame it was not Putin.
Ed Forbes,
“The tank in modern warfare is useless…..”
.
At least you got the first part right. 😉
Steve, there is a reason Ukraine keeps screaming for more tanks to replace losses and Russia continues to build and deploy them: they are required to support successful infantry attacks.
.
No major offensive in this Ukraine war has been successful without supporting tank forces. Yes, losses of tanks on both sides are high, but that is the cost of doing business.
.
Moving infantry by foot in a area dominated by artillery is not doable. Armored personnel carriers are required to get the infantry close to the front lines in “relative” safety and at a reasonable speed.
.
Armored personnel carriers carrying attacking infantry forward without supporting tanks leaves these APC’s venerable to enemy tanks. Quite a bit of video showing a single enemy tank engaging columns of attacking APC’s, destroying a number of them, and then forcing the remainder to flee.
.
If you think current tank losses are bad, consider Russian WWII tank losses. 83,500 tanks lost.
Ed Forbes,
What I think is that the technology for destroying tanks has outrun the available technology for countermeasures. My expectation is that tanks will ultimately become irrelevant when a small remotely controlled drone can eliminate a tank (and its crew). I doubt DARPA is spending a lot of money on the ‘next generation’ of tanks. There will always be some use for tanks (like invading Panama to depose a drug dealer president, for example). But against a real foe? I doubt it. Calvary charges went away. So will tanks.
Thanks Ed. Macgregor is saying 400K for Ukraine and at least 50K for Russia.
Glenn Greenwald is worth listening to on Ukraine despite his generally left of center politics. His take is that the US actually provoked this war by supporting a coup and then installing our preferred people in power. Greenwald also makes the case that the US sabotoged the Minsk accords which Putin had already signed off on. It now appears that pushing a million people will have been sacrificed to achieve what was in those accords.
Greenwald is actually much harsher on the US neo-cons and deep state. Ukraine fits exactly the pattern of every US war of this century. You rush in using falsehoods and half-truths to justify it. The war drags on, millions perish, and then the US pulls out and accepts that nothing much has changed.
Tom, Rather surprisingly Greenwald is friendly toward Trump and his movement because he sees him as a disruptor who has a chance of dismantleing the US security state and keeping us out of future wars. Some people are turned off by Trump’s sometimes childish outbursts. That happened to Teddy Roosevelt too. You must admit that Trump is the best movement leader we’ve had since Roosevelt. Crowds love them. It is equally childish of course to allow hatred for Trump’s personality to sway your vote as millions of mostly female and white women have done. They want to vote for someone who has the personality of their ideal husband.
My only question is if any Republican can win given the deep state, media, big tech collusion to propagandize the public. I do believe Trump would have won in 2020 if the Biden crime family story had come out and voters were aware of it. It’s now a proven fact that 2020 saw the most massive collusion and election interference campaign in American history all done by the censorship industrial complex while blaming Putin!!! The level of corruption needed to do this is beyond most people’s ability to understand. There are strong similarities between Putin’s Russia and Biden’s America. The main difference is that in the US, a lot more people have a very strong independent and skeptical streak. The Russians I’ve dealt with tend to keep a low profile and avoid controversy.
Greenwald’s most important beliefs are in freedom of speech, exposing the military industrial complex, and reporting stories no one else will (at great personal cost to himself.)
Tank / anti-tank systems in continuous move/countermove
.
One such is the Trophy Active Protection System
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-army-very-close-to-decision-on-israeli-antimissile-tech-for-tanks-2017-8
.
Basically a large automatic shotgun
” designed to detect incoming projectiles and neutralize them with ball-bearing filled canisters fired off like buckshot.”
.
As drones move MUCH slower than missiles, this type of system should provide decent security vs these also.
.
The tank is not going away anytime soon.
.
As I have noted here before, Ukraine needs to be considered more in the line of the Spanish Civil War leading to WWII. This war is the test bed for tactics and equipment for the looming great power conflict which the world seems to be moving toward.
so it begins.
Pence is trying to get momentum going but it isn’t playing well. Vivek is dominating with a populist message. Sadly, while DeSantis has given good answers twice, his presentation is too strident.
I enjoyed Nikki Haley sticking it to the Republican party on their spending under Trump. She has no chance and she doesn’t get my vote, but it was a breath of fresh air for a moment.
.
Y’all who aren’t watching, you ain’t missing much.
I’ve been tutoring…. trying to decide if I should go to the tv….
It’s the effing Jerry Springer show, god have mercy.
[Edit: Lucia, I’d have thought that absent Trump it’d be an adult debate. I’m moderately disappointed so far.]
Going to tv….
Yes, there has been some nastiness, especially from Christie. But a lot of good answers also. As mark says, Vivek dominating, DeSantis solid but strident. Haley exceeding expectations. Burgum good the one time he got to open his mouth.
During the commercial break DeSantis’s people convinced him to tone it down, better. Lucia you missed most of the opening circus. For the record, I would prefer states to legislate abortion as opposed to the Feds. I didn’t get the sense that many (besides Haley and Burgum) wanted to leave it to the states. Maybe I understood wrong.
Abortion is going to be a problem. Burgum gets it right.
Pence and Vivek bickering again. Pence needs to give it up and go home IMO. DeSantis scores points on his record suspending prosecutors in Florida. Mostly otherwise I’m listening to a bunch of BS though.
Yeah, I could do without Pence. Or Christie and Hutchinson, who seem to want the feds prosecuting local crimes.
.
Oh, dang. Next topic: Trump.
Mike,
Right? I wondered what the hell Christie was talking about; something about putting local offenders in Federal prison? Again, maybe I just didn’t understand his remark about having a lot of space in Federal prisons, or maybe I didn’t parse his statement properly. But it seems you heard something along those lines as well.
Here I am …agreeing with Ed Forbes again.
The Russians have tried numerous assaults without armor protection. They have all been bloody disasters. They developed a name… ‘Meat waves’ and both sides called it that. The Wagner assaults at Bakhmut were where we saw most of them. Early in the war, I argued on these pages that the tank was no longer useful on the battlefield. Watching the bloody videos of the aftermath of the ‘Meat Waves’ changed my mind.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-using-meat-waves-expose-ukraines-military-positions-captain-1776892
I’ll refrain from remarking on the Trump segment.
Great! DeSantis refuses to be bullied by the debate moderators – not going to talk about whether or not Pence was right.
Vivek, DeSantis, Scott, Haley, and Burgum all got it right: The issue is where we go from here, not what happened on Jan.6.
Mike,
I agree.
The next time Christie opens his mouth will be too soon.
It’s kind of funny, people aren’t even speculating how Prigozhin’s plane went down. Everybody knows what happened and who ordered it. There isn’t any outrage.
.
I guess it’s all factored in already. Although Putin’s standing at home is likely solidified by building fear, his standing internationally isn’t going to be helped. A mafia thug who deserves no respect.
.
It would be hilarious if it was truly an accident. Putin trying endlessly to say he didn’t do it.
Surely Pence is only in as the far right christian anti abortion vote.
worth between 5-15% of the Republican vote and 5% of the Democrat vote, there are christian Democrats!
Nonetheless as a RINO and a backstabber he is going nowhere fast.
He is only running as a RINO candidate.
Go Haley.
Mike. Pence.
Shut. Up.
I support helping Ukraine. But Vivek and DeSantis make much more sense than the defenders of the “mainstream” (Pence, Haley, Christie).
Everybody is losing this debate. I’d like to believe DeSantis is losing least, but I’m probably indulging in denial or wishful thinking or something. No wonder Trump is massively ahead of all these guys.
All right, I’m done. Night all.
Any “debate” with 8 participants is going to be a mess. There has been some revealing stuff.
My judgement. YMMV.
DeSantis did well. But probably not the sort of performance that will change the narrative about his campaign.
Ramaswamy surely helped himself, if only because he was not well known to start with. But he had some big moments. He hit his close out of the park.
Haley probably did what she set out to do and did it very well. But she does not impress me.
Scott was OK.
Christie was a jerk. But that is who he is and what his campaign is about.
Pence did nothing to help himself. I think his 5% support is from name recognition and will fade by year end.
Burgum surely helped himself. But he needs lots of help.
Hutchinson. Who cares?
Mike, I pretty much agree. The way I’d put it- Trump won that debate, despite the fact that he wasn’t there. Some people had some moments, but not enough to change the game in any meaningful way.
mark bofill (Comment #223459): “The way I’d put it- Trump won that debate, despite the fact that he wasn’t there.”
.
Perhaps. I think that there is a lot of soft Trump support. People who liked what he did, would vote for him again, but are not at all sure he would be the best choice for the nomination. The other candidates have to chip away at that. I think that if anybody did that, it was Ramaswamy and maybe DeSantis. The others seemed to be fighting over the Republicans who are good and ready to be done with Trump.
Tom, The cultural dynamic in Russia (and Ukraine) is one of deep corruption. It’s not surprising that the countries have governments that are corrupt. This is not something new of course but goes back centuries. Just look at the Biden crime family’s involvement with some very corrupt people.
I’ve worked with a lot of Russians and they are either restrained people trying to keep their heads down or thugs who tend to rise.
In reality, Ukraine is not really a shining example of Democracy and honesty either. That’s why I think Greenwald is right that the US and NATO were led into this proxy war by a bunch of corrupt deep staters.
I confess I didn’t watch the debate. Too many people on the stage. Pence, Cristy, and Hutchinson, and probably Haley need to just bow out now and stop wasting other people’s money.
Tom Scharf,
“It would be hilarious if it was truly an accident. Putin trying endlessly to say he didn’t do it.”
.
Commercial jets (in this case an Embrair 50 seater) don’t suddenly lose a wing mid flight at 30,000 ft. Putin had him killed. Binden blew up the gas pipelines. Both are virtually certain to be true.
Mike M and mark,
Thanks for your observations on the debate.
.
Close-the-bridge Christy is the kind of pure political thug who is least justified in attacking Trump. Everything about Christy screams ‘No self control!’. Sort of like, well, Trump. He should shut up.
SteveF (Comment #223464): “Sort of like, well, Trump. He should shut up.”
.
Indeed. But the chances of Christie shutting up are the same as the chances of Trump shutting up.
SteveF (Comment #223463): “Commercial jets (in this case an Embrair 50 seater) don’t suddenly lose a wing mid flight at 30,000 ft.”
.
Actually, it has happened, due to shameful maintenance and/or counterfeit replacement parts. But in this case, that is not the way to bet.
David Young (Comment #223462): “Cristy, and Hutchinson, and probably Haley need to just bow out now and stop wasting other people’s money.”
.
I think the people backing Christie *want* him to waste their money. They have a fantasy of Sir Chris the Dragon Slayer.
Vivek can certainly talk the talk. He’s really been putting himself out there in the online world. No shrinking violet at least. How he’ll deal with the establishment when they point a laser designator at his back is yet to be seen, but he’s already drawing some mainstream fire.
The fact there is a video of the plane going down suggests somebody heard an explosion first. There is also reportedly penetration holes in the fuselage indicative of a missile.
.
Since I don’t know I will just patiently await the findings of the Russian government, aka the truth of the matter. My money is on the conclusion will be a rogue Wagner soldier infiltrated an air defense battery and shot the plane down. If only the Russians had the same misinformation police organizations we have here.
Tom,
Thread winner. That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in ages. Thanks!
DaveJR (Comment #223468): “How he’ll deal with the establishment when they point a laser designator at his back is yet to be seen, but he’s already drawing some mainstream fire.”
.
Vivek seemed to cope well with the attacks last night, even with no prior experience with that format.
.
I am starting to see a lot of Trump in Ramaswamy. Only better. Wealthy non-politician. Willing to attack sacred cows. Very little ad spending but lots of “earned media”. No political consultants (I think). Puts the Energizer Bunny to shame. Aiming for a message that goes well beyond the base while fully including the base.
.
But way more polished than Trump. Not obnoxious. Seems to have deeper principles and to have thought deeply about what he says. I am impressed.
Sketchy details but reliable sources say a Ukrainian amphibious assault force hit the Crimea yesterday:
“the Ukrainian landing force landed on Cape Tarkhankut – the western coast of Crimea. Where the Russian air defense system was destroyed yesterday”
By my eye that’s about 100 miles from Ukrainian held territory.
Whatever they hit it with caused an enormous kaboom:
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1694296525923373245?s=20
Turns out, this is big:
It had been a Russian S-400 complex and missiles.
“Taking out this battery would potentially open a hole in Russia’s air defense overlay of the peninsula and the northwestern Black Sea. This could go a long way to ensuring the survivability of standoff strike weapons, like Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG, and other attacks, such as those by long-range kamikaze drones.”
“The long-range S-400 Triumpf is Russia’s most advanced and capable of its widely fielded air defense systems. Each self-propelled or semi-trailer-mounted launcher has four missiles, which have ranges up to 250 miles depending on the variant. That range is also highly conditions based, including the target, it’s flight profile, and many other factors. Normal engagement ranges are usually significantly less than that. Search and tracking radars, including those in the X- and L-bands, give the complete system the ability to spot and engage both short-range ballistic missiles and low-flying cruise missiles, as well as fixed and rotary-wing aircraft.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraines-spy-agency-claims-strike-on-key-s-400-sam-system-in-crimea
A few days ago I posted that there was a large increase in NATO surveillance aircraft over and onshore of the Western Black Sea. I think it is probable that it was connected to the raid on the Russian missile station.
A continuous presence has been Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk drones. Our old friend FORTE11 has been on-station since yesterday.
FORTE11 Screenshot:
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1694765394219696490?s=20
FORTE11 Live track:
https://www.flightradar24.com/FORTE11/31b9ba5a
The S-400 costs about $200M, they sell them for $500M. Not an insignificant loss, but it can be replaced quickly, but maybe it can also be taken out again quickly.
Mike M,
“Seems to have deeper principles and to have thought deeply about what he says. I am impressed.”
.
So am I.
.
He knows a lot more policy-wise than Trump and is comparable to DeSantis in this knowledge, but a lot smoother in delivery than DeSantis. The question is if he can motivate Trump supporters to abandon ‘the Don’ and embrace a smarter, non-obnoxious version with many of the same policy positions. My bet: no, Vivek is not going to be embraced by most Trump supporters.
.
I think a DeSantis/Vivek ticket would swamp Joe Alzheimer and his snake pit of socialists hacks who loath the USA, but I don’t see a path to that happening with Trump running.
And the Oscar for best actor offering his condolences goes to…
https://www.wsj.com/video/watch-putin-breaks-silence-offers-condolences-after-death-of-prigozhin/BA217E08-235D-449E-AA51-6CDEC86AD95A.html
Mike M,
“Willing to attack sacred cows.”
.
I am not sure if that was an intended joke, but it is great: the guy is a Hindu, and knows a thing or two about sacred cows!
Lucia,
That is indeed funny. “I am so sorry that killing the bastard also killed a bunch of other people. Oh well, these things happen.”
SteveF (Comment #223477): “My bet: no, Vivek is not going to be embraced by most Trump supporters.”
.
I am a convicted optimist and a poor predictor (the two seem to go together 🙂 ). But I think Trump is beatable. Trump has a core of 25-30% of Republicans who will not be won over. The rest care more about Trump’s populist policies and toughness in pursuing them. They can be won over, although that is a tall order. Ramaswamy and DeSantis are, I think, the only candidates with a shot at pulling it off.
There may be a backlash from Wagner supporters… I’m seeing this kind of sentiment:
“It is not yet clear whether the Hero of Russia Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin was on board, but it he was, then pack your belongings, we DO NOT NEED THIS WAR.”
Maybe it wasn’t Putin. Prigozhin was a long time ally of Putin’s. His rapid rehabilitation indicates that maybe they were still allies and the “coup attempt” was a feint. Prigozhin had other enemies, especially in the military. Gee, I wonder who might have access to surface-to-air missiles. And the military is not Putin’s power base.
My analysis is Putin is apologizing for all the others that died on the plane, perhaps for real.
Mike M,
“Ramaswamy and DeSantis are, I think, the only candidates with a shot at pulling it off.”
.
I completely agree.
.
The rest of the Republican hopefuls are wasting everyone’s time and money. Each is handicapped by refusing to see that the country faces a momentous choice between left and right in 2024. The ‘uniparty’ of ‘moderate Republicans’ and ‘moderate Democrats’ simply does not exist, save for in the imaginings of numbskulls like Pence, Haley, etc. What exists is an “expert class” of people who know virtually nothing of substance about life beyond the sinecures of Federal largesse, and who consistently make policy decisions which damage working class people in the USA.
The Russian rebels fighting on The Southern Russian border issued an invitation to the disgruntled Wagner soldiers. Posted in a spooky video, filmed in IR night vision:
“The Russian Volunteer Corps, made up of ethnic Russians fighting for Ukraine against the Russian Army, has recorded a message to the Wagner Group.
They offer Wagner soldiers to join them on a new joint march on Moscow.”
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1694813093354692746?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Tom Scharf,
“My analysis is Putin is apologizing for all the others that died on the plane, perhaps for real.”
.
Yes, agree 100%. Putin is a political thug and political murderer, but not a sociopath like Hitler. Killing innocents is not his thing… unless it is unavoidable.
Tom Scharf,
For me, the suprizing thing is that Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy is still alive. Really, there is near zero reason to blieve his incasersation is legitimate.
Headline on an online opinion in the New York Times:
They soon realized “Oh, we are not supposed to actually admit that” and changed the headline.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/08/ny-times-lets-the-mask-slip.php
Hope Putin is keeping a careful audit on what surface-to-air missiles are still in the hands of Wagner loyalists. Wouldnt want another accident with a private jet…
Mike M. (Comment #223483)
“Maybe it wasn’t Putin.”
I think it is entirely possible that it was Army General Sergei Shoigu and Army General Valery Gerasimov. I think Putin and Prigozhin were in cahoots in an attempt to oust them as head of the army. If your theory is true Shoigu and Gerasimov won the power struggle. Shooting down the jet may be their way of declaring to the Russian power structure that there is a new sheriff in town. [Shudder]
“Killing innocents is not his thing” …. is demonstrably false. Putin fired more than a thousand (maybe two thousand) missiles and drones at purely civilian targets. These were the most sophisticated and deadly weapons in the Russian arsenal. He destroyed a kindergarten, maternity hospital, many apartment buildings and a lot more. He tried to shut down the electrical grid in mid-winter. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for him. To quote Marshal Rueben J. Cogburn “He deserves a fair trial and a fine hanging”.
Trump’s mugshot is quite funny. Just when you think things can’t get more absurd …
The NYT column was a clickbait headline. What the person was advocating for was selecting random people from the population to become representatives. They have a point, those who seek office tend to be of a certain personality type that may not be conducive to good governance.
.
However, the NYT does constantly support things like packing the court, disallowing Trump to run for … reasons, etc. They do this by the NYT editors selecting these type of columns to run constantly. One day it is “danger to democracy”, the next day it is authoritarian takeovers of the government by leftists for the good of the people. What is a constant is which side they favor. It has gotten increasingly partisan over the last 10 years to the point of comic relief. Example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html
“Trump’s mugshot is quite funny.”
.
I’d call it ridiculous. The guy is better known than anyone on the planet. No mugshot is needed to recognize him.
London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, etc. Civilians die during wars. The war in the Ukraine will eventually end. Putin won’t be tried for anything.
This is why they call them “Spaghetti Models”….
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1695087743582273989?s=20
Early runs indicate Florida may get a weak tropical system by the end of next week. My area really could use the rain.
“A broad area of low pressure over the northwestern Caribbean Sea is
producing disorganized showers and thunderstorms. Environmental
conditions appear conducive for gradual development of this system
during the next several days, and a tropical depression is likely to
form late this weekend or early next week while moving generally
northward over the northwestern Caribbean Sea and eastern Gulf of
Mexico.”
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gtwo.php?basin=atlc&fdays=7
Tom Scharf (Comment #223494): “The NYT column was a clickbait headline. What the person was advocating for was selecting random people from the population to become representatives. They have a point, those who seek office tend to be of a certain personality type that may not be conducive to good governance.”
.
In other words, the clickbait headline (Elections Are Bad for Democracy) accurately captured the essence of the argument
.
When leftists use the word ‘democracy’ they mean ‘authoritarian rule by experts’ which they justify as being for the people’s own good since the people are too stupid to know what is good for them. Once you recognize that, their positions are quite consistent.
538 has interesting poll results up re the debate:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/republican-debate-august-poll/
.
For the most part, people felt that each candidates performed as well as expected. Who “won” varies widely depending on the question asked.
.
Based on the number saying they are considering voting for a candidate, Haley was the big winner, Trump was the loser, and DeSantis is now the front runner.
Re: Tom Scharf (Comment #223493)
The faithful have plastered social media with side-by-side comparisons with MLK Jr’s mugshot.
The murderous thug Putin responded right on cue last night. He sent five aerial assaults on Ukrainian civilians far from the battlefield.
“two Kh-59 guided aviation missiles were launched from russian Su-34 aircraft over the Black Sea, and two “Kalibr” cruise missiles were launched from a small missile ship in the Sea of Azov. A launch of a strike UAV of the “Shahed” type was also detected”
Maria Drutska: https://twitter.com/maria_drutska/status/1694957345959277054?s=20
Yes, definitely, the definition of democracy to them is their side righteously winning. If you do replace that definition then all the arguments are logically consistent.
Mike M,
538 may not be the most reliable of sources for information about Republican voters.
Tom Scharf,
“…the definition of democracy to them is their side righteously winning”
.
Sure, and why it is so difficult for there to be any substantive compromise on significant policy issues. When someone believes they are absolutely and morally right, compromise is usually excluded as a matter of principle.
.
For example, it does not matter to the righteous that 65% to 70% of voters would agree to limit legal abortion to the first 12 or 15 weeks (with exceptions for severe malformity, risk to life of mother, etc.).
.
The righteous on both sides simply will not compromise on abortion, and work to block any effort at compromise. Same for every contentious issue.
.
It seems to me there is way too much arrogance and not nearly enough introspection and acceptance of differing views.
SteveF (Comment #223496)
August 25th, 2023 at 8:49 am
When the other side does it, it is evil and worthy of a war crime. When our side does it, it is either ignored or given some special case rationalization.
It reminds of the MSM when the Democrats do something politically dishonest it is just politicians being politicians. When the Republicans do likewise the MSM says it is being dishonest.
Ken Fritschy,
I am much more consistent: “How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: his lips are moving.”
.
My observation is that all politicians are less than honest; but there are some differences in degree. Far too many revel in their dishonesty.
This was inevitable… still very funny: https://reason.com/video/2023/08/25/remy-rich-men-north-of-richmond-federal-employee-version/
For those of you who have not driven N/S in Virginia, the ‘North of Richmond’ line is just about the point, a little north of Richmond, where the vast Washington ‘professional class’ can’t go any further south…. just too far to commute to Washington. A huge fraction of those who live ‘north of Richmond’ are in fact sucking the teat of the Federal government, either directly, or indirectly funded by an organization that is.
Not unlike Huntsville Alabama.
CNN thinks they are telling us something that is news:
“US intelligence agencies believe that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) is attempting to influence public policy and public opinion in the West by directing Russian civilians to build relationships with influential US and Western individuals and then disseminate narratives that support Kremlin objectives, obscuring the FSB’s role through layers of ostensibly independent actors.”
This has been obvious to anyone who monitors social media.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/25/politics/us-intel-russia-propaganda/index.html
mark bofill,
But nobody in Huntsville is making all the laws and regulations for the rest of the country.
.
Besides, Huntsville is ‘small potatoes’ compared to the DC area: The counties surrounding Washington DC are among the few highest income counties in the country. I doubt that is true of the counties surrounding Huntville.
Steve, true enough. Huntsville isn’t rich. It’s just that if not for Redstone itd be no different from any other town in Alabama. In other words, poor.
I’m not ashamed to work as a defense / aerospace systems subcontractor. We ~do~ have to actually do work and make systems work, and they have to work at the end of the day, so, it’s not utter corruption. The procurement process for the military does invite a certain amount of bad behavior (spend your budget allocation or lose it next year) and that sort of thing is probably inevitable when the government is involved.
So – I don’t know what my point was. I just wanted to avoid indulging in unacknowledged hypocrisy I suppose.
While all the NATO countries in Europe have been ramping up their military capabilities, Poland has gone off the deep end:
-ordered 96 AH-64E Apache helicopters
-purchased 32 F-35A multirole aircraft and 48 FA-50 light combat-training aircraft
– contracts for 20 US HIMARS
-ordered 366 M1 Abrams tanks and 180 K2 tanks
– 212 additional K9A1 howitzers and 460 more K9A1/K9PLs.
A lot of the new stuff is modern replacements for dated equipment sent to Ukraine. Their stated goal is to have the strongest army in Europe.
“military spending should reach 3% of GDP this year – a full percentage point above what is expected of NATO members generally”
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/poland-pis-populist-government-military-procurement-by-slawomir-sierakowski-2023-08
Defense contracting, engineering welfare, ha ha. I’ve had my fair share of that myself, especially in my early years. The military is responsible for a lot of major technology development. Cheap drones wouldn’t exist without first having the technology path paved by expensive drones. Try paying for landing on the moon the * first * time. Cheap(ish) IR cameras wouldn’t be around without it, etc.
.
Lots of very expensive military equipment has been designed and produced and never used in anger.
.
The US having paid for 100 years of technology development and the US being the leader in technology are not a coincidence. China is doing the same thing, the government dumping enormous amounts of subsidies into technology. I wonder where they learned that trick?
The way everyone views Russia now:
.
WSJ: The Godfather in the Kremlin
The very public death of Putin henchman Yevgeny Prigozhin highlights the evolution of Russia into a mafia state held together by violence and incapable of global leadership.
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/the-godfather-in-the-kremlin-e39be66a?st=81ho6avc27nolqk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Well, well, well. One of Trump’s co-defendants was denied bail. It is easy to pick out his mug shot.
He’s the black guy.
Denied bail? On a non-violent, politically motivated prosecution? Good grief, the Dems are out of control.
.
This will not end well for them.
So much for cash bail reform I guess. Heh.
mark bofill,
Cash bail reform for violent criminals, rapists, and thieves. Not for Republicans. I wonder, do most violent criminals identify as Democrats or Republicans?
.
To ask the question is to answer it.
There is a lot of instances (visually confirmed) of Ukrainian advances in the last week or so. Nothing remotely like a breakout but penetration on several axis. From drone video of the fighting, it appears the A-Team is now engaged. Caution, not for the squeamish:
https://x.com/gloooud/status/1694760216393326671?s=61&t=ZyQdkbznbK5mZr6llgvE8g
Notable in that video is a total lack of artillery and tanks on the Russian side.
“Miss Piggy” A NOAA WP-3D Orion Hurricane Hunter departed Rholson airport in the US Vergin Islands at 9:44z [5:44 AM Florida time]. It is headed to investigate TD-10, currently located offshore from Cancun. The storm is forecast to develop into a Hurricane and threaten Florida’s North and West coasts by the middle of next week. Live track and screenshot link:
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1695744831669121248?s=20
The Mug Shot
.
Where have we seen that visage before?
.
The 1917 Poster with Uncle Sam pointing out “I want You for the US Army.”
.
Maybe BoneSpur is still feeling guilty about passing on it.
.
Too bad the officials didn’t let him point.
“Fox News says fewer than 13 million people watched its broadcast of the debate”
.
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Trump on Twitter has 260M views.
.
That would be the “legacy” in legacy media. While I find these facts a bit distressing, it is clear people want to hear from Trump and they should get to make up their own mind without our misinformation overlords censoring him. This, from the news side of the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/25/political-conspiracies-facebook-youtube-elon-musk/
“Experts in disinformation say the dynamic headed into 2024 calls for more aggressive efforts to combat it, not less.”
.
If they are going to write 10 anti-Trump articles a day then they have a journalistic duty to obtain and print his response. We are a year away and it’s already saturation slanted coverage.
I wonder what exactly makes one an expert in disinformation.
There do not appear to be any credentialed experts in disinformation from the right, ha.
Tom Scharf,
Yes, only ‘right thinking’ people on the left could ever be experts in disinformation. Which raises a question: is that because they spread so very much disinformation themselves? With so much personal experience, they indeed become ‘experts’ at spreading falsities.
Stopping in for a minute to address a… narrative people seem to be suckered by. Mike M. says:
SteveF:
To try to suggest the guy is being treated differently because of his race. In reality, 18 of the 19 defendants hired a lawyer before turning themselves in who negotiated bond agreements for them. 18 of the 19 defendants also are not currently being charged with felony assault of a federal agent in a separate case.
I think the fact this guy was charged with a separate, violent felony in a separate case probably matters more than him being black. Similarly, I think the fact he didn’t hire an attorney (and is apparently not eligible for a public defender) probably matters more than him being black. But even if one doesn’t think those factors are more likely explanations for the difference in how the guy was treated, they are undeniably factors that ought to be mentioned. Naturally, they were not.
Oh, and incidentally, SteveF seems to be trotting out the old Republican talking point that violent criminals are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. I remember Ted Cruz trying that talking point ~10 years ago. It was nonsense then, and as far as I know, there’s no more evidence to support it now than before. You have to really cherry-pick and then misrepresent papers to find any “evidence” of that in published research.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223528): “To try to suggest the guy is being treated differently because of his race.”
.
That is YOUR suggestion, not mine. I merely pointed out the irony.
Mike M., I’m not sure I believe you as that that does not seem to in any way be ironic,* but regardless, the comments which followed from yours talked about bail reform and clearly brought up the issue of non-violent behavior without addressing the fact this guy is already facing separate charges of violently assaulting federal agents. Me elaborating on the situation seems justified.
*Perhaps I’m missing something. How is it ironic the only black defendant is also the only defendant to be facing separate charges of violently assaulting federal agents? And/or is the only defendant not to have a lawyer?
Brandon,
If you see nothing ironic in a bunch of Democrats charging a group of people and only denying the black guy the opportunity to post bail, that’s fine. Others find it both entertaining and ironic.
mark bofill, maybe the problem is I don’t understand the exclusive focus on the guy being black as opposed to the factors more relevant to his situation. Maybe it’s that people use the word ironic in wildly inconsistent ways. Maybe I’m having a brain fart and missing something obvious. I dunno. If nobody wants to try to explain, I guess I never will.
In any event, my primary focus is simply that there is absolutely no reason to believe this guy’s race has anything to do with him being denied bail. The two factors which seem far more relevant are he doesn’t have a lawyer and is facing (separate) charges of violently assaulting federal agents. Nobody else bothered to mention those factors so I thought I should.
If nobody wants to talk about those factors or reflect on why they were left out of the discussion here, so be it. At least other readers might have a chance now at getting an accurate understanding of the guy’s situation.
This is a bit random, but I discovered something today I thought people here might find interesting. Perhaps it’s already known, but the little Googling I did about it didn’t turn up much of anything:
Like tons of sites, YouTube deletes lots of comments as spam or whatever else. Normally if one of your comments gets deleted, it simply vanishes. You don’t get notified, but if you try to look at it again, it’s not there. Maybe not the best approach, but it’s simple and easy to understand.
The thing is it apparently has a second moderation algorithm which deletes comments for everyone but the poster. The comments you post will appear visible to you but nobody else. It’s akin to shadow-banning except it hits individual comments not entire accounts. This means you can be in the middle of a discussion, confused why people ask you to post X even though on your screen you clearly already posted X. (That happening to me is how I got clued into this.)
Maybe that’s not inherently bad, and maybe it’s something people already know about, but I was genuinely shocked to find out given how innocuous some of the comments I had gotten shadow-deleted were. I am not completely convinced the reason they got hit is anything other than policy-based censorship. Guess it’s another reason not to comment on YT videos.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223532): “In any event, my primary focus is simply that there is absolutely no reason to believe this guy’s race has anything to do with him being denied bail.”
.
I am guessing that you are the only person here who did not find that obvious.
.
Lefties are always screaming “RACE! RACE! RACE!” when there is no evidence that race is a factor. So it is ironic that the lefty prosecutor sought no bail for the only black, male defendant and only for him and that the judge went along.
According to Pew, support for more nuclear power generation has increased significantly in recent years, reaching 57% overall and 50% even among Dumbacrats. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/)
.
Does that mean there will be more approvals for nuclear power plants? I doubt it. The opposition to nuclear power is driven by a combination of irrational fear and ignorance; that combination makes someone immune to factual arguments.
Brandon,
Nice that you drop by to offer the obtuse POV on every subject.
.
The guy is no flight risk…. he traveled from his home, at his own expense, to turn himself in. He runs an organization of black voters who support Trump. He has no prior convictions that would suggest he is a flight risk.
.
The pending “assault” charge for yelling at and ‘chest bumping’ an FBI agent did not lead to incarceration, nor even a trial at this point. He called the local police after the FBI agents left to file a complaint about the aggressive behavior of the FBI agents. Everything about the incident is disputed. He clearly objected to the behavior of the FBI agents, and to being served a subpoena to testify in an investigation that he believed, with I think good reason, is nothing but politically motivated prosecution. What is really happening is the judge is punishing him for a) not taking the charges seriously enough to hire a lawyer, b) requesting a court appointed attorney, and c) supporting Trump.
.
You are at least consistent: you would never bother to acknowledge information contrary to your political biases. Not sure if it is a lack of self awareness, honesty, or both.
Brandon,
Here is why I thought it was ironic. Well, first- what does ironic mean?
from Oxford Languages at the top of my google list.
Here is what is in my experience some typical Democrat party rhetoric regarding racism and our justice system:
I could aggregate others, but I’m not going to waste the time, it should not be controversial that the Democrats are the party in the US who primarily claim that our justice system exhibits system racism and unequal treatment for black people and white people.
.
It is therefore ironic that Fani Willis has denied bail for the only black man out of the twelve people she is charging here.
.
I hope this helps.
In some part mandatory sentencing laws came out of a concern about racism in sentencing (along with tough on crime initiatives). Disparate sentencing was often due solely to the perpetrator’s prior records and repeat offender laws along with mandatory sentencing guidelines. The war on drugs was also a factor, drug charges were felonies. AFAICT the only place potential racism in sentencing was shown to be occurring was with death sentences, where juries were more likely to hand out death sentences to black people by a hard to justify margin. As always everything is disputed by one academic or another and I’m not an expert.
.
Everyone wants a fair justice system, but if disparate sentencing and incarceration is due to disparate crime rates then you need to look somewhere else such as poverty, culture, education, home life, etc. for an actionable answer.
.
Eliminating cash bail is a separate subject, this has disparate impacts against poor people for sure. Incarcerating people for non-violent crimes doesn’t make a lot of sense economically for the taxpayer in my view. However I think there should be exceptions for repeat offenders. There are car thieves out there that do this as a job and the reduction of car theft and robbery to a property crime combined with the elimination of cash bail has put some bad incentives in place.
Tom Scharf,
“Incarcerating people for non-violent crimes doesn’t make a lot of sense economically for the taxpayer in my view.”
.
Like shoplifting? Since many large city prosecutors (and some elsewhere) now refuse to prosecute shoplifting, police don’t even bother to arrest shoplifters. Which quite rationally leads to this:
https://nypost.com/2023/08/02/7-eleven-workers-beat-cali-thief-for-stealing-shelves-of-tobacco/
.
If thieves are not incarcerated, then society falls apart.
Related: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is facing backlash after filing suit against Kia and Hyundai over claims they manufactured cars that lacked appropriate anti-theft measures, ultimately leading to a surge in car crimes.
.
Look what those cars are making people do!
Tom,
I think many (and probably most) problems have disparate impacts on poor people as opposed to rich people. Money can’t buy everything, but it can and does buy a lot.
So what?
Brandon,
I was unaware of this. Thanks for the heads up.
Not incarcerating shoplifters is surely a long way from not prosecuting shoplifters?
Phil,
We could look at the current situation in the USA in California for this. (I think) the trouble with reducing penalties and taking a soft approach on crime is that offenses increase dramatically in volume and the police become overwhelmed to the point where they no longer investigate certain crimes.
But yes – it’s not that I think there is necessarily something magical about incarceration. The thing is, the system needs to discourage crime effectively somehow. The threat of incarceration appears to be one tried and true way to accomplish that.
Shrug.
Not prosecuting crimes is a different subject than cash bail.
.
A poor person not being able to afford $10K for bail is a lot different than a rich person. This doesn’t necessarily reflect the intended purpose, to make sure they show up for trial, and it may only prove they are poor. When the poor person can’t make bail then the taxpayer has to fund their stay, that’s about $30K / year depending on which state.
.
Repeat offenders (committing crimes on bail) should be denied bail, even for “property crimes”. I think this has historically been standard practice, but not so much lately.
Tom,
Yep. The counter argument is that bail reform increases crime rates.
Here for example. I haven’t look at the data and I don’t have a strong opinion either way.
[Edit: Maybe having the ‘but not for repeat offenders’ qualifier would help. One would think, right?]
I don’t really get upset when places experiment with the justice system, it can sometimes work out. What I don’t like is when it clearly isn’t working that the same people refuse to acknowledge the experiment has failed.
.
Locally when they decriminalized auto theft here, car theft went through the roof. Consequences:
https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/local/pinellascounty/3-teens-identified-after-deadly-crash-sheriff-says-theyre-prolific-offenders/67-462291127
mark bofill:
Huh. I hadn’t even considered party affiliation here these people are being prosecuted in Georgia. Georgia is a Republican state. The government of Georgia is controlled by Republicans. I guess the DA who is prosecuting these people, Fani Willis, is a Democrat. Huh, hadn’t realized that.
I guess the fact a Democrat DA is prosecuting could maybe add some irony like you’re getting at? I dunno, but if I were a diehard Democrat, I’d say it’s the opposite of ironic – expected. As in, “A Republican state locked up only the black guy. Go figure.”
No prob. I have to say it’s interesting I discovered this in basically the one time I commented on a video addressing climate change. Maybe that’s just chance (I rarely comment on YT videos after all), but I dunno. I think it’d be interesting if someone could look through the comments that get shadow-deleted to see what they’re like.
Phil Scadden,
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
.
Prosecution of theft is meaningless if disconnected from negative consequences (AKA punishment). Prosecution neither makes sense (nor happens very often!) if there is no punishment resulting from that prosecution. In Saudi Arabia, theft is punished by flogging, cutting off a hand, or (at high enough level of theft), public beheading. That escalating punishment regime seems to work; there is virtually no theft in Saudi Arabia. In the States we only imprison people for significant or repeated theft. Take that consequence away, and theft will always increase. I suspect flogging would be more effective.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223548): “I have no idea what Democrats have to do with this.”
.
You are delusional. Either that, or you are trying to see how many false statements you can crowd into a small space. The only thing you get right is that it is happeing in Georgia.
.
Brandon Shollenberger: “These people are being prosecuted in Georgia, by people of the state of Georgia.”
.
Nope. They are being prosecuted by a prosecutor. Yes, there is a sense in which a prosecutor represents the people, but that is pretty much a legal fiction.And this prosecutor certainly does not represent the people of Georgia; her authority is limited to Fulton County.
.
Brandon Shollenberger: “Georgia is a Republican state.”
.
No it is not. Both Senators are Democrats and the state went for Biden in the last (perhaps stolen) election. Georgia is a swing state. Fulton County is solidly Democrat.
.
Brandon Shollenberger: “The government of Georgia is controlled by Republicans.”
.
So what? The government of Georgia has *nothing* to do with this prosecution.
.
Brandon Shollenberger: “The DA who is prosecuting these people, Fani Willis, is a Republican.”
.
That is a lie. Or maybe you are just that dumb.
So after discovering the DA in this case, Fani Willis, is a Democrat I decided I didn’t know enough about the issue. After delving into things more, I’m even more confused. I had kept seeing people say things like:
So I never realized another defendant, Trevian Kutti, is also black. She’s just also a woman. So any narrative can’t be that the only black defendant is being discriminated again as I thought (and nobody corrected). Any attempt at spinning a narrative about race, whether seriously or for supposed irony, has to be that black men are being discriminated against but not black women. Of course, nobody actually says it that way. People just conveniently fail to mention there was another black defendant so nobody will know there was another unless they research matters themselves.
So yeah, I’m done. This entire issue is stupid. Is it ironic 17 white people and one black woman were granted bail while the only black male got denied bail because he didn’t have a lawyer and is facing separate charges for violently assaulting federal agents? No. Or at least, I don’t think so.
And I think the fact nobody posting about this seems to ever mention the other black defendant who was granted bail speaks volumes. It seems to me if there had been another black, male defendant, people would have just cherry-picked harder. Maybe, “The only black guy with short hair was denied bail, so ironic!”
Mike M.:
It’s interesting how you so often say I behave horribly in conversations here yet you insult me constantly while I pretty much never do the same. It’s also interesting how vitriolic you are over incorrect things I said then corrected by extensively editing my comment within 10 minutes of posting it.
Yes, I jumped to some conclusions about the party affiliation of certain people and areas because of how heavily Georgia leans Republican. But as soon as I submitted my comment, I realized I was making some assumptions and decided to check them. I quickly discovered I was wrong about some things so I immediately edited my comment to correct them. I honestly didn’t think anyone would see the comment in the ~10 minutes its original form was up.
If you want to call me delusional, dishonest and god knows what else because of that, you can. The fact you suggest the election in Georgia might have been rigged makes it clear there’s no hope of useful dialogue between us unless or until we can deal with that matter.
Mike M,
“Or maybe you are just that dumb.”
.
I think you have figured it out. So no surprise Brandon could imagine a rabid Democrat prosecutor in an overwhelmingly Democrat county in Georgia is a Republican. ‘Blissfully disconnected from reality’ seems about right.
Re: Trevian Kutti, thanks again Brandon. I was misinformed and didn’t bother to fact check. Two black defendants huh. OK.
.
[Edit: Surely there’s no need to be rude to Brandon. Hostility and contempt breeds hostility and contempt; I don’t need any more of that, I already get plenty.]
mark bofill,
“… the system needs to discourage crime effectively somehow.”
.
See Saudi Arabia, or the video of the 7-11 wuppin’ in California. 😉
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223551): “Any attempt at spinning a narrative about race”.
.
But nobody here has been attempting to spin such a narrative. That is your invention.
mark bofill,
Everyone is misinformed from time to time. But Brandon seems to me pretty much always misinformed in ways that support his political views. It is tiresome at best, dishonest at worst.
Steve,
I understand. I shouldn’t heckle, it’s not like I haven’t opened fire on people who’ve annoyed me here a hundred times or more. It’s just that I make an effort not to be rude to Brandon and it has seemed he’s made an effort not to be rude to me in return. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but I’ll assume it’s deliberate until it’s otherwise demonstrated.
SteveF – to my mind successful prosecution -> punishment. Just that incarceration surely isn’t the only consequence. Incarceration has bad habit of producing hardened crims. Young thrill seekers and drug addicts need different treatment. Common here is “community work” (cleaning parks, beaches, graffiti removal, tree planting, assisting food banks), community detention, supervision (community-based rehab) etc. For young people, the impact of a conviction on their chances for overseas travel is a big disincentive. Judges need options that fit for individual circumstance. Repeat offenders – that is another story. At a certain point, its jail.
Phil,
In most places in the USA, anyone under 18 YO is rarely sent to prison (except for extreme cases like murder, attempted murder, etc). ‘Minor’ crimes, even after many arrests and prosecutions, rarely lead to prison time. I am all for consequences that actually keep the perpetrator from repeat offending; I’d like to hear of any non-prison approaches which actually work.
.
The problem is when there is no prosecution and no consequence at all for ‘minor crimes’ like shoplifting, vandalism, and even assault, which is becoming the norm in many places. That is guaranteed to produce ever more crime. In San Francisco, the official policy was no arrests for shoplifting under $500. The thieves walked around the stores adding up the value of their thefts to stay under $500; then on to the next store and another $500. Result: many retail stores in San Francisco had no choice but to close. Failure to prosecute crimes is madness; it destroys the foundation of civilization.
Tom – “What I don’t like is when it clearly isn’t working that the same people refuse to acknowledge the experiment has failed.”
.
Couldn’t agree more. I think sometimes you get a successful experiment with a highly targeted group of people and a talented reform team. The result then is to expand it and then discover you haven’t the talent resources to make it work, or judges expand its use beyond the target group. You need constant monitoring of effectiveness and that monitoring has to feedback into decision making.
.
I think there is also a problem that what seems like disincentive to average voter may be viewed differently by crims/would-be-crims. Prison isn’t much of disincentive – by itself– if it enhances your status in gang and you are going to be locked up with other gang members.
mark bofill:
FWIW, I totally get how that’d happen. I had no idea there was another black defendant for quite a while because no discussion of the topic I’ve seen (here or anywhere else) mentioned it. Then I messed up and wrote a comment where I was thinking about Georgia’s state demographics while not considering that this was a *county* prosecution.
Making a mistake that basic made me realize I didn’t have a good, basic grasp of the situation so I decided to actually dig into the specifics by looking at who exactly was involved in the case (for both prosecution and defense). That led to me finding a page with a list of the mugshots of all the defendants, including a second black defendant.
It was pure chance. It never even occurred to me to check for other black defendants. If the list of defendants I looked at hadn’t included their mugshots, I’d have likely never realized there was a second black defendant.
SteveF makes an intriguing remark:
I’ve seen people make this sort of claim about my biases many times, and each time, I find myself wondering, “What does this person think my (political) views are?” My guess is whatever these people think my views are is completely unrelated to what my views actually are.
As an example of why I think this, back when I used to be active in the blogosphere, I repeatedly had people say things like I was a shill for the oil companies (those were even the actual words of Michael Tobis). At the same time, other people labeled me an alarmist fanatic. There were many individual days where I’d be accused of being completely biased toward two opposite sides on two different sites.
So here’s a simple question. Can SteveF, or anyone else who thinks they know what my political views are, tell me just *one* view I have on politics? I’d accept something as simple as party affiliation.
You didn’t vote for Trump, ha ha.
Tom Scharf:
That’s not really a political view, but you’re right. And the reason is actually tied to a view I do hold, one that has nothing to do with Trump. I never vote in presidential elections because I think doing so would be a waste of time as I think the electoral college is flawed.
The way the electoral college is structured, there are a lot of states where the margins are so large voting tends to not matter much. I would vote in presidential elections if electoral votes were proportional to the popular votes in states since then the margins for relevancy would be a lot smaller (though I don’t particularly like that approach either).
Another related view I have about politics is I think there are (sometimes) more efficient uses of ones time in changing things than voting. For instance, I might give up three hours of my time to vote, but with three hours time, I could instead maybe convince two people to vote my way. Instead of spending three hours for one vote, I could perhaps spend 15 hours to change 50 minds.
If I voted for Trump, it would have maybe changed a margin by .001%. My last local mayoral election was won by 23 votes. No, I did not vote for Trump.
SteveF – I am totally in agreement that no consequence for even minor theft is insane. Consequences that work seem to be very much about targeted groups. Ie midlands UK approach to addicts. Youth crime seems particularly tough. Reviews I’ve read were pretty down about effectiveness of simple interventions (be it send them jail or restorative justice). Things that worked were expensive and dependent on in-demand skills.
Brandon,
I venture you think Joe Biden is not a crook, in spite of corruption which is becoming ever more obvious. Legitimate businesses do not open swarms of shell companies with no obvious reason to exist save for receiving dubious wire transfers. Legitimate business activities don’t involve calls from your dad the VP while dining with corrupt foreigners. No VP should be copying official government info to their crack-head son, or taking him on Air Force 2 to help shake down foreign businesses. The corruption is blatant and involves millions of dollars in payoffs, for much of which (eg. from Burisma) taxes were not paid, and to where those funds went not yet accurately accounted for. I bet you think Joe Biden must be presumed as pure and innocent as new-fallen snow, and only a publicly signed confession would convince you otherwise.
Phil,
“Things that worked were expensive and dependent on in-demand skills.”
.
OK. I have not seen any such data, but presuming it exists, what expenditure do you think is justified to reform a minor criminal enough to eliminate his future crime? $10K? $100K? $1 million? $10 million? No upper limit? I note the 7/11 (AKA Saudi) alternative is fast, cheap, and requires no skills or special training.
.
BTW, the majority of convicted criminals in the USA are not in prison. They are on parole or similarly “supervised” out of prison. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus20st.pdf
SteveF:
I’m not sure how this is supposed to be a political view. The issue in question is heavily fact-dependent, and people could not hold such a belief for many different reasons. Including the simple, “I’m waiting to pass judgment until people making the accusations put their case forth in an organized fashion for me to examine as they say they’re going to do.” Which incidentally, is my view on the matter.
I’ve had many people tell me all about how corrupt the Bidens are, but nobody has presented me an organized, detailed case citing specific evidence that supported allegations of criminal behavior. That goes for both individuals I talk to and public figures I see making statements about this issue. Unless or until that changes, I see no reason for me to believe the allegations. Quite frankly, the details I’ve been told have changed so many times I don’t even know what the specific allegations are. Or if people even agree on any single set of them.
Then you have no idea what my political views are. Your claim here is laughably false. My view is quite simple, and I’ve said it many times. If someone asked me why they should believe Michael Mann committed fraud, I could give them a detailed explanation complete with citations to specific evidence. When someone can present to me a case in the same fashion for Biden’s alleged corruption, then I’ll believe those accusations too. (Unless someone can present a compelling rebuttal, at least.)
So yeah, I think it’s clear your belief you know what my political views are is completely unfounded.
Hang on – I realized I overlooked something slightly magical about incarceration as opposed to other punishments. Incarceration works when criminals cannot otherwise be reformed, by removing them from society. That is sort of a big plus that is not provided by other methods (other than execution or exile I suppose).
Again, I don’t wish to be rude, but who gives a hoot what Brandon’s political beliefs are. Makes no difference to me.
Brandon,
“Unless or until that changes, I see no reason for me to believe the allegations. ”
.
And OJ was innocent. Biden is corrupt, it is obvious. That you don’t see refusal to see that as a political view is pretty funny.
Mark,
The only difference it makes is that Brandon refuses to be up front about his political biases, which is more than a little irritating. But you are right, it doesn’t really matter, and probably better to ignore him.
We could chop hands off for everything and there would be more law and order. The punishment needs to fit the crime, it’s a balance.
.
There was a legitimate argument maybe 100 years ago that people needed to sometimes steal to feed themselves or their family. The social safety net is in place not just for humanitarians reasons, it is also to prevent the peasants from revolting and ruining the nice setup the upper crust have. That’s a balance too.
.
From some of the videos I have seen the property crimes are almost being done for entertainment. The deceased teenagers in the above stolen car example had 125 arrests between them. The people involved in mass shoplifting are well dressed, have working phones, and use decent cars. This is a sign that the disincentives need to be increased. Homeless people openly stealing stuff to support drug habits that ultimately hollow out SF businesses is another sign the policy is not effective.
.
I have never been a fan of strict drug laws, but the negative effects on society of no drug laws combined with open theft being allowed look like a failed policy. It’s being corrected though, if not slowly. The SF DA was recalled.
.
So, failed policy. Change it and move on.
mark bofill,
“Incarceration works when criminals cannot otherwise be reformed, by removing them from society.”
.
Of course! That has always been the primary reason criminals are sent to prison. The secondary reason has always been to deter crime by making the consequences of crime sufficiently negative for the perpetrator. The current PC narrative abandons those reasons: the 2% of the population who are repeat felons are claimed to represent some kind of societal failure rather than a failure of 2% of individuals to abide by laws. I find it simply weird.
Tom Scharf,
“We could chop hands off for everything and there would be more law and order. The punishment needs to fit the crime, it’s a balance.”
.
Sure. The question is: What consequences are sufficient to deter more crime? Chopping off hands for shoplifting seems excessive deterrence, but I’ll bet 20 lashes would be more than enough to deter most shoplifting. Maybe chop off hands for looting or stealing cars.
.
OK, I am only joking.
.
But there really have to be significant negative consequences to reduce crime rates, especially for crimes against property.
There is a supporting argument that “mass incarceration” that started in the 1990’s is casually linked to the distinct drop in crime in the 2000’s. The obvious argument being removing criminals from the streets prevent them from repeating their crimes. You will generally find this argument is nearly taboo in polite society.
.
There is an additional argument that crime is heavily correlated with age. By the time somebody is 30 or 40 years old their crime days are behind them. The argument here is that people don’t need to be locked up into their 60’s with the associated cost.
.
The counterargument is that incarceration is not just about rehabilitation but that it is also about punishment and the rights of the victim and their family. I have grown exceedingly tired of the presentation in the legacy media of the criminals as the victims. They have fallen head over heels in love with this narrative. The victims are the victims. Full stop.
I’m not sure I see Biden’s corruption as proven yet, mostly it still looks like run of the mill legal corruption. Indirect payments for access or future favors. I think his son was selling this, but not clear that Biden was really involved. There’s a lot of smoke here but no fire.
.
The main argument I would use is why would Biden do something so dumb? It’s not worth it when plenty of legal corruption is available. Ex-presidents and senators don’t go broke. If he did do such a thing then the only answer I come up with is he was trying to help his less than stellar son. The media isn’t trying very hard to uncover the truth of this which is a bit frustrating.
Tom,
I don’t get what you’re saying here. You appear to be saying that it looks like Biden is corrupt to an acceptable degree, but he’s not corrupt to some abnormal degree. Is this right?
[Edit: How much worse can it get than payments for favors? I thought that was pretty much the definition of political corruption.]
There is absolutely no reasonable doubt that the Biden family was running an enterprise that was both corrupt and illegal. And there is no doubt that Joe’s position was the basis for that enterprise.
.
I think it is also clear that Joe was very much aware of what his close relatives were doing and played along. He helped the enterprise by taking Hunter along on Air Force Two. He had dozens of meetings with Hunter’s business partners. He participated in many phone calls with Hunter’s clients and at least a few dinners with clients. He forwarded inside info to Hunter via email accounts in an assumed name.
.
So Joe Biden was part of the corrupt enterprise. It is possible to do that without technically violating the law and even more possible to do so without violating the law in a manner that is provable in court. The only thing in doubt is whether he screwed up enough so that violations of the law can be proven. It is entirely plausible that he did screw up that badly due to a combination of greed, arrogance, and stupidity.
Steve,
I agree wholeheartedly. This contributes to my unwillingness to support experiments to ‘reform’ the system. If progressives want to try such things in their own backyards, more power to them.
An alternative to incarceration in prison is restitution to the crime victims. After all it is the victim who needs justice in these matters and not the state or society at large.
Recent failures for the state to protect against property crime and yet throw the book at perpetuators who might be instigating against the state speaks volumes as to where the current intelligentsia stands philosophically on these matters.
Mike,
The extent of willful blindness regarding the Biden’s has always astonished me. People have told me with a straight face that there was no reason to believe Hunter Biden wasn’t doing work worth a million dollars a year for Burisma. And then people just shrug when it comes out that Hunter has made 1.3 million selling his mediocre paintings. And apparently it is just happenstance that Weiss tried to set him up with a sweetheart deal that was in some ways completely unprecedented. And so on, and so on.
Give me an effing break already.
Yes, I’m saying this level of political corruption is common and BAU in DC. It’s not much different than election campaign donations. There can be no quid pro quo, but everyone knows there is, and everyone knows they can’t say it out loud or leave a paper trail. Perhaps Hunter made some mistakes or representations that cross the line for him (probably), but it also needs to be shown Biden did the same (not proven and unlikely to be IMO). We shall see.
.
Admittedly I’m not paying close attention to this. The question is what the legal standard is here, and whether prosecuting that standard doesn’t draw in half of DC critters.
.
If it is so easy to prove, then they need to prove it. I don’t think anything is holding back the Republicans (ha ha) if they can prove it. I’m not seeing that legal threshold yet, it may come eventually.
Tom,
Sure. It’s not like Merrick Garland is in Joe Biden’s back pocket or anything like that. Oh wait..
mark bofill (Comment #223584): “The extent of willful blindness regarding the Biden’s has always astonished me.”
.
Indeed. That is largely due to the media running interference for the Bidens. I expect that most voters simply do not know the extent of the evidence. I think that the only thing that will make an impact will be evidence against Joe that at a minimum comes very close to what would be needed to prove a case in court. That may of may not exist.
The problem is that it’s not illegal for somebody to pay $1M for Hunter’s painting, and it is difficult to write a law to prevent that level of corruption. It’s possible he is just a good painter, snicker. But that needs to be written down in a way to isolate those two legally and it is very hard to prevent that from being exploited by sophisticated politicians (who write those laws).
What I do support and think there is enough evidence for is sitting Biden down under oath and make him answer the relevant questions. He is being a not so artful dodger here and the media is giving him a free pass.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223585): “I’m saying this level of political corruption is common and BAU in DC. It’s not much different than election campaign donations.”
.
I don’t think that is the case. One HUGE difference is that the Bidens are getting money from foreign sources. Also, with campaign contributions there is usually no quid pro quo; the contributors only expect to put a thumb on the scale rather than purchasing specific results. The scale of the payments to the Bidens and the fact that they seem to have had satisfied customers suggest an actual quid pro quo. But that might not be provable. And with the Bidens the money went into their pockets rather than a campaign fund or private foundation. Another thing that seems unique about the Bidens is the money laundering.
.
Please note that I am not saying that the normal corruption is acceptable. Just that Biden’s corruption is shocking even by comparison.
.
What the heck is BAU? Oh. Business as usual?
Tom,
I wasn’t saying the Biden’s should be prosecuted because Hunter is selling his ‘art’ for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I’m saying people are being willfully blind if they believe the Bidens aren’t corrupt.
FWIW, I [also] believe corruption is [] widespread and common in DC. I’m not OK with it, but it’s not my top priority either. If the Bidens were careless enough or blatant enough about conducting their corruption, I’d be happy to see them nailed up for it.
mark bofill,
At least Hunter was both careless and blatant. Who BOTH takes millions from foreign sources for political influence AND doesn’t pay taxes on the income? Even the Clintons were not that brazen. The problem with proving Joe Biden received financial benefit is that it will be very difficult to track down all the money Hunter brought in and distributed. His complaints to his daughter about having to give ‘half his income’ to Joe Biden strongly suggest financial benefit went to Joe, but only things like bank records will be considered proof. If such proof exists (and it might!) it will likely only be after Joe Biden is out of office that it is disclosed.
Steve,
Yes. I’m not holding my breath, and I don’t think it will ever be proved. I think it’s obvious nonetheless though. Also, FWIW I don’t argue that Joe Biden himself personally profited. I don’t know if he did or not, but as far as I know evidence has not be found supporting the idea he personally profited.
Again. We are supposed to play chumps here. Biden’s family profited to the tune of maybe 20 million, and somehow that’s not corruption. It’s absurd.
It certainly looks like VP Biden did Burisma’s bidding when he issued his famous ultimatum to Ukraine in Dec. 2015. Although the ultimatum was delivered behind closed doors, it appears that nobody disputes that it happened; the story Biden told was not one of his fantasies.
.
It should be noted that the VP is not a free agent in such dealings. It was his job to communicate Obama administration policy to the Ukrainians. Of course, Biden was involved in formulating that policy and normally that would be the stage where a corrupt official would put his thumb on the scale.
.
But it appears that Biden went off the reservation when he delivered his ultimatum. At the time, administration policy was that the Ukrainians were making good progress and they should get the aid (a loan guarantee, I think). That seems to have still been the case after Biden’s visit to Ukraine:
https://nypost.com/2023/08/22/state-department-was-impressed-with-ex-prosecutor-biden-pressured-ukraine-to-fire-report/
.
That seems pretty damning. I suppose that it might be that within the Obama administration there were two different groups pushing different policies. But it hardly seems credible that one group was unaware of the other.
mark bofill (Comment #223593): “Biden’s family profited to the tune of maybe 20 million, and somehow that’s not corruption.”
.
That $20M was just from the former soviet states (Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan). There was also money from Romania and China. The latter has been alleged to be $29M. So maybe $50M or more total.
Mike, yeah. The trouble is that Zlochevsky directly contradicted that there was an arrangement between Burisma and Biden to Guiliani.
There are holes. The legal case may never be made. The simple indisputable stuff really ought to suffice to clue people in though, in my view.
mark bofill (Comment #223596): “The trouble is that Zlochevsky directly contradicted that there was an arrangement between Burisma and Biden to Guiliani.”
.
I did not know of that. And then there is the contradictory statements made by Zlochevsky to the FBI informant. Dueling hearsay.
—-
mark bofill: “The simple indisputable stuff really ought to suffice to clue people in though, in my view.”
.
Indeed. With most of the media being loyal members of Team Blue, it will likely take a smoking gun to close the case. Tranfers from one or more of Hunter’s shell companies into Joe’s and/or Jills S-corporations would do the trick.
Even money donated and an alleged measurable return for the money does not equate to corruption. The NRA will give money to one side who previously supported a favorable position to help them win, and when that side votes in their favor it’s not corruption. Especially if they previously held that position anyway. Only stupid people are going to get caught in the current system, and Hunter may be that person. I think Joe Biden was sophisticated enough to not leave a paper trail.
.
The system itself is corrupt here, but I’m not sure how it could be easily fixed. Ideas like disallowing donations and using public election funding seem unworkable, and allowing the NRA input on important related legislation that they have expertise in is not obviously bad, but buying votes is.
Yeah Tom, but at least in theory, lobbying is done in the broad daylight and disclosed as opposed to bribery which is not. [Lobbying also has associated rules and regulations.]
WSJ: Why Hurricanes Are Becoming More Intense
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/hurricane-idalia-why-climate-change-17ef3607?st=re7yvs8n5sko71j&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Hurricane intensity–a measure of wind speed–has risen over the past 20 years. Eight of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s. The number of major hurricanes–those rated Category 3 and higher–has also increased.”
.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/start-the-week-with-thb
NOAA 2023:
“We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes”
.
IPCC:
“[T]here is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, and particularly on which factor has dominated the observed increase (Ting et al., 2015) and it remains uncertain whether past changes in Atlantic TC activity are outside the range of natural variability.”
.
Nothing new here. The extreme weather fanatics are still at it with exploitive science by the power of suggestion.
Write up on the ongoing Ukrainian offensive that also touches on the use of tanks in a peer conflict
.
“. It must be appreciated that tanks always have been and always will be mass-consumption items. Tanks blow up. They are disabled. They break down and are captured. Tank forces attrit – much faster than people expect. Given that the brigades prepared for Ukraine’s assault on the Zapo line were significantly understrength in vehicles, it was simply irrational to expect them to have an oversized impact. This is not to say that tanks aren’t important – armor remains critical to modern combat – but in a peer conflict one should always expect to lose armor at a steady clip, especially when the enemy retains fires superiority.”
.
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/escaping-attrition-ukraine-rolls?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1068853&post_id=136284338&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3NDAxMzM5NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTM2Mjg0MzM4LCJpYXQiOjE2OTMzMjg4MTMsImV4cCI6MTY5NTkyMDgxMywiaXNzIjoicHViLTEwNjg4NTMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.6t_vTTxd9hR8p4uQADfStDtEffGh-yt8YF7QQJKO54o&utm_medium=email
Tom Scharf,
“The system itself is corrupt here, but I’m not sure how it could be easily fixed.”
.
Ummmm… quick firing squad execution of any elected official who takes a dime of income from any source beyond their government salary, instantly solves the problem. We would as a benefit get much better government. Politicians were imagined by the founders to be people who sacrificed income to hold public office. Been turned on its head.
.
Or as my mother (now dead 20 years) noted in my youth: Some politicians go to Washington who are not rich. None leave Washington who are not rich.
Mike M,
“So maybe $50M or more total.”
.
The total matters not at all. What matters is that it is now (as noted above) BAU for politicians in Washington DC to cash in on their political influence. I was shocked when I first traveled to Brazil 32 years ago how common this kind of blatant political corruption was. I am now shocked how common it is in Washington DC.
.
The entire Washington DC regime needs to be replaced.
If there is one single place in Florida where everyone here would vote for a hurricane to hit, it is where Idalia is heading now. There is almost nothing there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9522338,-83.8200926,105674m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
SteveF – ” I note the 7/11 (AKA Saudi) alternative is fast, cheap, and requires no skills or special training.” *Splorf* – too true.
.
My opinion on cost was informed by an Australian report to their ministry of justice which reviewed a lot of studies with a very critical and pessimistic eye. It would take me a while to find it as so far google didn’t provide. Cost for someone off track, skipping school etc I would guess (without actual reference but based on time on school board where such things came up) as around $20,000-40,000. I can think of circumstances where it would be higher (dealing with families rather than individuals). If it truly worked for diverting someone from crime to useful, tax-paying member of society, then I would say well worth it. (Prisons cost). But even if effective, it is still a struggle to scale.
Mark Bofill:
I don’t think my political beliefs should matter to anyone here, but they clearly matter to SteveF as his vitriol for me in every exchange we have *always* includes references to my supposed political beliefs and how I’m biased toward them. Is it an interesting topic? Not particularly.
So long as people keep posting delusional statements about my political beliefs to insult and dismiss me, my political beliefs will keep coming up as a topic. When people stop donig something so weird, the topic will stop coming up.
Tom Scharf,
I sold a boat (a 40 ft cruiser) a few years ago which was headed from South Central Florida (Stuart region) to the coastal Alabama region, crossing Florida via Lake Okeechobee and its connecting canals. When mapping the trip, I noted how little there was on the coast of Florida north of Tampa. Easier to cross from the Tampa area to civilization near Mobile AL.
.
Would have saved a lot of time, but the buyers were not comfortable with such a long ocean crossing. They found a couple of tiny ports along the Florida coast, and stayed close to land.
SteveF:
I said I’ll believe accusations against the Bidens when people present an organized case with citations to specific evidence demonstrating their accusations. This is what was done with accusations against Michael Mann. For accusations against Stephan Lewandowsky. For accusations made against John Cook. For accusations against Trump. And yes, for accusations against OJ. That’s how the legal system works.
This is a perfectly normal approach to things which people seem to accept in all the other topics I engage in. That you dismiss and ridicule it is baffling. You are effectively saying, “How dare you demand people present a coherent argument backed up with evidence?”
Brandon,
“I don’t think my political beliefs should matter to anyone here”
.
On that you are right, I could not give the tiniest shit what your political beliefs are. What I object to is dishonesty about those beliefs. Tell people what you think and defend what you think. Don’t be an asshole and claim to not hold strong beliefs which influence your evaluation of current events and influence your public statements. It is dishonest.
Brandon,
“And yes, for accusations against OJ. That’s how the legal system works.”
.
You are disconnected from reality. Nothing more to say. Explains why your are continuously obtuse about things most people find obvious
Nick Bright? Brandon?
FWIW, this isn’t much different than my view on the matter. It’s clear Hunter Biden was a drug addict who committed some offenses related to that, he’s admitted as much. It’s clear he was overpaid by Burisma because of who his father is. People do at times get paid solely for name recognition, but in this case it seems clear Hunter also sold the illusion of access/influence. All parties involved, including a star Republican witness, denied any actual access/influence was sold.
Anything beyond that though, I find murky at best. Was actual influence/access sold? I haven’t seen evidence to indicate that. Did Joe Biden intentionally help Hunter con people into overpaying him? I haven’t see evidence to indicate that. Did Joe Biden get Ukranian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin fired to prevent him from investigating corruption at Burisma? No, that’s an absolutely idiotic narrative.
At the time Shokin got fired, Joe Biden was the Vice President and didn’t get to make policy decisions. This means that narrative requires assuming he used some sort of informal influence. Okay, fine. But why would he fire Shokin? At the time, Shokin was notorious for *not prosecution corruption*. Many people, groups and countries across the world called for Shokin to be fired because he was enabling corruption. Ukraine was dealing with major corruption problems at the time, and Shokin was a well-known enabler of them.
Before the Biden “scandals” popped up, Shokin’s firing was widely praised as a step toward combatting corruption in Ukraine. If Joe Biden wanted to help protect any corruption at Burisma, the last thing he’d have wanted to do is get Shokin fired. And even if you don’t believe that, the fact is the people pushing this Shokin-firing narrative don’t even address the issue. Why? Because they know if they told you how corrupt Shokin was, you’d never buy the narrative.
As for any allegations about the Biden’s I haven’t mentioned, I honestly am not sure what they are. Obviously I’m not going to conclude the Bidens are guilty of them until I’m educated/informed about them. Such as possibly by Republicans making them putting their case together in an organized, coherent form complete with specific citations to evidence that supports their claims.
Lucia,
“bright”? I doubt it. More like dim.
Brandon,
You are way beyond help. Good grief, the Bidens are so obviously corrupt. Refusing to acknowledge that obvious corruption is in itself a strident political position. As I said upstream, IMHO, you are disconnected from reality. Which is consistent with your imaginings of OJ being innocent. Cio.
lucia, sorry about that. I had used the name Nick Bright for a gaming account then put / Brandon Shollenberger in the game’s forums so people could tell who I was. That was years ago, but for some reason on your site form autocompletion on one of my devices fills in the Name field with that. It doesn’t happen on any other sites or with any other devices.
It comes up so infrequently I always forget about it. I think I fixed the autocomplete entry so it won’t happen again.
No problem. I just was puzzled.
SteveF, given people like Tom Scharf hold basically the same view as I do on this issue, I think it’s clear the reason for your constant stream of vitriol directed at me has little to do with my view on any issue. I don’t know why you think the way you treat me is in any way appropriate or rational. It is not.
By the way, I actually said OJ was guilty not that he was innocent. You’d know that if you bothered to even try to understand what I say or think. I, like many other people, was not convinced of OJ’s guilt during his criminal trial because of how bungled it was. Then a wrongful death lawsuit was filed which made the case against OJ much more clearly. That convinced me of his guilt.
We are having a referendum on making a change to our Australian constitution on October 14th which is very divisive and upsetting.
A bit like you guys making a new amendment.
It would give special recognition to one disadvantaged racial group in Australia.
A bit like Black Lives Matter.
–
Which is funny considering the MLK dream of recognising a country where one is not judged by the colour of one’s skin.
Very feel good popular initially it is meeting increased resistance as some of the implications legally and morally sink in.
–
One of the comments by a proponent when I said it was divisive was along the lines of “ I do not know why you think it is divisive, could you explain”
–
It is a rhetorical question.
I know understand why Lucia does not like most rhetorical questions.
He is a good friend of mine though we share different political views.
My question is why do people ask questions like this of others rather than attempt to look in their mirror?
Not meant rhetorically but practically.
–
I remember being told on these pages that Russia’s energy industry would suffer no ill effects from the war. Russia will shift its markets to other buyers I was told. HAH!
From Barrons:
“On Tuesday, Gazprom said its net profit for January-June 2023 fell to 296 billion rubles ($3.1 billion) from 2.5 trillion rubles over the same period last year.
Russian gas giant Gazprom reported Tuesday a 8.5-fold drop in its net income for the first six months of the year as Europe moves away from Moscow’s energy supplies over Ukraine.”
https://www.barrons.com/news/gazprom-reports-sharp-net-income-fall-f5d3fbd1
Russell Klier:
I don’t know who told you Russia’s industry would suffer *no* ill effects from the war, but Russia has transitioned its energy market fairly effectively in a pretty short time. The west didn’t want to cause a worldwide crisis by preventing Russia from exporting any oil despite it no longer buying oil from Russia. It decided to set a soft market cap where western companies like insurance ones couldn’t give policies to ships carrying Russian oil if the price of the oil exceeded a certain value. This meant Russia had to sell oil cheaper in a lot of cases, and it also had to sell a lot of that oil to new markets.
There would obviously be some immediate harm to such a major policy/transition, but since it was implemented, Russia has managed to find lots of new markets in places like China and India which are happy to buy its oil. It’s also teamed up with Saudia Arabia to manipulate production rates to both countries’ advantage. It’s probably done lots of other things I’m not informed enough to know about.
The result is the Russian oil industry has already started showing signs of recovery. How well will it recover? I don’t know. But from what I’ve seen, it looks like Russian oil is more profitable in the last two months than at any point earlier in the year. As for ow much of a longterm impact Russia will feel by being forced to make these changes, I have no clue. I don’t think many people do. The shortterm impact was definitely significant, but so far the longterm impact seems difficult to predict.
China is absolutely loving it though.
This caught my eye:
“Putin Agrees to Visit China in First Trip Since Arrest Warrant. Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to make his first foreign trip since a warrant for his arrest on alleged war crimes was issued by the International Criminal Court.”
I bet he cancels. Despite originally saying he would attend three summits in the past few months, Putin canceled and stayed put.
1. Putin bails on visit to African Economic Summit:
“CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — Vladimir Putin has agreed not to attend an economic summit in Johannesburg next month that will include China’s premier and other world leaders because of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for the Russian president, South African authorities said Wednesday.”
2. Putin bails on visit to Turkey:
“Russia, Turkey agree on Putin visit to Turkey ‘soon,’ Interfax reports”
3. Putin Bails on visit to India:
“Russia’s Putin to not visit India for G20 summit next month”
Vladimir Putin hasn’t left Russia this year. Twitter [aka X] is rife with theories, including he is afraid of getting shot down in Russian airspace, he is afraid of being arrested, and he’s very sick. Whatever the reason Russia appears to be getting more isolated.
Links:
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-turkey-agree-putin-visit-turkey-soon-ifax-cites-kremlin-aide-2023-06-16/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/south-africa-says-putin-will-skip-a-johannesburg-summit-next-month-because-of-his-icc-arrest-warrant
https://www.reuters.com/world/russias-putin-discusses-bilateral-ties-brics-with-indias-modi-phone-call-2023-08-28/#:~:text=The%20Kremlin%2C%20which%20strongly%20denies,statement%20from%20the%20Indian%20government.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-29/putin-agrees-to-visit-china-in-first-trip-since-arrest-warrant#xj4y7vzkg
Brandon Shollenberger
“But from what I’ve seen, it looks like Russian oil is more profitable in the last two months than at any point earlier in the year.” [Do you have any links?]
I’m way out of my pay grade here but their second quarter was a disaster. Being more profitable than a $197 million loss is no triumph.
“Russia’s Gazprom (GAZP.MM) said on Tuesday it generated a net loss of 18.6 billion roubles ($197 million) in the second quarter of 2023” https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says-it-swings-q2-net-loss-exports-europe-slump-2023-08-29/
Also, you wrote: “Russia has managed to find lots of new markets in places like China and India which are happy to buy its oil.”
Yes, buying at a discount. Russia has to ship its oil halfway around the world to get to China and India and then sell it below what the Middle East is charging. And the Middle East has much lower shipping costs. I’m out of my league here too but I don’t see how this is a good long-term solution.
Russell Klier:
I don’t think we’ll see data on profits of the last two months until the next quarterly report, but we can get an idea of how things are going by looking at the price of the oil Russia is selling. Here’s one site we can see those prices at (it’s listed as Urals):
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/67
Take a look at the price of Russian oil over the last year. You’ll see a huge plummet after the soft pricing cap went into effect around the start of the year. However, in April the price went up quite a bit. It jumped again around July. It has even managed to exceed the soft cap the west had set (at least temporarily) and is now close to its pre-cap prices.
The Middle East and Russia have responded to the soft cap by working together to manipulate the supply of oil. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also work together to manipulate pricing to benefit both parties as well. That said, I don’t know how good a solution the alternatives Russia is working on will be as time goes on. I do not know anywhere near enough to be able to guess.
I just think it looks like before long Russia may well be able to sell roughly the same amount of oil at roughly the same prices as before. In that case, their gross income would remain roughly the same. If so, what will determine how much their net income recovers is how much higher their expenses remain.
Basically, are they suffering because the alternatives they’re working on are significantly worse for them, or is it just an adjustment period where they have to spend a lot of money to transition? I don’t know. I’m not sure anyone does. But the fact Russian oil prices have rebounded as much as they have throughout the year seems like a bad sign for the west.
What getting missed by a hurricane looks like…. out the porch door.
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1696856207586160897?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223623):
“https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/67
Take a look at the price of Russian oil over the last year.”
.
Interesting. I found that I had to click on “Urals” in the table to get the graph to display.
.
“You’ll see a huge plummet after the soft pricing cap went into effect around the start of the year.”
.
I guess you mean late 2022? The Urals price does not seem so different from the WTI price, although the cap maybe increased the difference by $5/barrel. The difference has since shrunk some, but that does not mean it will disappear.
.
Russell Klier was referring to natural gas. I think the situation there is much worse for Russia.
Mike,
My peabrain assumed ‘Gazprom’ meant ‘Gas’
Australia Voice Amendment: I suspect when people get behind a private voting booth in Australia that the virtue signaling ends. The wording on this matters, a lot. I would be very, very wary of anything that is open ended. Clever lawyers will drive a truck through any loophole and reparations are on the way. They will say anything about what the amendment wording “really means” today and totally change their tune the day it passes.
.
My impulse is always no to any amendment for that reason, mostly based on why is an amendment necessary instead of a law? See the situation Illinois is in with a state amendment to protect union pensions.
Russell,
Wild swings in fossil fuel * profits * aren’t unusual. I would look at the revenue first. The question for Russia is was this worth it? So far, not so much. They alienated a large segment of their potential customers for a little bit of Ukraine. Huge amounts of potential profit had to be dumped into a war cash incinerator. No business would choose that path.
.
The most revealing statement: “Gazprom has suspended the disclosure of its exports data”
The hurricane blew past us yesterday. It was about 90 miles offshore from Sarasota County. There has been significant public infrastructure damage on the keys, from Manasota Key to Longboat key. We had sustained tropical storm force winds five miles inland all night [I stayed up]. My rain gauge recorded 4.6 inches of rain, and we still have squalls rolling through. This was a nasty storm.
We moved to the West coast of Florida in 1978 partially because it had been free of major hurricane hits for 75 years [except for Donna, 1960 cat 3]. Then Charley, 2004 cat 4, hit Port Charlotte. It was billed as an unprecedented, once-in-a-lifetime event. Now, in quick succession, we have had Irma, 2017 cat 4, Ian 2022 Cat 4, and Idalia 2023, cat 4.
Maybe Michale Mann and AlGore are right.
Angech,
It certainly sounds like a bad idea to me. Tom is IMO correct; there’s way too much not nailed down there to even consider supporting it. One would really have no idea of what the heck one was supporting at the end of the day given the lack of details, and this bodes ill indeed.
Regarding your interlocutor asking ‘why you think this is divisive’: When I write (or speak), I try to spot check every sentence I am producing. Right now I’m glancing back through my comment. If somebody challenged me on why ‘it certainly sounds like a bad idea to me’, do I actually mean what I am saying? Would I care to and be able to support this utterance if needed? If the answers to these questions are not ‘yes’, then I rethink what I am saying and why. It doesn’t matter if someone asks a rhetorical question, just answer honestly. I recommend this approach.
Further, if you realize that you can’t support something you are saying very well, it gives you the initiative to rephrase before you speak to acknowledge your uncertainty and be open about it. Who knows, maybe one of the other people in the conversation will help you sort it out.
Alright that’s my free advice for the decade, all done.
Tom wrote: “The question for Russia is was this worth it?”
.
I guess that depends on what the goals are. If one of the goals is to further push the “west” into spending massive amounts of money it doesn’t have while recession looms large, then I believe not only Russia, but many others will consider it a great success.
angech,
Permanently enshrining special privileges for certain racial groups? Reminds me of “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.
.
It is a crazy, racist proposal. I hope for the sake of Australia that is loses by a wide margin in October.
.
Sounds like the left in Australia is as crazy-racists as the left in the USA.
DaveJR,
“If one of the goals is to further push the “west” into spending massive amounts of money..”
.
I doubt that has anything to do with it. The cost to Russia in treasure and international relations (and in blood!) is proportionally much higher. I take the Russians at their word: Russia will not accept a NATO aligned country on its boarder. They have been very clear about that since the USSR broke up.
.
I hope the knuckleheads at the State Department come to their senses before Russia starts using tactical nukes. Not sure if they are capable of coming to their senses.
DaveJR,
If Russia (who has an economy the size of Italy) thinks it can win an economic war with the west then lets find out who can shovel more cash into the fire. Russia will lose that contest according to every sane economist. The point being that trying to damage the west economically will only end up damaging them more, it’s a very bad plan. I very seriously doubt that was the game plan.
.
The plan appeared to be to make the West suffer near term by intentionally restricting gas supplies to keep them out of the conflict for enough time to allow Russia their blitzkrieg win. That didn’t work, so it’s time for plan B. I haven’t figured out what plan B is, but it isn’t a cash burning contest.
Tom Scharf,
I think plan B is hunker down and keep the Ukrainians from regaining much territory, and to start using tactical nukes if the West gives the Ukrainians enough weapons, training, and logistical support that the Russians can’t stop a Ukrainian advance. The Russians keep saying they will use nukes if they think they have no other choice. I believe them.
Unfortunately both sides are shoveling lots of people into the fire for maintaining an effective stalemate.
SteveF (Comment #223636): “I think plan B is hunker down and keep the Ukrainians from regaining much territory, and to start using tactical nukes if the West gives the Ukrainians enough”.
.
I think Russia plans to hunker down and wait for the West to get tired and force a settlement in which Russia gets to keep what they have taken. Then rebuild their military and try again for the rest of Ukraine at some favorable time in the future.
.
They might well use nukes to defend Crimea. But nukes are very difficult to use on offense and self defeating if you plan to hold the territory you take.
The Tampa area had way more storm surge than usual, especially for a storm with not a lot of wind locally and that was so far off shore. Lots of coastal flooding. Storm surge prediction has historically been very unreliable so most people disregard those warnings.
.
Tracking prediction of this storm was very good (3 day out track was spot on), strength prediction which has also been historically inaccurate was once again not so great. It ended up intensifying much more than initially expected, but the one day out strength forecast was good. They underestimated Ian last year and Idalia this year.
A footnote to the earlier discussion – the individual in question that had been denied bail has been released on bail today. Harrison Floyd.
Mike M.:
Yup. I couldn’t remember exactly when the cap went into effect. I knew it was somewhere around the start of the year. Looks like it was at the start December. And yeah, the price may not keep recovering, or it may only do so at lower production rates (since Russia and Saudia Arabia have agreed to cut rates to manipulate supply levels). Similarly, the expenses that came with such a major transition may remain significant in the longterm. I dunno what the longterm impacts will be.
The company he cited deals with both oil and natural gas so oil is a big factor in their profit levels. In fact, it’s the biggest factor because The west went after Russian oil more aggressively than its natural gas. Even now, the EU is still buying some Russian natural gas. It says it’s aiming to stop within a year or so. but the transition hasn’t been as abrupt or severe for Russia. I think their profits were more focused on oil in the first place to, though don’t hold me to that.
mark bofill:
That result shows how much of a nothingburger the whole thing was. As soon as he got a lawyer, he got bail. Turns out every defendant who got themselves a lawyer got released. There’s a small caveat as that article also mentions how the issue of bail would have been addressed again when he went in front of the judge assigned his case (rather than just a judge handling his initial processing) so maybe he’d have gotten out anyway.
Still, I think the real lesson here is if he couldn’t afford a lawyer (I understand he got help from donations to get one), he could well have been forced to stay in jail. The whole race thing seems a canard. To me, the real message here should be, “People with money don’t have to stay in jail.”
This isn’t even about the cashless bail issue where the wealthier you are, the more easily you can post bail. This is about access to the legal system at all. This shows how you can have to spend money you can never get back just to hire a lawyer to get equal treatment. Say what you want about bail reform. I think we can all agree a person sitting in jail because he doesn’t have legal representation is bad.
Heck, the judge apparently even told this guy the system wouldn’t provide him a lawyer at all. That’d mean if he didn’t pay for one himself, he’d get no legal representation at all.
Brandon,
Re: nothingburger, the original commentary was essentially a mediocre joke to begin with, it wasn’t meant to be analyzed as a serious topic.
I’d thought that the Sixth amendment guaranteed everyone the right to a lawyer and that courts would appoint a lawyer for defendants who couldn’t afford one (public defenders I think). Maybe there are exceptions or edge cases I’m unaware of though.
Mike M,
I take the Russians at their word….. they have raised the use of nuclear weapons many times. They could well use them.
.
I also reject the “rest of Ukraine” hypothetical; I see zero evidence for this.
SteveF (Comment #223644): “I take the Russians at their word….. they have raised the use of nuclear weapons many times. They could well use them.”
.
Putin has not altered Russian nuke policy, which is that they are only to be used to defend the motherland. So to take them at their word means no offensive use of nukes. Putin likes to mention nukes because he knows it will make people in the West wet their pants.
.
SteveF: “I also reject the “rest of Ukraine” hypothetical; I see zero evidence for this.”
.
Oh come on. Trying to overrun Ukraine is evidence that Putin wants to take Ukraine. Putin has repeatedly said that Ukraine is part of Russia. So take him at his word. At a minimum he wants a puppet government in Kiev.
mark bofill (Comment #223643): “the original commentary was essentially a mediocre joke to begin with, it wasn’t meant to be analyzed as a serious topic.”
.
Yep. Although I would say it was a notch above mediocre. 🙂
mark bofill:
There are two big caveats to that, one of which applies here. That one is you’re only guaranteed a public defender if you cannot afford a lawyer. To get a public defender, you have to show your finances to the court and have it determine you can’t afford a lawyer. If you can afford a lawyer but don’t want to lose a ton of money, the courts will say, “Tough luck, represent yourself then.” Defendants can be forced to lose a significant portion of their savings over a charge that gets dismissed before reaching trial because the case was too weak simply because the alternative is to sit in jail with no legal representation.
The other caveat is the word “eventually.” People in Oregon had to file a federal, habeus corpus lawsuit because hundreds of people would sit in jails for potentially weeks before a public defender was given to them. Oregon argued it had no choice because it didn’t have enough public defenders. The “good” news is a federal judged recently ruled Oregon could only hold people for 10 days without a lawyer before having to release them.
The bad news is cops can arrest you, and if you can’t afford a lawyer, they can hold you in jail for a week and a half with no legal remedy. Imagine being arrested on a bogus charge and being told you have to sit in jail for a week and a half without even being able to speak to someone about your legal options.
Bail reform has gotten a lot of attention lately, but the pay to win nature of the legal system goes way beyond it.
Mike M:
What, you mean we shouldn’t believe Putin will stop at some arbitrary point after he’s invaded Ukraine three separate times, each time promising it was the last?
In 2008 Putin launched an invasion into Georgia. In 2014 it launched an invasion into Donbass and Crimea. In 2022 it launched an invasion into basically all of Ukraine. I think it’s obvious Putin will conquer whatever he can conquer.
Edit to clarify my wording. The invasion of Donbass and Crimea happened concurrently so you could maybe count it as one incident. The Georgian invasion was against a different country.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223627)
“Australia Voice Amendment: I suspect when people get behind a private voting booth in Australia that the virtue signaling ends. The wording on this matters, a lot. I would be very, very wary of anything that is open ended. Clever lawyers will drive a truck through any loophole and reparations are on the way. They will say anything about what the amendment wording “really means” today and totally change their tune the day it passes.”
–
Virtue signalling ending? It will be a close call unfortunately.
–
MB “It doesn’t matter if someone asks a rhetorical question, just answer honestly. I recommend this approach.”
–
Thanks free advice gratefully received. I think my best approach will be to say as little as possible and hope Tom is right.
–
SteveF “Sounds like the left in Australia is as crazy-racists as the left in the USA.”
–
And in bigger numbers.
Full of imagined guilt for a past they did not commit.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223648): “Putin will conquer whatever he can conquer.”
.
How about that. We agree.
mark bofill, oh! I forgot one other important caveat when it comes to the right to counsel. That right only applies if you face jail time. You don’t get a court-appointed lawyer for most misdemeanor charges.
A person could reasonably feel arresting and prosecuting those shoplifters is a good idea but arresting them, prosecuting them and convicting them without them ever having access to a lawyer is not.
Brandon,
While I suspect that I do not agree with your views on the costs of our legal system, I’m not sufficiently invested to pursue a discussion with you about it. I’ll pass. Too little free time, too many unwatched episodes of the show I’m bingeing. Thanks though.
“I see zero evidence for this”
As a matter of interest, what would count as evidence for you? I dont see things (eg https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/moldova-next-belarus-president-map-russia-invasion-ukraine/) that would be conclusive evidence, but to my mind, Putin’s essays on russian-ukrainian unity, the Russian Mir speeches etc are quite a long way from zero evidence.
mark bofill:
Could you at least specify what point you think you don’t agree with me on? You don’t have to go into any detail or arguments. I think most of what I said is pretty straightforward descriptions of the legal standard, so I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “the costs of our legal system.”
The main thing to me is to understand there are many caveats to getting a public defender. Three I mentioned are: 1) They don’t have to give you a lawyer right away. 2) You don’t get a public defender if you’re not facing jail time. 3) You don’t get a public defender if the courts decide you can afford to pay for one yourself.
Those are the points that matter the most to me. The rest of what I wrote is just extra context as to why I think those things are important issues. For instance, there’s a guy in Oregon who sat in jail for over six weeks without getting a lawyer on an assault charge that likely wouldn’t even result in jail time if convicted.
My guess is Harrison Floyd would still be in jail today if he didn’t hire a lawyer. The courts said they wouldn’t give him one, and there’s no chance he could have successfully defended himself pro se.
Brandon, you’re correct on those three points of course.
I said ‘I suspect’ I don’t agree because I’m not sure precisely what this means:
But seriously; it doesn’t matter to me what you mean.
mark bofill, I’m glad to hear we agree on the important stuff. As for the other part, I know you said you didn’t care, but in case you change your mind or someone else does, I will say what I mean. I think the idea people can be forced to pay money or suffer extreme disadvantages in criminal trials is absurd. I am of the opinion any criminal defendant should be allowed a public defender for any criminal charge.
When it comes to cases like these shoplifters, I would like to see the people prosecuted. I’d just also like to see them be advised and defended by legal counsel.
From the KyivPost: “In a calculated “screw-you” to the Kremlin, Ukraine’s government has trucked in dozens of captured and destroyed tanks, artillery pieces, and armored personnel carriers once owned by the Russian army and parked it all up and down a little more than a half kilometer of the acacia-lined Khreshchatyk.”
“On Independence Day, Kyiv’s main street display of Russian wreckage tells graphic stories of violent destruction and die-hard Ukrainian resistance.”
I had to chuckle. It’s a military parade where the burned-out Russian tanks are sitting still and the people walk by.
Image and link to the article: https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1697145036591272408?s=20
I noted this post (Comment #223634): “Russia will not accept a NATO aligned country on its boarder. They have been very clear about that since the USSR broke up.”
And I thought someone should inform Russia that Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, and now Finland are all NATO-aligned countries on its border. Further, both Lituania and Poland border Kaliningrad. And finally, someone should inform Russia that NATO has become a lot more bellicose and better armed in the last 18 months.
A follow-up on the above post “Russia will not accept a NATO aligned country on its boarder.
Finland and Estonia not only border Russia but they are located less than 100 miles from St. Petersburg.
Russel Klier:
An aditional thing to consider is almost every country on Ukraine’s western border is in NATO. The more of Ukraine Russia conquers, the more it'[l bring itself closer to bordering additional NATO states. If it conquers the entirety of Ukraine, it’ll add the NATO countries of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania.
If you don’t want something next to you, moving toward it seems like a strange idea.
Mike M,
Russia has declared the occupied regions to be officially Russian territory, and issued Russian passports to residents. So part of the Russian ‘Motherland’. No need for Putin to change the declared policy for ‘defensive use’ of nuclear weapons.
.
If you have not already seen it, I recommend Kurt Schlichter’s column on choosing a strategy on the Ukraine war. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2023/08/31/time-to-choose-what-to-do-about-ukraine-n2627707
SteveF (Comment #223661): “I recommend Kurt Schlichter’s column on choosing a strategy on the Ukraine war.”
.
He does a good job of explaining why none of the options are good, but has nothing constructive to offer as to what to do about it. The article seems to imply that only one option is at all viable:
The problem is that there is no way to do that. That might change once the results are in on the counteroffensive, but I don’t see a way to do it as things stand.
Mike M,
“The problem is that there is no way to do that.”
.
I agree there is no way to do that with the current administration in office.
.
As to whether or not the outcome of the “spring-summer-autumn-…..” offensive will make any difference: I doubt it. NATO and the Biden administration continue to up the ante with promises to Ukraine of more advanced weapons (like F-16 fighters) and associated training. No matter the loss of life, the Ukraine is unlikely to consider negotiating so long as they hope enough new weapons will eventually drive the Russians out. So the current path is what Schlichter describes as “option 4″…. the most costly and most dangerous in terms of escalation. Not to mention leading to the greatest loss of life.
The mystery deepens: According to data from Russian public sources, 5 Russian military aircraft were damaged or destroyed in Pskov as a result of a nighttime UAV attack. Pskov airfield is located 700 kilometers from the Ukrainian border.
Either Ukraine has developed super long-range drones [doubtfull] or these things are being launched from somewhere else. Estonia, inside Russia or the Gulf of Finland, are obvious suspects.
Mike M,
You have said making predictions is hard, and I agree, but I will make one: a year from now we will be having very much the same conversation, with the only real difference being another $100 billion spent and another 50,000 or 100,000 dead soldiers (both Russian and Ukrainian). That is, assuming there hasn’t been by then in a nuclear holocaust.
.
And 3 million more illegal aliens will have enter the USA by then.
Edit to my above post, from official Russian TV: “If we can’t handle drones, how will we deal with F-16s?”
angech,
California here is a good example. It is the bluest of blue states and they constantly spout politically correct rhetoric reinforced by their media. However when it came time to vote on an amendment to not allow racial preferences in college admissions it passed by a wide margin. They tried again recently to revoke it and that failed by a narrower margin. The recent SC decision to end racial preferences nationally was met with exactly zero real outrage.
.
On some subjects there actually is a silent majority, and this happens most often when there are social forces at play trying to suppress counter opinion by shame. The media then climbs on board and before you know it angech is not even allowed to debate the subject in polite company. All the angech’s then get behind a privacy curtain to vote and surprisingly the vote fails even though “everyone” was supposedly for it.
.
But the wording of the amendment matters. What the activists want is something that sounds innocent and socially unobjectionable but carries a trojan horse with a legal nuclear weapon in it.
.
When a bunch of states outlawed racial preferences here with state amendments they wisely chose to use almost the exact wording of the Constitution:
“the State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”.
Phil,
“As a matter of interest, what would count as evidence for you?”
.
Putin saying he wants to take over a list of countries.
F-16’s are a lot easier to shoot down than locally launched small drones. I suspect Ukraine is simply smuggling in these drones and releasing them locally. You can’t smuggle in a F-16.
.
Also a F-16 isn’t very useful unless you bring the rest of the US Air Force and combined arms with it. We shall see, but I predict the likelihood of low passes by an F-16 over the Russian front line to be exactly zero. I doubt they will get within 40 miles of a Russian S-400.
Related: Reviving Racial Preferences in California
Democrats in Sacramento try again to override the voters and the state and U.S. constitutions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-racial-discrimination-state-constitution-amendment-aca7-d1577878?st=bqrtrrodqnzgkdx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
.
This is the wording they now want to use for racial preferences:
“[T]he State may use state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.”
SteveF (Comment #223663): “I agree there is no way to do that with the current administration in office.”
.
I am not sure what you mean. If you mean that the current administration has no interest in ending the war, I think you are likely correct. If you mean that there is a practical way to end the war now if only Biden would do it, then I don’t see what that might be.
SteveF (Comment #223665): “a year from now we will be having very much the same conversation, with the only real difference being another $100 billion spent and another 50,000 or 100,000 dead soldiers”.
.
I would not bet against that, but the optimist in me thinks (and hopes) you might be wrong.
.
SteveF: “And 3 million more illegal aliens will have enter the USA by then.”
.
I hope it is only 3 million.
Tom,
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Sounds pretty questionable to me.
Mike M.,
“If you mean that the current administration has no interest in ending the war, I think you are likely correct.”
.
Yes, I mean the Biden administration has no interest in ending the war. Or in Schlichter’s list of options, they are permanently wedded to “option 4”.
.
The Biden administration could pursue option 3, at least informally and behind the scenes, but I very much doubt they will ever do that. Something like: “President Zelenskyy, you need to understand that there is a limit to how much longer voters in the USA will support the high level of expenditures supporting the Ukraine. We think you need to consider how you will approach negotiations with the Russians and what compromises you can accept.” And: “Mr. Putin, we believe only negotiations and compromise will bring peace. We think you need to consider how to approach negotiations with the Ukrainians and what compromises you can accept.”
I’m talking about these smallish drones that carry things like hand grenades and small explosives. You can drop this type of ordinance on a parked aircraft and potentially destroy it. Much easier than a tank. There are literally a 1000 videos of drones dropping grenades on Russians.
.
It’s a major game changing threat. Artillery spotting drones are pervasive. I’ve seen them taken out by MANPADS, electronic warfare, and other drones.
.
WSJ today:
“Russia is targeting Ukrainian troops and vehicles using heavy artillery fire guided by aerial drones and explosive drones directed from the ground by pilots wearing video goggles. In some places, there are so many drones flying that the Ukrainians call the phenomenon “Boryspil,” after the country’s main international airport in Kyiv.”
.
Long range anti-aircraft missiles can’t target something as small as this type of drone. It may be a software limitation more than anything. If you launch a smallish drone locally (miles away) versus trying to fly a F-16 500 miles over enemy territory towards an airfield then it won’t last long and you lose a pilot and an expensive aircraft. Losing a 100 $5000 drones that can be smuggled in a van is another story.
.
So launch 20 smuggled drones with explosives at an airfield. Anti-drone warfare is in its infancy, and all the old anti-aircraft weaponry can’t deal with it, or it’s just not economically to shoot down a $5000 drone with a $100K missile.
.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/heres-what-f-16s-will-and-will-not-mean-for-ukraines-fight-against-russia/
“Russia’s employment of the S-400 surface-to-air missile system is a major threat to all Ukrainian jets, including the F-16, as it can target aircraft at medium and high altitude across a large portion of the country even while based in Belarus, Crimea, or Russian territory.”
Mike M,
Or as Herbert Stein liked to say: “If something can’t go on forever it will stop.” NATO, the Russians, and the Ukrainians all need to understand this, and plan realistically for it to stop.
So it seems you are saying that F-16s are much easier (and more economical) to shoot down than small drones with anti-aircraft missiles. Probably true. It doesn’t mean that F-16’s are easier to shoot down than small drones in general though. Here is a story about Ukranians using machine guns to shoot down drones. Sounds easier to me, anecdotally, and sort of lines up with my intuitions. There are lots of other anti drone options as well I read.
Tom and Mark,
I have no military credentials, but it seems obvious… You use a fleet of $5,000 drones to wipe out the $100 million S-400 missile system and then send in the F-16s. Ukraine destroyed an S-400 just last week in Crimea.
I probably should have used different words. The shorter answer is that there a zillion drones flying around the front lines in Ukraine right now and very few combat aircraft. The combat aircraft don’t fly because they are too vulnerable.
.
But drones are also vulnerable. I saw one video where they said the average life of a drone in Ukraine was about 2 days. Drones just have lower replacement cost, but they also can’t carry 500 lb bombs.
.
The Russians have spend decades building a multi-layered defense against expensive combat aircraft, similar to the West’s efforts. My contention is you aren’t just going to fly any fancy plane through that without a major effort to eliminate that threat first.
Fair enough.
Tom Scharf,
“The combat aircraft don’t fly because they are too vulnerable.”
.
Yes, and F-16’s are indeed vulnerable. Ukraine will need to be very careful with how those planes are used, if only to avoid losses. Of course, they will likely not enter service in the Ukraine for some months, so for now the issue is moot.
SteveF (Comment #223676): “Or as Herbert Stein liked to say: “If something can’t go on forever it will stop.” NATO, the Russians, and the Ukrainians all need to understand this, and plan realistically for it to stop.”
.
Of course. I am sure that all the parties understand that. The issues are where it stops, how it stops, and what comes next.
.
Our involvement in Afghanistan had to stop. But it did not have to stop the way it did.
.
The Ukrainians want the war to stop in a way that allows them to thrive as a fully independent country. The Russians want the war to stop in a way that leads to effective Russian control of Ukraine. I fear that Biden wants the hot war to stop by transitioning to a frozen conflict that can go on for decades.
Steve, a comment on your Townhall post.
.
Townhall “Russians have done what Russians do, dig in. Their defenses are tough, and the Ukrainians are not skilled enough in combined arms operations to break through them”
.
Townhall makes the same mistake of listening to the US general staff as do almost all of the media regarding “combined arms”.
.
Ukraine can’t do combined arms maneuvers vs the Russians because they don’t have the force structure to do combined arms maneuvers vs the Russian defense.
.
Combined arms requires infantry, armor, artillery, and air superiority at the point of contact where the lead units are able to breakthrough the lines into the rear areas. Ukraine does not have superiority in any of these except perhaps infantry and is not equipped to penetrate multiple lines of dense minefields while under devastating Russian artillery and air attacks.
.
The US is requiring Ukraine to refight the WWII battle of Kurst and Ukraine is going to see the same outcome as did the Germans; total disaster.
Ed Forbes,
“total disaster”
Do you realize how many times you have predicted a great calamity was about to befall the Ukrainian army? Hell, I remember about ten “pincer movements “ and “caldrons” alone. Do you know how many of these calamities came to pass? I do. None, zero, zilch, nada. If I were as bad at making predictions as you are I’d stop making predictions.
Breaking News !!!
.
For the 10th time, Ukraine fully captures Robotino, opening the way to the Russian first line of defense!
Ed… You seem to be trying to make a sarcastic point. Or not. Perhaps you could elaborate what you mean?
It is Robotyne I think. Not clear how significant it might be. The fog of war is almost opaque.
Steve F,
I know the news says Ukraine captured a city that goes by various names (Robotino, Robotyne… etc.).
What I don’t understand is the “for the 10th time” bit in Ed’s comment. It has the scent of being an attempt as some sort of sarcasm in response to Russel’s observing (correctly)
.
Mike M,
The least good outcome for the whole world is a frozen Korea-like conflict that drags on until we are both 50 (or 100!) years dead. As to what will allow the Ukraine to thrive: obviously, they need to be able to promulgate their own laws and political structures. They need a commitment to liberty and economic growth. That doesn’t mean they need control 100% of the area that is nominally Ukrainian territory. I think they can thrive without the Crimea or the eastern 150 Km of land area. They can’t thrive if dominated politically by Russia.
.
Would the Red States in the USA thrive economically and politically without political connection to the Blue States? I think it is pretty obvious they would. If dominated politically by blue states? Vice-versa? Not so much, either way. What I think really matters is that nation-states have a population dedicated to broad common goals and with a broad consensus about values and the country’s future. Unfortunately, there seem to be many countries today where that is not the case, including the USA.
Lucia,
I suspect it was an attempt at sarcasm. I don’t know anything about Robotyne or its importance (or lack thereof). I was just puzzled by the name ‘Robotino’, which I had only seen as ‘Robotyne’.
I see speculation about what Russia wants to end the war and I think that is misguided. In the best of times, Russia is a hotbed of palace intrigue and treachery. Recently it has degraded into murder and rebellion. The various power factions all want the war to end in a way that enhances their position.
I will make a guess at what one of the factions wants…. Putin.
Putin wants the war to end with Putin not dead. Further, to remain not dead, he has to retain his power. In order for Putin to remain not dead and in power, the war has to end in a way that looks like Russia won, looks like it to the Russian people, and looks like it to the rest of the world. An ending that looks like anything but a Russian win and Putin is out of power [and soon to be dead]. He knows he can’t get a win right now so he’s biding his time with a stalemate. There has been a stalemate for about ten months and he is not dead, so stalemate it is.
Blocking report: Two of you (Tom and Brandon) got blocked for “bad cache request”…. whatever that means. I’ve white listed your emails.
Russell Klier, something to consider is Putin’s approval rate in Russia hasn’t been as impacted by the failure to win easily as people may have expected. Russians don’t seem too upset about the limited/slow progress because thus far it hasn’t been too bad for their economy. One big advantage Russia had going into this war was low levels of national debt. I believe in terms of debt to GDP ratio, there’s was one of the lowest. Because of that, they’ve been able to borrow lots of money to cover for their increased spending/loss of revenue. Russia may be able to operate at a deficit like what they currently have for many years before facing serious economic harm.
Population concerns seem less promising though. Russia’s population was already going down before this war started. With how many people fled the country because of the war and the number of men called to fight in it, there has been a population strain. If Putin gets forced to do another round of conscriptions, that may cause some real harm that might cause more public unrest.
Something I’m curious about is if there’s ever a way this plays out where China eventually decides to move against Russia. I doubt it, but it’s hard to imagine Russia could hope to stop any Chinese aggression. Russia is already incredibly dependent on China so even just losing its support could potentially be catastrophic.
You say Robotino, I say Robotyne.
The confusion applies to many villages in Eastern Ukraine. The Russian population and Ukrainian populations have different spellings for the same town.
Robotyne is Ukrainian and Robotino is Russian. Here is an article from Sputnik:
“Russian Forces Obliterate Ukrainian Assault Units in Rabotino”
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230825/russian-forces-obliterate-ukrainian-assault-units-in-rabotino-1112881608.html
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223693): “is Putin’s approval rate in Russia hasn’t been as impacted … thus far it hasn’t been too bad for their economy.”
.
I have doubts about both of those claims. I am not saying they are wrong, just that the uncertainty is very large. I don’t think we know the impact of Putin’s popularity since opinion polls in Russia are not reliable. Are there reliable numbers on the economic impact? The last I heard, the impact was that of a really bad recession. Very significant, but nothing like what Biden bragged about early on.
Yay for Rare Breed Triggers. TRO against ATF.
mark bofill,
I expect three things to eventually happen:
1) The 5th circuit will block ATF permanently.
.
2) The Supreme Court will refuse to review the 5th circuit ban (takes 4 to hear a case, and only 3 will vote to hear it).
.
3) Congress may revise the definition of a machine gun to set a maximum repeat rate by any mechanism. (Maybe 3 rounds per second?)
.
I know you disagree, but I suspect there is a strong consensus in the USA that 10 rounds per second fire rate is not needed for private citizens. Heck, it is probably not needed for SWAT teams!
Mike M,
Like information on the war in Ukraine, current information on Russia’s economy is very likely going to be far less than accurate. It is clear Gazprom is selling a lot less natural gas (credit: Joe Biden). OTOH, most analyses I have seen (especially those prior to the war) say that Russia is far more internally sourced for industrial inputs than most countries are. The MSM will, of course, say the poor Russian people are “suffering terribly” because of the war (and that Putin is the second coming of Hitler….. combined with the worst traits of both Stalin and the devil himself).
.
I think it is just about impossible to evaluate the economic situation in Russia.
I believe China and Russia are allies of convenience. Too much independent ambition on both sides and not much shared culture. I’d prefer to fight Russia over China, and hopefully neither.
Tom Scharf,
“I believe China and Russia are allies of convenience.”
.
Sure, and the Biden administration is doing everything in its power to encourage that alliance.
.
I think plenty of countries (including Russia, China, India, and others) object to the USA dominating the “international global order”. This is not going to change soon. See, for example, India’s recent suggestion that restrictions on emissions which impact global warming should be strictly per-capita, not total emissions. In other words: “USA, go f*ck yourselves”.
Steve,
Illegal overstepping of bureaucratic authority is wrong any way you slice it. If people believe FRTs should be illegal, Congress should make them illegal. Simply because you believe most people would support making them illegal does not make it OK for a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to disregard the law and [effectively] make their own [laws].
Steve,
And yes, I think it is ‘needed’. Recreation, hunting, and even self defense are all nice, but the second amendment exists in large part to keep tyranny in check. As Joe Biden and other leftist politicians tell us, the government has nukes and F-15s. We don’t need the scales tipped any further against the population in my view.
The NYT hops on the Kia / Hyundai are forcing people to steal cars bandwagon. Interesting logic:
“And then there are the follow-on incidents. Stolen Kias and Hyundais have been involved in numerous deadly crashes, armed robbery sprees and other crimes around the country. “We’re recovering guns out of a lot of Kias that are stolen,” Diaz said.
Seattle is one of several cities that are suing Kia and Hyundai, and they make a compelling case. The carmakers should have known they were creating unsafe products. The costs of their decision have had far-reaching effects on public safety and city resources, and there’s no telling when the thefts might abate. Kia and Hyundai, not the public, should bear the cost of their irresponsible decision to sell cars without immobilizers.
…
It may also be difficult for cities to prove that the rise in thefts is primarily Kia and Hyundai’s fault.
…
There’s a chance that Kia and Hyundai will escape some of the blame for these thefts because there’s a juicier target for politicians to go after: social media platforms, where the how-to videos have circulated.
… (get ready for this one, you have been warned…)
This strikes me as bizarre blame shifting. It’s Kia and Hyundai, not TikTok, that sold theft-prone cars.”
.
They are making people get illegal guns and do robberies as well! Bad Kia! Bad Hyundai! The perps are the victims of global capitalists. For some really odd reasons I can’t even begin to fathom South Korea is not having a similar crime wave in their country. I guess we will never know why, academics are unsure because it is complicated and requires further study.
Woohoo!
“Disney stock just hit another nearly ten year low. The company is in danger of falling below $80 a share for the first time since January of 2014. Look at this chart. Complete and total disaster.”
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1697653349791805563?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
Tom Scharf,
We might hope the courts would laugh these suits out of the courtroom. But, no, the crazies have taken over the asylum, so there will be punishment, no matter the insanity of it all.
.
And yes, of course gun manufacturers are liable for most murders, because, well, they actually make guns. 😉
.
There is nothing anyone can do about the profoundly stupidity of the left.
marc bofill,
“…the second amendment exists in large part to keep tyranny in check.”
.
Sure. But I think 40 million people with 3 or 4 round per second semi’s will not be much different in inhibiting tyranny than 40 million with the option to reach 10 rounds per second.
.
Biden, long descending into dementia, phantasies over F-15’s killing his (deplorable! MAGA! racist! Cornpop!) political opponents, but that is just not going to happen. Most military pilots wouldn’t climb into the plane to kill US citizens. Most military commanders would refuse to follow the order to have them do it.
Steve,
Probably. FRT’s are not a huge point either way, (A) I don’t think all that many people will buy these things, and (B) when and if the day comes where people need to fight the government, if there is need of full auto weapons a drop in full auto sear isn’t that complicated a thing to make AFAICT.
Personally, I like to err on the side of keeping people well armed. I think the day will never come precisely because the US populus IS [so] well armed, and wanna-be tyrants know without having to even articulate the point to themselves that subjugation would never work and isn’t an option. I’d like to keep it that way. But that’s just my opinion.
I would like to also note, I find it outrageous that the President of the United States should utter such inane threats. Idiocrasy in action…
Disney stock will fall until they 1) stop tormenting their park patrons with nickel-and-dime torture, and 2) stop producing 100% garbage movies and garbage TV shows.
.
Snow white is really an olive-skinned Latina? The Dwarfs aren’t actually dwarfs, but random creatures of dubious sexuality? Please spare us this garbage.
.
Disney movies have become stupid, grotesquely PC, preachy, and worst of all, utterly boring. Disney is lost, and it seems to have no interest in finding its way back to profitability. Disney deserves to fail, and unless it changes fundamentally, fail it will.
mark bofill,
Biden is severely demented, which explains most of his bizarre comments.
Last comment before I drop the subject: This supports my argument that it’s not that difficult to figure out when the SHTF how to go full auto easily. It’s not the technical difficulty that prevents it or expense or anything like that, it’s the extremely severe legal penalties involved in doing so.
Disney films have always been preachy, just more aimed at universal values previously.
Tom Scharf,
Please explain why you think famous Disney films were preachy (Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Lady and the Tramp, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, etc). Seems to me they mostly just told fairy tails.
.
I can’t see that recent Disney films have any possibility of making much money. They seem designed to condescend to and simultaneously offend the very audience they need to have watch their films.
Tom Scharf,
Let’s just say that Disney is not going to be releasing a film like the original Toy Story any time soon. The “you are a toy” scene is far too reminiscent of a sensible conservative talking to a mindless progressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDUV00sRa5s
Preachy as in always had a moral to tell. Those morals were almost always universal and unoffensive to everyone. Perhaps they talked a lot about class and prejudice. Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King. I don’t think we are going to see stuff like that out of Disney anytime soon either.
.
It’s not that they don’t want to do classic Disney necessarily IMO, it’s that they have a vocal minority in the company who is prioritizing trendy new wave morals. Whatever, I’m not paying them to lecture me on divisive moral issues that they seem to think they need to jam down my throat. They remove this stuff for China curiously. I’m sure it’s hard to sit in a creative meeting and try to tone down the wokesters, but it’s also not that hard to stay away from cultural lightening rods during a thunderstorm. They pay the price.
Ukraine is a pure as the new fallen snow?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/31/ukraine-targets-corruption-in-medical-exemptions-from-military-service
.
There is noting shocking here, except maybe to people who imagine the Ukraine is populated by saints and Russia by devils.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223717): “Preachy as in always had a moral to tell.”
.
That is not “preachy”. In any sense. Preachy means tedious and/or excessive moralizing. Any moralizing in the old Disney films was neither tedious nor excessive.
Tom Scharf,
“They pay the price.”
.
Sure, the stock market sees the consequences.
.
I read a commentary at Forbes about the fall in Disney stock price. Not a single mention that Disney continuously produces and distributes garbage films that nobody wants to see, which lead to huge losses. As I was reading, I got the impression that Forbes can’t/won’t see/report the obvious problems at Disney. Which tells me investors should avoid getting any advice from Forbes…. too driven by PC reporting and DEI, and so willfully disconnected from reality in service of that nonsense. Disney’s problems are simple to understand for those willing to see the obvious.
Entertainment in the US has been preachy for years, but I suspect it is getting worse and with a nearly singular point of view. Nothing better than clicking those silly stories off with a remote.
With a proxy war in progress with a Democrat administration we won’t have stories about the horrors of war or the questioning of it.
By the way what ever happened to the doomsday clock. I’ll have to look.
https://time.com/6249856/doomsday-clock-catastrophe-ukraine/
SteveF
I think the dwarfs not being dwarfs is a bigger problem than Snow White not looking like the extreme description in the stories. Yeah… Snow White is her name… but I think people could overlook her being not as white as a vampire.
.
But the dwarfs? They are supposed to be dwarfs. And they were good parts for dwarf actors. If they wanted to push a little, some of the dwarfs could have been female… but they should be dwarfs.
.
The idea they are trying to “avoid stereotypes” about dwarves…. Sorry, but what are the stereotypes? That they are short? And that some have regular length torsos and regular size heads with short legs. Well… yeah. That’s not a “stereotype”.
.
The dwarfs in the story are hard working heroes who help Snow White. Of course they were also a little comical in the first movie which (a) was a cartoon and (b) needed some contrast between the scary and light parts.
But how is them being hardworking dwarfs who help the heroine out a problem? And if we can’t have dwarfs play dwarf roles, how else are actual dwarf actors going to get good parts? Just write a script where their characters are interesting and that will deal with any “stereotype”.
.
It sounds like they want to not have a “love story” plot. Look…. You can tweak the characters some how. But you do need snow white to fall asleep. And you do need to prince to wake her up. Otherwise, just call it something else. Because it’s not Snow White.
.
I don’t know if the actresses for Snow White and the Queen were given really bad guidance of what to say or if they came up with all the bad PR on their own. But…oy!
.
I guess we’ll see how it does at the box office. I’m guessing they’ve already turned off enough parents its opening is going to be disappointing.
Mike M.:
The impact is far from nothing, but Russia being able to borrow large amounts of money has allowed it to avoid more severe economic problems. It’s even investing a lot of money in its public infrastructure programs. Part of the goal seems to be to keep people from “feeling” the impact of the war so they don’t get worked up about it.
So do I fully trust “independent” polls saying Putin’s approval rate is above 80%? No. Getting accurate information about opinions will always come with difficulties, especially when dealing with a totalitarian state. But we’re not seeing public protests or other forms of unrest either. Given that, I’m confident the damage to Russia’s economy and Putin’s popularity hasn’t been what the more hopeful of people predicted/claim.
To people in other countries things may seem bad enough we might expect Putin to be killed/overthrown, but I’m not seeing signs the people of Russia feel that way. Maybe they’re there, but if so, it seems Russia is doing a good job of hiding them.
Tom Scharf:
Oh, no doubt. Russia and China are not allies because they like one another. They have a long history of animosity, and if anything, I’d wager China resents Russia given Russia still controls a large chunk of territory it stole from China.
Just a day or so ago, China published a new map in which it claims sovereignty over an island Russia and China argued over for ages before ostensibly settling things ~15 years ago. That suggests China may be eyeing to reignite the dispute while Russia is occuppied in the west and heavily depedent on China so likely unable to protest.
If that works, China may keep pushing things. For instance, Russia gained control of Manchuria by noticing China was busy in wars against other countries so it wouldn’t be able to stop Russia from moving in. It would be fitting if China used Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to reclaim the territory. I’m sure China would want to but figures such an aggressive move would be less beneficial than the more passive approach of continuing to make Russia more and more dependent on it. Russian oil is such a boon to China I’m sure they don’t want to risk losing access to it.
lucia:
FWIW, I think the fear is the dwarfs would be presented as weird, silly buffoons or things like that. Dwarfs have been presented with stereotypes like those in a ton of media. Not wanting that to happen again seems reasonable to me.
Of course, an obvious solution would be to write and treat the dwarves as actual people not just stereotypes. The seven dwarfs don’t need to be presented as inherently mythical, magical, or comical. They could just be a group of dwarfs who are all their own, individual person.
A random factoid I discovered is in an early (maybe original?) version of the story the prince himself didn’t wake Snow White up himself. He just decided to take the coffin she was in back to the castle where his family was. Along the way, the thing got jostled when someone tripped and that dislodged the piece of poisoned apple Snow What had swallowed.
Not trying to make any point with that. I just thought it was interesting the “true love’s kiss” wasn’t a major part of the story in earlier times.
There are times Alabama irritates me. Not all that many really, but this is one of those times.
This is Steve Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama. What is wrong with the guy, for goodness sakes. We don’t take our laws with us when we travel. That seems to be universal as far as I can tell. The man is out of his mind.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/alabamas-attorney-general-state-prosecute-women-travel-abortions-102844622
Brandon,
So just don’t present them that way. That’s just as easy as eliminating the characters. You seem to recognize this.
Oh? They aren’t buffons in the Wizard of Oz. Not in the first Snow White. Yes, they are characters. But the muchkins are no more buffons than the lion, tin man, scare crow, toto, Oz himself or the witches. And the 7 dwarfs in the Disney movie have tons of behaviors.
His actions still woke her up. She didn’t just wake up naturally.
.
We’ll see what they actually do with the prince. Write him out? (We haven’t seen an actor.) Change how he’s involved? All to be seen.
lucia:
I do. I offered that exact solution because I think it’d be better to fix any problems with how dwarfs have been presented than to not present dwarfs at all. I don’t like the approach some people seem to suggest, “If there are no depictions of dwarfs, then there can be no harmful depictions of dwarfs.” However, I think there’s some logic to it. Here’s a bit of what Kiruna Stamell, an actress who has dwarfism, said:
I think that’s not unreasonable (and recommend reading the full piece as my excerpt is heavily abbreviated). If you don’t trust people to approach an issue in a respectful and thoughtful way, then yeah, I get why you’d want them to just not deal with it. I’d like Disney do a good job with the seven dwarfs, but if the options are for them to a bad job or not include them, the latter does seem better to me. As for characters like the Cowardly Lion and Tin Man, they at least got things like character arcs that show them to be more than just what their name labels them as.
Anyway, this discussion does raise a time-old question, “How much can you change of a thing before it ceases to be that thing?” We know of Snow White by way of the version the Grimm Brothers wrote down, but it had been passed down for centuries before. There are older versions where there were no dwarfs. There are older versions where the prince raped her comatose body only for her newborn children to be the ones who woke her.
I don’t know what should and should not be necessary for a “Snow White” story to be a Snow White story. I don’t know how anyone could decide.
mark bofill:
I don’t support that law in any way, but I’m not sure it will be ruled unconstitutional. For comparison, several laws have been enacted by the federal government to combat child sex tourism by saying Americans who go to other countries to have illicit sex with minors can be punished when they return. The courts have upheld convictions under those laws.
It’s obviously not the same thing, but it doesn’t seem impossible courts would uphold Alabama’s law for similar reasons. The federal government says it’s illegal to conspire to travel internationally for illicit sex with minors. Alabama says it’s illegal to conspire to travel to other states to have an abortion. Both issues seem to resolve around the idea you can punish the “conspiracy” even if you can’t punish the “crime.”
I hate Alabama’s law, but I’m not completely certain courts will rule against it.
Mark,
full auto can also sneak in as an unwanted “feature”.
I bought a 45acp carbine and took it to the range to compete in Steel Challenge. Competition to hit 5 widely separated steel targets by time.
.
As it heated up, it had a tendency to go full auto in 3 or 4 round bursts. NOT a good thing. After much back and forth conversations with the manufacturer, settled with changing out the factory trigger assembly ( stock AR15 ) with a new one piece aftermarket.
.
Brandon–
But no one in the original cartoon is presented as full people. Not Snow white, not the queen, and certainly not Prince Charming! I also don’t see the dwarfs as “infantalized”.
Maybe. Or not. Dwarfs as a group did not protest the idea of Disney casting 7 dwarfs. After they heard Disney did not cast dwarfs some dwarfs criticized Disney.
.
There are many related tales and often have different names. But at this point, the true “Snow White” story is the version by the Grimm’s brothers. That’s what current audience recognize as the story of “Snow White”. If you the elements change to much, it’s no longer “Snow White”.
.
I mean… I love “Wicked”. But it’s not “The Wizard of Oz”. “Kiss me Kate” is not “The Taming of the Shrew”. If a particular story name means a particular story line to the present potential audience, then you really need to change the name. Otherwise, you will have a problem.
.
Trying to make scholarly claims about ancient progenitors of the story doesn’t help with present audience. Because, like it or not, those stories aren’t what the present audience considers to be “Snow White”.
lucia:
That’s something Stamell actually discusses in the link I posted. She talks about how it being an animated cartoon creates distance between the depiction and actual human beings. I think that’s true. I think the impact of the depiction would have been very different if it had been live-action.
I think that’s part of the concern about the new live-action adaptation. If someone was confident Disney would resort to a fairly similar depiction in a live-action adaptation, they may well prefer Disney not include dwarfs at all. And given Disney’s track record, it’s not an unreasonable fear. But since there’s no way to know what Disney would do, I think it’s impossible to have a “right” answer.
I could maybe agree, but the question remains, “How much is too much?” The classic movie changes a lot about the Brother Grimms’ version, so should we even compare new ones to their version? To most people, I’d wager Snow White isn’t only 7 years old. I’d wager the queen didn’t try to kill Snow White by lacing the child’s clothing too tight. I’d wager Snow White wasn’t saved by the prince’s servant tripping. I’d wager they didn’t brutally kill the witch by putting molten hot iron slippers on her feet. I’d wager the dwarves have names, and likely silly ones at that.
All of that is different from the Brother Grimms’ version. And in their version, Snow White was explicitly named that because of how white her skin is. I don’t see the bright line between changing those things/making her Latina and changing something like making the dwarfs not dwarfs. Or even removing the prince. He exists in all of two paragraphs in the Grimms’ tale, doing nothing but be creepy (he literally tries to buy Snow White from the dwarfs so he can creep on her, a seven year old) and inadvertently set up the accident that saves Snow White (that lets the seven year old instantly agree to marry him).
I’m skeptical there’s any “true” Snow White story in the minds of people today. My guess is most people have a nebulous idea of what “Snow White” is based off vague memories and cultural osmosis rather than any single adaptation. The fact so many people are fine with her being Latina seems to support that.
Just to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with Snow White being played by a Latina actor. I just think it’s weird to cite the Brothers Grimm when in their version Snow White’s mother’s only action is to wish her child had pure white skin then die in childbirth one sentence later.
Retconning how the mother is portrayed as dying to get a child with pure white skin is fine by me, but if I’m to accept that, I think I can accept a lot of other retcons.
mark bofill,
The crazy idea of prosecuting someone for something that isn’t a crime is just a symptom of the most extreme on both sides of abortion refusing to compromise, or even be rational. The “no restrictions ever” crowd is the flip side of the same coin. The issue will not go away unless the large (~70%) majority in the center (who think first trimester is a acceptable, after that restrictions make sense) become motivated enough to threaten politicians with electoral consequences for listening only to the extremes. I won’t hold my breath.
.
It is unfortunate, because we get extreme policies which are very unpopular, but also unlikely to change.
Brandon, Ed, Steve,
I agree with your responses. Thanks.
Regarding the origin of all the drone attacks near Moskow:
“The attack on Pskov airfield was carried out from the territory of the Russian Federation – general Budanov in an interview to War Zone.”
So, I suspect the actual origin of the drones is anywhere but ‘the territory of the Russian Federation’.
General Kyrylo Oleksiyovych Budanov is certainly in a position to know. He is chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine [i.e. he is the top spook]. The problem is that Badanof has been the source [I think] of several intelligence misdirections in the past.
But then I remembered this scene from the Princess Bride:
The Battle of Wits (1987)
https://youtu.be/rMz7JBRbmNo?si=QXkwnNkWJ6psFMrG
SteveF,
“The crazy idea of prosecuting someone for something that isn’t a crime …”
.
Some people, not me, but maybe a lot of others think abortion is murder, don’t they. And isn’t murder a crime in most jurisdictions?
.
Russel Klier:
Doesn’t Russia claim all conquered portions of Ukraine are Russian territory now? If so, that claim could mean, “It came from one mile our side of the battle front.” Heck, some Russians might claim all of Ukraine rightfully belongs to Russia, and it’s just fighting to control the territory. Under that view, any attack from Ukrainians would come from “the territory of the Russian Federation.”
And this isn’t just me playing strange word games. Russia loves to use weird verbiage to try to create false impressions. I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised to see Russia say something like, “They’re invading our territory” if Ukraine manages to push further in reclaiming its own land.
Brandon,
Yes…watch the video
In Germany the “never forget” mantra of WWII translates to banning most references to WWI and WWII. In the US almost all references to Indians such as mascots and team names have been eliminated. All we have are casinos. Etc.
.
What happens is any representation is determined to be problematic by the very serious people. We will have one museum in DC by the end of it and it will display one side of the story as if the Indians didn’t have some pretty viscous factions (I’ve seen it in Gunsmoke and Ponderosa…).
.
Dwarf tosses and cartoonish rain dances may not be the most respectful representations but I’ll take that over any overlords deciding what we are allowed to see and hear. I think we are getting a more and more distorted view of history. Historians seem to think they are correcting the record, but I doubt that in most cases.
FWIW I thought the representation in Game of Thrones was about as good as it gets. A complex and flawed human that just happened to be a dwarf.
.
The “right answer” is to not criticize the end product until there is an end product. I, as a white man, can say we have grown weary of people electing themselves as a spokesperson for their identity group.
It’s one thing for some activist lawyers to get a legal ruling on Alabama’s abortion law regarding crossing state lines (it’s likely against the law). This cannot be stopped and there isn’t really a problem for understanding what the law actually says. Alabama could then update the law that crossing state lines is legal.
.
It’s entirely another thing for them to prosecute that offense. This is a case where it would be near suicidal for their cause to prosecute that offense. It’s so counterproductive that the opposing side may try to trigger it.
Brandon
But that weakens any argument that there is a particular problem with treatment of the dwarfs per se.
“They” might. Whoever “they” are. In which case, it would be nice if “they” bring their argument. If you are advancing an argument in your own right, do so. Then we an discuss it. The way you are describing “their” argument seems unsound. I don’t particularly want to discuss “their” argument with you, who may not be advancing it particularly well.
.
Like courts, we don’t need to find the precise line. But leaving out major characters entirely– like dwarfs — is too much for it to be “Snow White”. It becomes something else.
.
Not having Cinderella be treated as a house servant would be too much. Not having her go to the ball would be too much.
.
Leaving the cat out of “puss in boots” would be too much.
.
What can be left out at any particular time can vary. But right now, given elements a particular title actually portrays, leaving out certain things is “too much”.
.
Not a major element. The major element is the queen trying to kill Snow White.
It was also ok for “Lord of the Rings” to leave out Tom Bombadill. It would have been wrong to leave out Eowyn or Aragorn as characters entirely.
At this point, the original Disney version is strong cultural influence. People currently are fine with appearance being slightly different. If they turned Snow White into a man, they wouldn’t accept it. If they’d made her eldery it wouldn’t be Snow White. If they made her ugly it wouldn’t be Snow White. Disney has costumed snow white in the same outfit– based on photos. And the actress is a fairly light skinned latina which, like it or not, now scans fairly “white” to many people even if she isn’t “snowy”. I’m not sure they would have accepted her as black which does not scan “white”. (I suspect not.)
.
“Clueless” wasn’t called “Emma” for a reason. Moving it to modern day California with modern manners and mores was enough change of “main elements”.
.
I honestly don’t understand how you can’t distinguish between “main elements” (the wicked queen wants and tries to kill snow white) and “very minor features/details” every single precise method she tries. But I think some are rather obvious. And you are picking things at opposite ends of the “main/very minor” spectrum and trying to suggest one can’t tell the difference.
Tom
Yes. The problem with Dinklages argument and those advanced by Brandon as what “they” might think is that it decrees no dwarfs because someone “might” create poorly written characters and then ensures no one can ever write good dwarf characters. And also creates a situation where dwarf actors can’t get jobs!
John,
I’m struggling to sort out my rationalizations now. :/ I’ll let you know where I end up if you’re interested. I’m going to have to read up on the conspiracy prosecutions for sex tourism referenced.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223743): “It’s one thing for some activist lawyers to get a legal ruling on Alabama’s abortion law regarding crossing state lines (it’s likely against the law) … It’s entirely another thing for them to prosecute that offense.”
.
The Alabama AG says it is perfectly legal for a woman to go out of state to get abortion. The issue is *groups* that help with that.
.
It would be unreasonable to prosecute a friend or family member who drives a woman to another state to get an abortion. But one could imagine a for profit business that actively recruits women who are considering an abortion. I don’t think it unreasonable to prosecute in that case. I can not clearly say where the line should be drawn. Maybe it should be if the assisting group gets paid by either the woman or the abortionist.
The left will very likely invite that prosecution and say “thank you very much” when it happens.
.
I should add I would never vote for somebody who supported that policy. Republicans need to check their stupidity.
“Republicans need to check their stupidity.”
For some Republicans deeply held religious tenants are more important than political party.
John Ferguson,
“Some people, not me, but maybe a lot of others think abortion is murder, don’t they. And isn’t murder a crime in most jurisdictions?”
.
Sure, plenty of people think abortion is murder. Plenty of people don’t. The issue in this case is the abortion is not going to happen where it is prohibited by law; it will happen where it is allowed by law. Murder, like most crimes, is a state offence. So is having an abortion in a state where it is prohibited. Montana is not able to control what abortions are allowed in Oregon, nor vice-versa.
.
I am pretty certain Federal courts (including the SC, if it comes to that) will declare any such state prosecution unconstitutional, and that will be the end of it. After all, the SC just said clearly (overturning Roe v Wade with a 6-3 majority) that abortion laws are a state, not Federal, nor Constitutional matter. I doubt that 6-3 majority is suddenly going to forget they declared abortion a state matter.
Mike M,
“I don’t think it unreasonable to prosecute in that case. I can not clearly say where the line should be drawn.”
.
I could not disagree more. States that attempt this are going to lose in Federal Courts.
SteveF
I strongly suspect you are correct. Otherwise, states can start making it illegal to go to California and Illinois, buy weed there and smoke it there. I don’t think that’s likely to fly.
Lucia,
Yeah I was wondering about that too. Could a dry county have extraterritorial ordinance forbidding their residents from travelling for the purposes of drinking alcohol, was the example I was thinking about.
Also, I always thought police had the power to arrest people to stop people during the commission of crimes. I shudder to contemplate the police locking people up who are trying to flee the state for whatever purpose [not for whatever purpose. To be free of what they consider tyrannical interference by the state. There, fixed it.] . If that’s not wrong nothing is, as far as I am concerned. But it would seem to me that this sort of thing is downstream of this idea of extraterritorial law.
Still, I thought Brandon had a good point with the extraterritorial sex tourism laws. I’m not sure what makes those different in principle.
Tom Scarf,
“The left will very likely invite that prosecution and say “thank you very much” when it happens.”
.
Yes, this is an electoral catastrophe for Republicans, and the more this madness is pushed, the worse the catastrophe. Nothing good will come of it, but plenty of bad will. If Republicans want Democrats to control the House, Senate, and the Presidency in perpetuity, there could be no more effect way to ensure that outcome than to pursue this kind of stupidity.
.
Prostitution is illegal in almost all of the USA, yet it is legal in part of Nevada (just outside Las Vegas). Similarly, casino gambling, legal in Las Vegas, is is illegal in many states. Should some states make promoting visits to Las Vegas (“What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!”) subject to criminal conspiracy? No, it is utter madness, and would be laughed out of Federal Court.
My God, I think I see what the problem is. Extraterritorial law is inherently tyrannical. It presupposes that the governing authority in some sense owns the citizenry, no matter where they travel to in the world, and is sovereign to dictate their conduct. This seems irreconcilable with any system that derives authority from the consent of the governed; in any free nation, there should always be a right to emigrate.
What does emigration have to do with it. Well, I’m thinking of it this way. Take abortion for example. A pregnant woman in Alabama wishes to have an abortion, plans to, and makes no secret of it. She and her husband enter into a criminal conspiracy to leave the state to obtain the abortion and build a new life in a freer state. Alabama could stop them under this legal theory, it seems to me – Alabama could prevent them from leaving because they’d be leaving specifically to break the law. [I’d think Alabama could arrest and imprison them. I think Alabama could argue that the couple was executing a criminal conspiracy.] Effectively, emigration is criminalized because of plans to perform an illegal act downstream of emigrating.
I don’t know. That’s what I’m currently thinking about it though – extraterritorial law ought to be thrown out the window. Really bad idea, in my view.
mark bofill,
I agree, all extra-territorial laws are inherently tyrannical. They are an outrage against individual liberty, and should never be promulgated.
.
Unfortunately, there are several such laws in the USA (tax consequences of renouncing citizenship and others) which have been allowed by the SC. IMO, the Court was terribly mistaken, and essentially declared individuals are “owned” by the Federal government, at least to the extent that all their property is not really their property and so can be seized.
I maybe didn’t explain that well.
Here are a series of rhetorical questions. I will answer each one as I ask it. I am doing this to illustrate my thought process, which is doubtless buggy in spots.
What makes me subject to the laws of Alabama in the first place? The fact that I am physically present here now, seems to me. What if I traveled to all fifty states? Would all fifty states then lay claim to be able to punish me if I violated their local laws elsewhere? My answer: I don’t see why not. I think this would be the case. How long would such authority last, forever? I have no idea. I guess! Could I not somehow renounce the claim each one has on me? I think this is what I was trying to get at with the emigration thing. The state shouldn’t own me if I want to be rid of it. It shouldn’t own me in the first place!
It’s something like this anyway.
Cross posted, thanks Steve. I agree with you.
What are you guys talking about? The Alabama AG is not talking about prosecuting anybody for acts committed outside Alabama. He is talking about possibly prosecuting people in Alabama for acts committed in Alabama.
Disney mangles everything it touches. Sometimes it doesn’t make too much difference. But what they did to the story of Mowgli from Kipling’s The Jungle Book is an abomination IMO. Kaa, the python, becomes a villain rather than one of Mowgli’s teachers, possibly more important than Baloo and Bagheera. There is no orangutan King Louis in the books. Mowgli is abducted by the monkeys (the Bandar-log) to be their king because they didn’t have one and felt that their lowly status would be improved if they did. But Disney needed a musical number for the monkeys so we got an orangutan in India.
What Prime did to The Wheel of Time was, again IMO, far, far worse. The One Power was defined in the books as binary. Men were different than women. But we can’t have that now. Changing that, though, changed, well, everything except the character names. They have a lot of nerve still calling it The Wheel of Time.
‘
Have you noticed that we’re hearing about penguins instead of polar bears now that sea ice anomaly in the Antarctic is at record lows and the Arctic sea ice isn’t setting new lows? Color me not surprised. It’s been over ten years since the Arctic sea was supposed to be ice free in September. The polar see-saw seems to still be in force, although the AMO Index still hasn’t reversed.
Mike M,
And the crime is… arranging travel?
.
It is ridiculous. I believe the law will be challenged in Federal Court and struck if they attempt to enforce it.
.
So, do you think the Alabama AG should attempt to extradite people who never enter Alabama but who ‘conspire’ by telephone, email, and web sites, to arrange travel for women in Alabama to other states for abortions? Would other states go along with this extradition? Would the Federal Courts? (Obviously, no to both!) It is all so bizarre that I almost can’t believe lawmakers in Alabama are actually considering this seriously.
.
They need to step back and rationally accept that the overwhelming majority of people in the USA do not and will not ever support Alabama’s efforts to block their citizens from travel for abortion.
DeWitt,
Sure, when those damned polar bears refused to die off quickly from global warming, some other poster-child (errr… poster baby animal?), had to be found, preferably one that is soft and cuddly. So penguin chicks it is. Dishonest, like most everything else in climate ‘science’.
Tom Scharf, I’m not aware of historians having anthing to do with what you’re talking about. Are you sure you meant to blame that group rather than others? Similarly, I know Germany has strict laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest it amounts “to banning most references to WWI and WWII. Are you sure that’s what you meant? If so, could you provide some sort of reference I can look to to learn about this?
On the topic of dwarfs, I agree Tyrion was an example of handling the issue well (though they butchered his character in later seasons). In fact, it was handled better than in the books. I’d love to see more representation like that. I don’t agree about not criticizing things until they’re finished though.
Movie-making involves a lot of pre-preparation. I think part of that should be trying to get an idea of how people will feel about your plans. Putting an idea out there and seeing the feedback you get is a good way to make your final product better. Similarly, if you’re promoting a movie and trying to generate hype for it, you’re asking for people to have reactions. It’d be silly to ask people to react then turn around and say they shouldn’t react with any criticisms.
Plenty of movies have been changed and made better due to feedback from the public. That doesn’t mean all criticism movies get before being finished is justified/correct. Like all things, there’s nuance and there’s likely few absolute rules that’d make sense. But the idea products which get hyped for potentially years before being finished shouldn’t be criticized until they are finished is just bizarre.
mark bofill,
Good point if you are discussing morality not legality/constitutionality.
In various different rulings, SCOTUS has recognized the right to intra-state travel. https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol30/iss4/1/
Now…I’m not entire certain you can’t make it illegal to cross state lines to do something illegal. There is the Mann act. But that (mostly) didn’t make it illegal for the woman who was going to be involved in illicit sex in another state to travel. It made it illegal for the person (usually a man) to drive her with the intention of having sex across the state line.
.
Enforcement of that law pretty evolved.
it’s also a federal law and not a state law. So I assume it’s justified for the feds under “interstate commerce”?
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/what-is-the-mann-act.html
Thanks Lucia, I’ll read about those.
DeWitt,
It was abominable, wasn’t it. I couldn’t get through it, although I forget exactly where I left off.
lucia:
I had referred to the theoretical “someone” who was confident Disney would use negative stereotypes for dwarfs in the movie if it included dwarfs. In the same sentence, referring back to that antecedent, I used the pronoun “they” and described what such a person might conclude. As in, “If someone was confident… they [that someone] may well prefer…”
I don’t think it’s controversial to say someone who thinks, “Disney would depict the dwarfs in a harmful way if it included them” might conclude, “It’d be better for Disney not to include dwarfs.”
I’m not sure how you can state with certainty this change would be too much, but in this case Disney isn’t removing the dwarfs. They are changing what race the dwarfs are. Changing a character from a dwarf to a gnome or some other mythical creature isn’t removing the character any more than changing Snow White to a Latina is removing her character.
Again, I’m not sure how you decide what is and is not a major element. In the Brother Grimms’ version, the fact the seven dwarfs are dwarfs is given no significance or focus at all. More time and focus is spent on the queen trying to kill Snow White by lacing her clothing too tightly and giving her a poisoned comb. Heck, more time and focus is spent on that than on the prince even existing.
In the Brother Grimms’ tale, if you replaced “dwarf” with “gnome” or anything else, nothing about it would change. The only thing about them being dwarfs that’s ever shown to matter is a Goldilocks situation where Snow White lies in each their beds until she finds one is the perfect size for her. Because she was a seven year old. If you age up her character, that one time the dwarfs being dwarfs mattered at all would no longer exist.
I can understand not liking changing the race of the dwarfs for matters like representation or simply having a preference for how the characters are depicted. I do not, however, understand the idea doing so is somehow too major a change in terms of loyalty to the story. What does them being dwarfs have to do with anything in the tale?
DeWitt Payne:
This intrigues me because I agree about the show but for entirely different reasons. I don’t think the change you cite was important at all to why the show was horrible. It did so many other things I think were far worse.
It’s worth remembering the inconsistency of how magic worked throughout the series as it’s clear Jordan changed the magical system as he went. Eventually it was made clear men and women were tapping into the same power source, just different parts of it. Which fine, a hard-coded man and woman power system… except the even stronger “true” power which was the same for everyone.
Only, then Jordan decided you could magically put a man in a woman’s body or vice versa. Doing so meant an apparent “man” could use the “woman” power source and vice versa. That proved it was not the physical body that determined one’s gender in regard to the power source. This would be in line with progressive takes on trans identities, only Jordan made it clear it could only happen via supernatural means.
Deciding to include trans people in your story but only if they’re created via supernatural means is… weird. Given stuff like that, I think changing how the series handled gender issues wasn’t the worst idea. If nothing else, it meant not repeatedly showing a man getting raped by a woman as a joke.
SteveF (Comment #223763): “So, do you think the Alabama AG should attempt to extradite people who never enter Alabama but who ‘conspire’ by telephone, email, and web sites, to arrange travel for women in Alabama to other states for abortions? ”
.
Do I think that? Of course not.
Do I think that would be legal? I hope not.
Is anybody proposing to do that? Not so far as I know.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/alabamas-attorney-general-state-prosecute-women-travel-abortions-102844622
Emphasis added.
——
Addition: If he was going to go after out-of-state people, he’d be going after the abortionist.
The cosmos is in alignment, finally. College football has commenced. “Prime Time” Deion Sanders dominates the headlines …just like old times.
If you don’t follow this, ‘Coach Prime’ had his first game as head coach of the Colorado Buffaloes today. His guys were big underdogs but defeated the nationally-ranked TCU Horned Frogs. There are a few side stories too, including Coach Prime recruiting his son to start at quarterback [he was phenomenal].
lucia, mark bofill, the reason I cited laws about child sex tourism is it showed the courts were willing to uphold laws written to allow prosecuting people who committed heinous acts outside the country. What I didn’t know is there’s an official term for this sort of thing, “extraterritorial jurisdiction.” It turns out there’s a lot of literature on the topic.
I was surprised to find out just how commonly accepted/used “extraterritorial jurisdiction is. On a small level, cities are often allowed to have some authority over land outside their borders, sometimes even to areas across state borders. On a larger level, the federal government has authority over ships and planes that travel well beyond its borders. The bases for some examples are clear-cut, others are less so. Fortunately, I think that issue might be irrelevant in this case.
It may not matter if Alabama has any authority over its citizens as they travel to other states. It could come down to a simple question of, “Can there be a criminal conspiracy if the act in question is legal where it would take place?” I don’t know as I have no idea how conspiracy laws work when the legality of the acts in question vary by jurisdiction.
It helps me to think about a few different scenarios that could come up for such a question. 1) If people in Albama conspire to murder someone in Kentucky, can Alabama prosecute the conspiracy? My understanding is the courts would say yes. 2) If marijuana use is illegal in State A but legal in State B, could State A prosecute its citizens for conspiring to go to State B to smoke pot? I don’t know, but this seems the most comparable scenario. 3) If marijuana use is legal in Stata A but illegal in State B, could State A prosecute its citizens for conspiring to go to State B to smoke pot? This sounds silly to me, but maybe the courts would allow it?
Brandon, in the early nineteenth century our understanding of the laws of property were advanced through a series of cases involving the death of foxes and who the corpse belonged to.
it was obvious if the fox was shot and died on one’s own land. But what if it was shot on another’s land? what if the shooter was standing on his own land and shot the fox on another’s? Assume same situation but fox staggers over and dies on one’s own land? what if fox is shot on one’s own land and staggers over and dies on neighbors?
I think this covers the possibilities. These cases are found in the case book used for teaching property law at Loyola Law School in Chicago.
Brandon
We aren’t discussing if it’s “controversial”. It’s that you are now speaking for “them”. You aren’t quoting them– you are advancing an idea by telling us what “they ” “might conclude”. I’m not going to debate “them” in this situation.
.
In anycase, whoever “they” might be, I don’t see any particular reason to think “they” or “their” notions should rule the world.
Brandon:
As for whether “Snow White” will be changed so much people don’t accept it and either (a) don’t go to the theater is or (b) complain about it, ultimately, an empirical question. Not moral, not ethical, not theoretical. It remains to be seen both how much Disney changed it, how much people really complain and how many people go to the theater. ( We have rumors of the number of changes and we are hearing quite a few complaints. The lack of dwarfs is seems to be upsetting people.)
Bradon
Yes. And the reason I discussed the distinction between travel between states and travel to other countries has to do with the US constitution. Alabama and and Georgia are different states, not countries.
We don’t know how SCOTUS will interpret the privlidges and immunity clause in this particular case. But we know they have in most recent times, tended to interpret is as not allowing states to prevent people from traveling to other states. Not sure that’s a required interpretation.
As Lucia likely well remembers, I’m often off in the weeds regarding law. I get wrapped around the axle in what I think ought to be the case, which seldom has much of anything to do with what is in fact the case. Also I get messed up because my ideas of what would make the law consistent don’t necessarily correlate to the way anything really works. I know this about myself, no big deal. But consider this my disclaimer in advance; I don’t know nuttin basically when it comes to law. I’m just talking about what I think.
Brandon,
Look this isn’t important. Like, not AT ALL. Still, this is just not true:
So – Aran’gar was a male Forsaken reincarnated by the Dark One in a female body. Reincarnated in a female body, still he channeled the male half of the One Power (saidin).
Now, this is neither here nor there nor anywhere, and who gives a fig, I get all that. But why say it false to begin with? What’cha up to. Are you trying to provoke people or something?
Oh. See, typing it out helped me see.
So you mean by ‘apparent man’ (Aran’gar was an apparent ‘woman’ is what threw me) a female soul in a male body (Aran’gar was the reverse case).
Now I’m no expert on trans ideology but I always thought progressives said gender was fluid and in essence whatever a person claimed it was moment to moment. I don’t think that’s consistent with Robert Jordan’s work. Again, not that any of this matters.
Brandon,
But my apologies for my suspicion of your motives. I see now that I just didn’t understand what you were claiming. I’m sorry about that.
What are privileges and immunities? Corfield v. Coryell was an early case (6th circuit– not scotus.) But it’s evidently the one people cite for what are recognized as privileges and immunities.
Italicized is, roughly, “travel to, from and between states”.
https://www.biicl.org/files/1700_corfield_v_coryell_(fed_dist_ct).pdf
.
Notably, the right to travel between States was explicitly in the articles of confederation.
.
The “right to travel to and from” States (as opposed to countries) has long been interpreted as a “privilege and immunity” and something of a fundamental right.
.
I don’t know for sure how SCOTUS would rule on a law that infringed on the right to travel to another State to do something legal in the other State (not country). I doubt a State tweaking the wording to prohibiting the right to conspire to travel to another state would pass muster if the court considers the right to travel to the other state guaranteed under the privileges and immunity clause. Interpreting otherwise would make a big change to private liberties.
Lucia, that’s encouraging.
Brandon: “Deciding to include trans people in your story but only if they’re created via supernatural means is… weird.”
.
WTF? In the fantasy world, souls are literally reborn into different bodies ALL THE TIME! They can retain memories of past lives! You find the idea that something called the “Dark One”, the rival of the “Creator”, could decide to resurrect its minions into a body of the opposite sex, weird?
.
You can argue that Jordan included “trans” people, but that would be superficial in the extreme compared to what that actually means in the here and now. I strongly suspect the TV series won’t waste the opportunity to insert modern “trans” politics though. I won’t be watching season two to GAF.
Dave,
Yup. One could argue Min was a cross dresser too, but. Not really.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223773): “1) If people in Albama conspire to murder someone in Kentucky, can Alabama prosecute the conspiracy? My understanding is the courts would say yes.”
.
I think that is correct. And that seems to be a near exact analogy to what the Alabama AG is saying. The only difference would be that murder is illegal in both states, so an Alabama prosecution might be moot. But that might not be the case with abortion.
.
If only the conspiracy, not the murder, is prosecuted in Alabama, then I do not think that qualifies as a claim of extraterritorial jurisdiction since the prosecution would be for crimes committed in Alabama.
King Carl show the value of having a king….
“Nobel Foundation cancels Russian ambassador invite to prize ceremony”
“Hours before the reversal was announced, public broadcaster Sveriges Radio reported that the Swedish Royal Court had been surprised by the decision.
It added that Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf — who presents laureates with their awards at the Stockholm prize ceremony — was evaluating whether to attend.”
https://news.yahoo.com/nobel-foundation-cancels-russian-ambassador-121652068.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMqQeNENcrII7vzcQsj_YyUfaXEJDUEcXw2bKAnRZN5jVNE_bolm6L9NYGujoZS8yBldG6Fj3cIsA5MQ1xyK741cKsLL26qwKtm94PIR_dvMWK1VfnioXlXNTH6UoldZHwGXuMFUl_OBvGaBvGjYoYOc_EiNVeFv38qHgy3Qf7IH
MikeM
I see the fact that murder is illegal in both states as likely important. Conspiring to do something illegal is different from planning to do something legal.
Of course we can find many definitions, but “conspiracy” generally includes the notion that you are plannign to do something very, very wrong, illegal or what not.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
.
One could tap dance all around the morality of abortion and say it’s “harmful” or “immoral” yada, yada. But I think legally, something generally won’t be seen as a “conspiracy” in the legal sense unless the thing you are plotting is illegal.
.
One never really knows with SCOTUS, but I think they would be likely to think traveling to another state to do something perfectly legal there to be covered under privilege and immunities. And I don’t think you could make it become illegal to “conspire to travel to” the other state if the travel must be legal and the activity in the other state is legal. Because no element of what you are planning to do is illegal. And therefore, it really isn’t a “conspiracy”.
.
(It also appears conspiracy to commit murder is in the US code? Maybe that’s “interstate commerce”. Heh.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1117 )
MikeM above quoted this logic:
As a logical proposition, this strikes me as a complete non sequitur. The abortion, when performed in the other state, is not an illegal act. The AG is suggesting that conspiring to do something legal, is illegal, which makes no sense to me.
Imagine this logic being applied to a “dry” county, where a company markets a cruise to go 3 miles (or whatever) offshore, at which point they start selling alcoholic drinks. Or gambling. It’s crazy.
From Wex:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy
The question is: What would constitute an “overt act”? It need not be something illegal, but I think that it has to be more than just talk.
.
So I am going to speculate. If we are in Alabama and discuss murdering your cousin in Kentucky but nothing more is done, there would be no overt act and no conspiracy. If I then go to Kentucky and commit the murder, there is still no overt act on your part, so no conspiracy. But if you pay me to do the deed and I get arrested while still in Alabama, then we are both involved in a conspiracy. I think that in such a case we could be prosecuted in Alabama but not in Kentucky.
lucia (Comment #223788): “One never really knows with SCOTUS, but I think they would be likely to think traveling to another state to do something perfectly legal there to be covered under privilege and immunities. And I don’t think you could make it become illegal to “conspire to travel to” the other state if the travel must be legal and the activity in the other state is legal.”
.
I certainly hope that you are correct about that and I am almost certain that you are correct. But that does not mean that there are NO circumstances which could make an illegal conspiracy.
HaroldW (Comment #223789): “Imagine this logic being applied to a “dry” county, where a company markets a cruise to go 3 miles (or whatever) offshore, at which point they start selling alcoholic drinks. Or gambling.”
.
Now that is a very interesting argument. I suspect that the marketer has to be very careful about what they say in marketing and how payment is handled.
.
Have you ever seen an ad for casinos in Las Vegas? Off hand, I don’t think that I have. But I see ads for casinos in New Mexico all the time. I am guessing that you have not, unless you live in New Mexico.
Following up on HaroldW’s interesting example (Comment #223789), it seems that SCOTUS has ruled that gambling advertising is protected speech even where gambling is illegal.
.
It seems clear that providing a woman in Alabama with information and advice on getting an out-of-state abortion would be legal. Something more than speech would be needed to make a conspiracy. Of course, that part seemed obvious to me all along.
MIkeM
I think it’s difficult to interpret getting an abortion is a state where it is legal as “an illegal act”. Alabama may argue it only matters that it’s illegal in Alabama,the other side will argue otherwise. I suspect SCOTUS will not see it Alabama’s way.
.
I agree “overt act” likely means more than talk. But I suspect driving a car, walking or getting in a bus would be an overt act.
.
I agree. Murder itself is illegal in both states. Hiring someone to commit a murder is illegal in both states. Where the murder is to be done isn’t relevant– I think Alabama can make it illegal to hire someone to commit murder in Alabama or even advertise for a hit man in Alabama. The hiring and advertising were both done in Alabama.
.
But I even suspect hiring someone to kill someone in Georgia could be illegal in Alabama even if killing people was legal in Georgia.
.
Possibly, Alabama could make making an appointment for the abortion illegal in Alabama? Dunno. That’s arranging “interstate commerce” which is regulated by the feds and I’m pretty sure it can’t be by the states. (Not that states don’t try to tap dance around it. But they do have to do so.)
But suppose Alabama can make making the appointment illegal. The in woman in Alabama night have to arrive in Illinois to make the appointment. Or she might need to get a friend in Illinois to make the appointment (which would then kick the debate a bit further).
.
But I don’t think I don’t think can make travel to do something legal in the other state illegal– I think SCOTUS would slap that down. Freedom to travel between the states is such a long standing right, I just don’t see SCOTUS accepting Alabama’s argument they can prevent travel to another state to do something legal in the other US state. I also don’t think they can make arranging travel illegal.
.
I don’t think Alabama can make talking about doing something legal illegal. That’s seriously touching on the 1st amendment right of speech and doesn’t fit the legal definition of “conspiracy”.
.
If a suit happens it will be interesting to see the arguments and the rulings.
Mike M
I think our thinking is similar here. Note that I wrote that I think Alabama might be able to make “making the appointment” for an abortion illegal in Alabama. That might equally apply to paying. But that might also not be possible because the feds regulate “interstate commerce and making an appointment for a service provided in another state strikes me as pretty clearly “interstate commerce”. States don’t get to do that. So… quien sabe? Not me.
.
I’m pretty sure an Illinois abortion clinic advertising abortions in Alabama could be made illegal. Whether advertising “Pregnant? Need advise? Call our advise hotline!” could be made illegal…. dunno. I mean, that could be an adoption agency. Or an agency to provide housing for young women whose parents kicked them out of the house when they got pregnant. Those groups did sometimes run that sort of ad. In fact, the hotline could provide answers to whatever the caller wants to ask.
.
I think the anti-abortion states are going to have great difficulty preventing pregnant women in their state from traveling to other states to have abortions. There may be plenty of volunteers willing to help others get them (at least for a time), many who want abortions will manage to get abortions. Some pregnant women will still fail.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/your-mark-get-set-go-are-you-ready-to-spin-wheel
Sounds like the Feds may not be able to ban advertising for gambling in another state, but States may be able to do it.
State Law Still Matters
As a result of the Murphy case, any determination of what lottery activities are legal, and therefore may be advertised, depends upon the analysis of state, rather than federal law.
This toss a federal law prohibiting advertising gambling. I guess I’ll have to hunt to see if States can.
— edit… oops.. I think this prevents the feds from disallowing states to allow gambling?
This 1999 article seems to be about advertising gambling:
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/15/us/justices-strike-down-ban-on-casino-gambling-ads.html
HaroldW,
“The AG is suggesting that conspiring to do something legal, is illegal, which makes no sense to me.”
.
Nor me.
.
To suggest otherwise is to suggest that individual states can project their laws to apply in other states and declare things illegal that never happened within their jurisdiction. It think it is clear the SC, should it ever reach the SC, will strike that with a “per curium” opinion, based on many earlier rulings. This is a nutty gambit promulgated by nutty people, and does not even deserve (and will not garner) opposing opinions issued by the SC.
.
I understand the moral opposition in Alabama to abortion (no matter the circumstances!), but they are going to lose this, and lose every time. It is a case of utter stupidity triumphing over a rational analysis: the morals of Alabama are no more ‘absolutely correct’ than the morals of other states. Really, it is nuts.
Lucia,
”..sacrifices an intolerable amount of truthful speech about lawful conduct.”
.
For sure, the Court will kill this quickly if it ever reaches them.
Alabama has zero chance to succeed in this; they can’t and won’t restrict travel by their citizens to other states to have an abortion.
.
IMHO, they should step back and think very carefully about what the hell they are doing and the very negative political consequences this effort will have for conservatives everywhere in the USA.
lucia,
I think we basically agree. Some actions to promote out-of-state abortions to Alabama woman could be illegal and others would not be legal. Setting up an abortion tourism business in Alabama would surely attract prosecution. Providing advice and information surely would not. Somewhere in between there is a line.
.
I would hope that the Alabama AG would not go after volunteers. If he does, I would hope the courts slap him down.
.
NM state law probably explains why I never see ads for Las Vegas casinos, but do see ads for in state ones (all tribal, I think),
Mike M,
“Some actions to promote out-of-state abortions to Alabama woman could be illegal and others would not be legal.”
.
IMHO, rubbish. It is 100% legal to promote abortions where they are legal to perform. I really do hope this issue is presented to a Federal Court, and the sooner the better. Alabama can help by being incredibly stupid; I am counting on that.
Steve,
It occurs to me that the Attorney General in Alabama might not care about the consequences for conservatives across the US. Maybe it’s sort of like Biden’s student debt forgiveness giveaway, maybe he doesn’t care if it’s legal or if it gets overturned. Religious conservatives in Alabama will support it and this solidifies his hold on his position, I think.
mark bofill
Agreed. He wants to be re-elected in Alabama. Going to court with even the most tenuous legal theory will help him do that.
.
What that means is we may all need to recognize that the Alabama AG advancing a theory may not be terrific evidence that it is remotely sound. Yeah… he’s an attorney. But even he may know that theory is weak and that he’s likely to lose.
.
The more people have brought up actual evidence of what’s legal about gambling, advertising gambling and so on, the weaker the Alabama AG’s theory seems to be. And it didn’t strike me as very sound to begin with.
.
That said: won’t surprise me if this goes to SCOTUS. The AL AG will probably be willing to spend AL state money to go there.
mark bofill,
“Religious conservatives in Alabama will support it and this solidifies his hold on his position, I think.”
.
Sure. And maybe that is actually the case. Which just shows he is even stupider and less principled than his other actions would suggest. If you really want to reduce the total number of abortions, this is not the way to do it. If you want to get re-elected in Alabama? Maybe it is a good approach. But that just means he is BOTH unprincipled and stupid, since he has to know he will lose the legal argument.
.
I keep wondering: what is wrong with these people?
Lucia,
“The AL AG will probably be willing to spend AL state money to go there.”
.
Yes, but should it happen, this is one of the very rare cases where there could actually be humorous statements by the members of the Court at the expense of an advocate before the Court. Any abuse so received would be richly deserved.
Steve, Lucia,
Yup.
I imagine abortion support NGO’s want to advertise free services for out of state abortions. They will want to do this in federally funded family practice centers. They will intentionally attract prosecution for this because it is good politics for them. They will press this issue until the lines are drawn by the courts.
.
They get to broadcast their alleged virtue and make their political opponents look like extremists at the same time. Win and win.
.
Even after the lines are drawn (hopefully sooner than later) there will be people who will volunteer to be prosecuted for stepping over that line. The politics of abortion are a bit strident to say the least.
Tom Scharf,
“They get to broadcast their alleged virtue and make their political opponents look like extremists at the same time.”
.
They have no virtue, but obviously, their opponents are in fact acting like extremists. Suggestions for Alabama politicians: 1) Don’t lean into a left hook, and 2) don’t go to Federal Court with an obviously losing (and idiotic) case.
Even if the AL rule isn’t thrown out immediately, I suspect that a group could skirt the rule by simply advertising trips to Chicago (say), where a tourist can enjoy all the museums, restaurants, and medical facilities of the destination. See — not assisting abortion at all. We have no idea what our customers do once they’re in the city. Wink, wink.
HaroldW,
“We have no idea what our customers do once they’re in the city”
.
Of course. The stupidity of politicians in Alabama is unbounded. The damage they will do to conservative candidates throughout the country in 2024 is similarly unbounded. What is wrong with these people? I can’t begin to imagine.
Tom Scharf
Well… when the opponents hold extreme positions relative to the range of public opinion, it’s not going to be that hard to “make” them look extreme.
.
Both sides will be trying to broadcast their “virtue”. The both think they are virtuous.
.
Well… they’ll likely lean into the left hook because that’s how they broadcast what they consider their virtue.
.
We are bound to see the two extremes meeting in court.
mark bofill,
No worries. To be clear, I said Jordan wrote that males could be placed in female bodies yet still channel the male power source (and vice versa), but only through supernatural means. The example you cite is one where a male was put into a female body when resurrected yet continued to channel the male power source. That is exactly what I was referring to.
If I had been trying to provoke people, I would have pointed out the only trans characters in the series were created by the world’s “devil.” He’s the one who resurrected them in bodies with different sexes than their original ones. One could argue that was transphobic, especially since the story doesn’t even try to offer a reason the “devil” did it. I actually went out of my way to try not to be provocative. 😛
I don’t know where you got the idea that’s what progressive say. It’s possible some small portion of people do say that, but the general understanding of the trans issue is simply: People’s mental gender may not match the roles expected of their biological traits. Most typically, this manifests by a biologically male person feeling they are a female or a biologically female person feeling they are male.
However, gender roles are complicated and involve a lot of arbitrariness set by societal standards. What makes a “man” a “man” in the US now is very different than was in Rome 1000+ years ago. As such, some people do not feel either gender fits them fully. Some take this as indicating they don’t belong to either gender, others take this to mean they can fit partially in both.
As a personal example, growing I never felt like one of the “guys” because a lot of the behavior expected of me for being a male was gross and even offensive. I didn’t like using homophobic slurs to sound cool or to talk about the size of my genitals. I was told I wasn’t a “real man” because I didn’t use dehumanizing language about women, their bodies and what I’d like to do them. Many other “male” behaviors just didn’t sit right with me.
Were any of those things inherently parts of “being a man”? Maybe not. But that shows how arbitrary and nebulous gender roles can be. It’s no surprise people may not cleanly fit any set of them.
Thank you Brandon.
DaveJR:
I think you misunderstood my point. It was mentioned Jordan’s world has a hard-coded distinction between males and females for how one of its magics is accessed yet this was changed for the show. I said I don’t think that change is particularly bad given how Jordan handled gender roles in his series. One example I mentioned is Jordan decided trans people could be created via supernatural means.
It’s notable trans people never came about via any of the many alternate timelines or reincarnations that were a natural part of the series’ world. They only came about when the world’s “devil” explicitly created trans people. I think that’s weird. I think it’s particularly weird because no reason was given for why he did it, and he does it with only two people in all the known history of the series’ world.
Creating a fantasy world where people’s sex and gender are shown via absolute rule to necessarily match and thus trans people cannot exist would be one thing. Creating such a world then saying, “But trans people can be made via magic” would be a different one. Creating such a world then saying, “But the devil can make trans people” is a very different one.
My point was simply that given how weird Jordan’s handling of gender issues was, I don’t think it’s bad for an adaptation to change it. This is a guy who repeatedly played off a man being raped by a woman as a joke. I wouldn’t want an adaptation to view gender issues the way he did.
Have you written many bestselling fantasy novels Brandon?
mark bofill:
Obviously not. I’ve also never published a scientific paper. Even so, I’ve been able to successfully identify significant problems with some.
It’s wonderful that you’ve been able to identify significant problems with Robert Jordan’s work Brandon. I for one firmly believe that once you and all of the other right minded progressive thinkers improve on all of the existing works of art so that they don’t reflect any … weird? Yes, weird ideas, the world will be a much better place. I’m sure we’re all very grateful for your efforts to better works you didn’t produce and couldn’t equal. I know I am.
mark bofill, it seems to me you are misreading what I wrote so you can jump to negative assumptions about me once again. To be clear, I never claimed to have found significant problems in Robert Jordan’s work. Personally, I don’t think they are “significant” in the sense of greatly impacting the overall work because they come up so infrequently. My point was simply that his handling of gender issues was really weird in a number of ways so I don’t think it’s bad for an adaptation to change how it approaches gender issues. I think that could be done without fundamentally impacting the story in a significant way.
For instance, I don’t think it’s somehow vital to the series that we portray a man being repeatedly raped by a woman as funny even though Jordan established that it was viewed as such in his world because it was a man being raped not a woman.
SteveF:
lucia:
I think this is the key issue. The reason I keep circling back to the idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction is the act Alabama claims is being conspired to commit is ultimately legal in the area it is committed. To claim there’s a conspiracy to commit some illegal act would seem to require Alabama be able to decree an act that’s legal in the state it’d happen is illegal for the purpose of their conspiracy charge.
That seems crazy to me, but yet, the federal government does successfully prosecute citizens who travel to other countries to have sex with minors even if the country they travel to does not make that sex with a minor illegal. I wish I could find someone knowledgeable on the legal concepts involved who had discussed why the cases are different.
Why can the federal government successfully prosecute people for acts committed outside its territory that were legal where they were committed? Why could states not do the same? I honestly have no idea.
While I don’t have the legal credentials to join your Alabama Law discussion, I am pleased you all are having such a discussion. Between Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, and June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson, no states debated imposing such laws. Now these laws are being discussed and enacted throughout the land. And that is progress.
I stand corrected. Here:
.
I think its wonderful that you’ve uncovered
minor problems with Robert Jordan’s work Brandon. I for one firmly believe that once you and all of the other right minded progressive thinkers improve on all of the existing works of art so that they don’t reflect any … weird? Yes, weird ideas, the world will be a much better place. I’m sure we’re all very grateful for your efforts to better works you didn’t produce and couldn’t equal. I know I am.
Brandon
I have highlighted some words. You seem to be missing two points I made.
.
* Point 1: Alabama is a state. You keep discussing something the federal government can do. Some powers are reserved to the feds. Others are reserved to the state. So it’s odd that “honestly have no idea” why the feds might be able to do something and while the states cannot do the same darn thing. I would have thought you were entirely aware of the tension between states rights and federal power which has had important historic consequences.
.
* Point 2: Traveling between states is treated differently from traveling between countries. So, you are bringing something up that is in the category of “travel to X”. But you are ignoring what “X” is. If “X” is a US state, “travel to X” appears to be a right covered under the privileges and immunities clause. That it includes the right to travel between states is a long standing interpretation that has not been changed. If so, states generally cannot prevent people from traveling to and from other states. The feds can yank your passport. They can make it illegal to visit certain countries.
I’m going to add a third thing.
* Point 3: US States cannot regulate behaviors and things in other States. That’s part of our constitutional deal. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” This is the first line of the priviliges and immunities clause. Alabama can’t set aside the public act in another state. Nothing in the constitution says we need to give full faith and credit to other countries laws.
.
I have links and discussion of the privileges and immunity clause and discussion of the distinction between federal power and state powers in previous comments on this thread. Perhaps my thoughts don’t hit the mark. You haven’t discussed how what I said might change your thinking, is flawed yada, yada, yada. But they do touch on a reason that might remedy your state of “honestly hav[ing] no idea”.
.
I can only imagine you haven’t read previous comments on these– which were intended to address some of your thoughts on this which you repeat now. Or you were so wrapped up in your discussion of science fiction their relationship to your previous discussion of the what the feds can do that states can’t do didn’t strike you as relevant. Or maybe the thinking about child abuse prevents you from turning your mind to our form of government and what’s in the US constitution. But I would suggest if you want to have some idea you might consider those two points.
Brandon,
It is ironic that saying this:
That you fail to understand that precisely the same issue is in play in Robert Jordan’s work regarding Tylin and Matt.
Women are dominant in Altara (link, see ‘Culture’ section). Tylin is the queen. She does indeed rape Matt at knifepoint. After all, Tylin is Queen, and female dominance is the cultural norm in Altara. Oddly, Matt’s problem with the situation isn’t that he was forced to have sex, but rather that Tylin was the dominant parter:
(bold emphasis added)
I’d think that right minded thinkers such as yourself would laud Robert Jordan’s courage for imagining what might happen to a womanizer who stumbled into a culture where roles were reversed. But in the end, whatever Matt’s initial problems with the situation, he’s fallen hard for Tylin:
He goes through considerable trouble to go after the Gholam that tears Tylin apart, which is a strange sort of thing for a rape survivor to do in my view. Sort of makes the reader question how nonconsensual the relationship really was to begin with.
.
All of this is in a sense besides the point. Your criticisms IMO were shallow and prudish, but even if they were sophisticated and on target, the author’s work is what it is. Reread the Coda of Farrenheit 451; Ray Bradury laid it out perfectly:
On review I see that I had misremembered a detail. Matt went after the gholam later in the story, not as a consequence of it having killed Tylin. Neither here nor there.
Fahrenheit 451 Coda link here.
https://katherinesmithth.weebly.com/uploads/9/7/1/7/9717809/coda_from_ray_bradbury_for_fahrenheit_451.pdf
I should have pasted the whole darn thing.
Consider the following hypothetical.
The Virginia-Tennesse border runs right down the middle of Main Street in Bristol. Prostitution is illegal in both states. A pimp comes up with a clever idea to make it impossible for his girls from being arrested. They solicit openly on both sides of the street, then take the John to a room on the other side of the street. It probably does not work, since police on either side of the street can still arrest the prostitutes for solicitation.
.
But what if Virginia legalizes prostitution? Could the cops in Tennessee arrest the prostitutes soliciting Johns on their side of the street? I think the answer should be yes. The charge would be solicitation, not prostitution. On the other hand, they should not be able to arrest a John who crosses the street to engage a prostitute.
.
So which is the proper analogy to what the AL AG claims? We don’t really know.
MikeM,
I suspect so– if it’s an explicit solicitation and they’ve made solicitation in TN illegal. The issue will be whether the solicitation was “in” TN merely because the light and sound waves originating in VA arrived in TN. Not sure how that would be resolved. It might be TN can’t even do anything about that.
.
I’m fairly certain the john can’t be arrested by TN for driving to VA to have sex with a prostitute in VA nor for having sex with her while he is there. And the AL AG’s claim appears analogous to saying he can arrest the John. And that seems simply incorrect.
.
Otherwise, it seems to me they would be able to arrest residents of VA for having sex with prostitutes in VA, and then visiting AL.
.
Because I think States are required to treat citizens (and residents) of all states identically.
.
In contrast, the US does not need to treat citizens of all countries identically. They can block entry from some countries and not others. How an individual president tries to do it by executive order can be a political hot potato. But the US can block citizens of country X and allow in citizens of country Y. And they can allow in Americans and block all others. And the US can grant entirely different rights to Americans and aliens. TN can’t do that vis-a-vis people who came from other states.
lucia:
I have not missed this point at all. I explicitly referred to it. States are different from the federal government, and as such, many things are different between them. However, things are often analogous between them. What matters is what grants the authority used by the federal government in the child sex tourism issue and whether or not there is a comparable analog for the Alabama case. I understand there could be legal distinctions that render the two things incomparable, but I have no idea what those would be. That I conceptually understand something may exist does not mean I have any idea what it is.
As far as I can tell, the argument being made by Alabama seems to be, “Conspiring to commit an abortion is illegal in this state no matter where the abortion would ultimately be carried out.” If so, that argument would seem to say whether the person intends to travel to another state or not is immaterial. Particularly since the people who are being threatened with prosecution here are not the ones traveling in the first place.
If Alabama is saying people have committed a crime without leaving the state, I am not sure it’ll be compelling to courts to say Alabama is violating people’s right to travel between states. You’ve made a big deal about how I’ve supposedly ignored so many things. Perhaps you could guide me to the previous discussion where people explained how the right to interstate travel is violated by prosecuting people for acts that don’t involve them traveling between states at all?
“The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
.
The part that bugs me the most is that the self appointed referees aren’t actually offended themselves by any of these works. They get on a self adulating soap box vying only for peer group respect while pretending they are concerned “others” might theoretically be offended. Dr Seuss? You have got to be kidding me. I can barely recall ever hearing from actually offended people and to the extent that they represent a tiny portion of people they can stuff it IMO. Don’t read Dr. Seuss. I grew up in a world where the arts were supposed to challenge people’s thinking, not be stripped of any meaningful tangent that might offend. It’s suffocating.
.
I alternately find it fascinating reading older books that reflected the culture of the times. I secondarily find it rather curious that people just assume that today’s values among a certain group are somehow perfect and unassailable. It is this certainty that is most revealing.
lucia (Comment #223827): “I suspect so– if it’s an explicit solicitation and they’ve made solicitation in TN illegal.”
.
But “solicitation”, like “conspiracy”, is an inchoate crime. Even if all acts committed are legal, it can be a crime if those acts are in the furtherance of an illegal act even if the illegal act was never attempted.
.
It might be that “solicitation of prostitution” or some such is encoded as a specific crime in itself. I don’t know if that is so, but I would put my money on it not being so.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223828): “As far as I can tell, the argument being made by Alabama seems to be, “Conspiring to commit an abortion is illegal in this state no matter where the abortion would ultimately be carried out.” If so, that argument would seem to say whether the person intends to travel to another state or not is immaterial.”
.
I think that is exactly right. And clearly stated. Conspiracy charges do not require that the illegal act be committed, or even attempted.
mark bofill:
I am confused why you think I fail to understand the similarities here. As far as I can see, you don’t elaborate on this to explain how it supposedly leads to some mistake or error on my part so I can’t really examine your thinking. FWIW, I think I understand the similarities just fine.
I don’t know why you keep using rhetoric like this to refer to me, but I don’t think it takes any courage to imagine what might happen to a womanizer thrust into a culture where roles were reversed. Writers have done that for centuries. And yes, like Jordan, those writers have often portrayed men being raped by women as funny. Similar presentations of men as “enjoying it” and thus it “not really being rape” can be found in all sorts of literature.
Playing rape as comedy is gross. That you’d question how nonconsensual the relationship was shows exactly why this is so bad. Many of Jordan’s fans did the same. His fandom fought and argued over this point because a sizable portion of it thought the man being raped was funny. To its credit, his (at least vocal) fandom has largely come to accept that yes, Jordan was wrong in how he wrote those scenes, that they are gross and problematic. Hopefully we don’t need to argue the idea, “It wasn’t rape, they enjoyed it” and, “It wasn’t rape, they fell in love with their abuser” are bad things to present as serious justifications.
As for your grandstanding about how people are trying to rewrite history, change people’s work or whatever it is you’re going on about, come on man. We’re talking about adaptations. Adaptations by definition require changes. Just look at the person you quote. In that quote Bradbury was railing against various pressures on a person’s work which prevent the creator from expressing their own vision. That has nothing to do with people changing things when making adaptations. Bradbury didn’t think making changes when adapting work was bad. He did exactly that himself. When Bradbury wrote an adaptation, he made huge changes to it. He’d have no problem with a TV adaptation of someone else’s work making huge changes just like he did.
Mike M., not sure how much it matters for the broader concepts, but I can confirm “solicitation of prostitution” is explicitly encoded in the laws of at least some jurisdictions. In Illinois I know it’s listed as “Solicitation of a sexual act.” I’ve looked it up before because of seeing “big names” get charged with in news stories from time to time.
How dare you. A writer is wrong to write something gross or that you consider problematic, that’s your position?
[Edit: That was exactly what Bradbury was talking about.]
Mark, you’ve got a stronger constitution than I. I long ago stopped reading Brandon’s comments. Too many unpleasant adjectives describe his style, and I feel life is too short to put myself through that tendentious mediocrity. Unpacking all the unstated assumptions is a Sisyphean task that I don’t have the stomach for.
Thank you Earle. It’s not really about Brandon for me though, he happened to stumble into profaning something important to me and so I felt it worthwhile to answer him. I more than half suspect he only comments to irritate people here; such would be consistent with the contempt he has expressed for all of the commenters here before. From time to time I try to reset my expectations and see if Brandon has finally arrived in good faith. I make mistakes like everyone else, but as far as I can tell, he has not yet.
Shame.
Bradon
Oh? This is not specifically referring to the fact the constitution treats states differently from the feds
It’s not referring to it at all.
.
Still don’t have any idea? Oh. Well.
.
I think everyone else has grasped the difference.
The USA does obviously try to extend its laws to apply in counties where it has zero jurisdiction, at least for US Citizens who are in those other countries. I don’t think this is a good thing. Sensible international policy would be completely consistent: US laws apply in the USA, not outside the USA. Other country’s laws apply in those other countries. It is idiots like Anthony Blinken who imagine US laws have some kind of extraterritorial ‘superpower’. The sooner that idiot is gone, the better off the whole world will be.
Ed Forbes complained of hearing so many accounts of the Ukrainians taking Robotino [which is the Russian name for Robotyne]. Well, he can rest now. The Ukrainians have breached the last Russian defensive line south of town. It is known as the 1st Surovikin line. But be prepared Ed, you will start to hear a lot about ‘Verbove’. The Ukrainians are moving East, behind, and parallel to, the 1st Surovikin line and bearing down on Verbove. Perhaps Ed can tell us the Russin name for that town.
“Russian footage shows Ukrainian infantry continuing to advance inside the first Surovikin Line, moving towards Verbove, Zaporizhia Oblast.”
With aerial photos and geolocation: https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1698744656421396530?s=20
“Possible expansion of UA penetration of the 1st Surovikin. Based on the alleged RU shellings, UA forces have entered the manned trenches on the high ground west of Verbove. “
More aerial maps:
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1698740697371640219?s=20
“Further geolocation: AFU 82nd AirAssault being shelled in the infantry trench west of Verbove, south of prior geolocation. Thanks to @DefMon3 for high-res imagery. Location: 47.4366, 35.9363”
https://twitter.com/moklasen/status/1698740229757075563?s=20
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223812)
mark bofill,
“I always thought progressives said gender was fluid and in essence whatever a person claimed it was moment to moment.
–
Brandon
“I don’t know where you got the idea that’s what progressive say.
–
Oh dear
–
“It’s possible some small portion of people do say that,”
–
No, that is actually the current mainstream line.
–
“but the general understanding of the trans issue is simply: People’s mental gender may not match the roles expected of their biological traits.”
–
Sadly putting the cart before the horse.
Easily fixed.
“People’s biological gender may not match the roles expected of their mental traits.”
Then your comment,
“Most typically, this manifests by a biologically male person feeling they are a female or a biologically female person feeling they are male.”
is nearly correct except for the fact that it also typically applies to biological women as well.
–
Gender is biological.
Their is no mental gender.
Mental processes are malleable and changeable by the person concerned.
Mrs Doubtfire was a man.
Thanks angech. That’s pretty much the way I see it too.
angech, mark bofill, if you think, “Gender is biological. Their is no mental gender,” you contradict what basically all the experts on this topic say as well as pretty much all the people who live and deal with these issues. As far as I know, pretty much everyone who deals with these issues accepts the use of “sex” to refer to one’s biological sex while “gender” refers to the identity that exists within one’s mind. Common usage and even dictionaries all seem in agreement here. Even just on semantics, demanding people reverse this usage seems untenable. Similarly, if you think:
Applies to trans people and their gender identity, that is largely false. Many mental processes relating to a person’s fundamental being cannot be changed by that person. We’ve seen this argument played out over sexual preferences with attempts at “fixing” gay people by sending them to conversion camps. The situation is largely the same here. There is no more evidence to suggest trans people can change their mental processes so they are not trans than gay people can change their mental processes to become straight.
lucia:
Do you think everyone else has also grasped how Albama prosecuting people for actions that take place solely within the state of Alabama by people who at no point intend to travel outside Alabama violates their right to interstate travel?
Maybe that makes sense to everyone else here and you guys have already discussed why it does. I don’t think so though.
mark bofill:
It will always fascinate me how people who treat me far more hostility than I treat them are so confident I am acting in bad faith. I have a genuine question for you. What would it take to convince you I act in good faith when I comment here?”
My impression is the answer for at least some people here is, “Nothing ever could.” I’m curious how accurate that impression is and for whom.
Brandon
Experts on the trans issue is what I guess you are referring to?
Whom are you referring to and what exactly are these fields of expertise.
I get it that you do not like to be wrong but waving around the word expects (unspecified) does not win arguments.
–
Next you appeal to the very people with their mental issues ( not meant as a slur) as a back up up to your wrong assertion.
Conflict of interest?
Motivated reasoning much?
A bit like asking Dexter if his thought processes are normal.
We both know they are not.
–
Further all the people who live and deal with these issues is not just the small subset of the population who view themselves (Viewpoint is not gender) as trans.
It is all of us and we are all allowed opinions on it, not just one deeply involved group.
–
To help you see this better I will raise the associated idea of “furries”.
These are people who mentally choos to believe they are animals like cats or dogs.
According to your logic, faithfully followed, a person who identifies as a cat an thinks lie he/she thinks a cat should look and act is actually a cat.
Please.
Biologically they are people, not animals.
They can choose to believe they are something else as much as they like but the experts in biology will say they are male or female humans where such biology is evident or provable.
–
Experts in dealing with trans issues are called psychologists.
While it is very sensible to be nice to people with issues of all sorts it is not reasonable, sensible or fair to conflict a scientific principle , gender, with a state of mind where people are so unhappy with their lot in life that they want to be something else that they are not.
In the real world, your gender is determined by your plumbing at birth.
So anyway, I’ve spent way more time on extraterritorial jurisdiction insofar as it applies to sex tourism these last couple days than I should have, but I think it’s actually interesting and relevant. It was first introduced in a major 1994 law on crime and law enforcement with text which said:
It required the person have intent when they traveled/conspired to travel, meaning they had to have formed that intent while still within US territory. A decade later this was amended to remove the intent requirement, criminalizing conduct “regardless of what [the perpetrator’s]
intentions may have been when he left the United States.” A decade later it was further amended to remove the “travel” requirement, so that US citizens anywhere in the world were covered no matter what.
The claimed source of legal authority for the first two is the Foreign Commerce Clause (the third is cited to the power to make treaties, somehow), with federal courts ruling Congress has the authority to punish “noncommercial, noneconomic sexual acts committed by a U.S. citizen against a minor within another nation’s sovereign territory” because such acts “substantially affect[] the international sex tourism industry” (United States v. Durham). To me, it seems if you removed the “minor” aspect of this, it would effectively read, “Traveling to another state then having sex with someone affects the international prostitution industry.” This seems insane, as expressed by the dissent:
My impression then is the central legal authority cited by the federal government to prosecute sex tourism is the Commerce Clause, which Alabama does not have. Perhaps then the issue in Alabama could boil down to the courts viewing this as a commerce issue.
Normally I wouldn’t think criminalizing behavior by people staying within one state would violate the Interstate Commerce Clause, but federal courts seem to say Congress can regulate anything, anywhere, because everything has some impact on commerce. And that’s mostly what I wanted to share. Reading up about what the courts are allowing in terms of federal power here is frightening.
American cluster munitions really changed the artillery war. This video shows hell raining down on Russian troops in the form of cluster munitions. The troops are dismounting from a column of trucks and hiding in a tree line. Geolocated to the south of Verbove. Artillery fire is being guided by and recorded by at least two drones. https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1698657197335470578?s=20
angech, Russel Klier, you may not like or agree with the definitions I’ve referred to, but they are widely accepted. If you need proof of this because you’re skeptical/unaware, I can provide as much as you could need. If instead you wish to say people are wrong to agree to use those definitions, all I can say is good luck railing against the inevitable tide of semantics. Here’s a statement from the American Psychological Association’s website:
This is how you’ll see people use the words across most sectors of society.
Oh, and angech, that is not what furries are. What you’re referring to is called a “fursona.” Most furries use it as a character they roleplay as/aspire to be. They see it as an idealized version of themself. Only a small minority view it as something they actually are. I’d suggest not getting your information about groups from bad media coverage and things like that. You’re on the internet. It’s super easy to find people from groups you’re not familiar with explaining what they think and feel. My guess is they’ll often tell you things that don’t match your current understanding.
Really. You just gotten done saying that authors are wrong to write things you think are gross or problematic, why then do you imagine anyone should care about reading things that don’t match one’s current understanding?
I’m disappointed in you Brandon, pretty close to writing off trying to talk with you.
If there is a sensible guiding principle for rational analysis, it is that ‘experts’ are very often wrong; obvious instances are too numerous to bother trying to list. It is only rational to be skeptical of experts, especially when that expertise is a font of opinion (Close the schools! Double mask! Stay 6 ft apart! Close the parks! Close the Churches….. but not the liquor stores!) not provable fact. Or as Richard Feynman said: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
.
Pleas to defer to ‘experts’ amount to not having done a reasoned analysis or not having a reasoned argument to make. angech says he is a medical doctor, so an expert in health care. Yet plenty of people here have argued with him about things like vaccines and immunity. There can be no progress if we must always defer to experts.
.
Sorry, a human who identifies as a cat is humorous, even while sad. Funny too that we never see the reverse. Maybe we would if cats could talk. Seems large complicated brains can go very wrong.
Oops. I posed a rhetorical question. I’ll fix it when I get a minute. Sorry lucia.
Brandon
That looks rhetorical. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. No one has claimed otherwise.
.
I’m finding your arguments bizare– and that you are not engaging what I (or sometimes others) actually write. So I will be ignoring you on this topic.
Russell,
Thanks for the Ukraine tweets!
To cut to the chase, disregard my rhetorical question. I don’t know if Brandon is making any of these arguments in good faith or not. If he’s not, I’m wasting my time speaking with him. If he does honestly believe that it is wrong for writers to produce material he finds gross or offensive, it’d likewise seem that we have so little common ground to proceed from that I’d be wasting my time speaking with him.
A good bit of what he’s putting forward is of poor enough quality that it [is] really beneath any need for rebuttal anyway, so I’ll ignore that. If he comes up with an argument I believe needs addressing I’ll comment at that time. Till then, I’m out.
Lucia,
You are welcome. I am hesitant sometimes because the war is usually waaaay off-topic.
You have commented on my bread baking. Have a look at today’s little beauties:
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1699059916361937011?s=20
It’s a homegrown recipe based on baker’s percentages….
“Baker’s Math 101: How to do Baker’s Math’
https://www.breadandbasil.nyc/sourdough/bakers-math#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20Baker's%20Percentage,and%20expressed%20as%20a%20percentage.
Brandon,
Actually, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you are speaking in bad faith. If you honestly believe what you are saying; if you honestly do not understand why it is in fact sacred instead of wrong that writers should write things that we find problematic or gross, then the most likely alternative to you speaking in bad faith is that you are speaking honestly and I have grossly overestimated your intelligence. I don’t actually believe you’re a moron Brandon, so. I guess I’m going to go on believing my lying eyes instead of listening to your protests.
The four stages of ignorance :-
.
“It’s not happening. It’s just a conspiracy theory.”
“It’s not happening, but here’s why it’s a good thing.”
“These are just isolated incidents. It’s not happening everywhere.”
“Yes, some people did something. We know! This is old news. Get over it already!”
Brandon,
But you know what? Knock yourself out. Make your good faith case that it is wrong for writers to write things you think are problematic and gross, if you think you can offer one that is not juvenile and absurd. If you dare.
Russell,
No it’s not. Just because two people start a passionate discussion of gender in some sci-fi series doesn’t make the war off topic. One reason people might not respond to your updates is merely that… well… what is someone going to say? No. The news is not reporting Ukraine has made an advance?
.
FWIW: I’m really not paying much attention to the sci-fi discussion because I’m not familiar with that sci-fi series. So I have no idea what that work of fiction tells us about gender or (perhaps) magic.
Brandon, I just saw this:
“Russel Klier, you may not like or agree with the definitions I’ve referred to, but they are widely accepted. If you need proof of this because you’re skeptical/unaware, I can provide as much as you could need.”
No, I don’t need your proof as I am an expert in the field myself. You see in college in the 1960s I was a practicing amateur gynecologist.
Lucia,
Pardon my sarcasm. When Brandon tells me gender is determined somehow other than by plumbing at birth I think he is either a certifiable nut job himself or he is yanking my chain. Neither explanation deserves a serious response.
Russell,
Oddly, the definition of “gender” Brandon is giving is correct. The problem is that some people want gender to be considered indistinguishable form “sex”. And also, some people want to decree that they have the exclusive right to decree what other people think their “gender” is.
.
So, for example, we have bathrooms that are designated for people whose sex is female. But some want to decree those are for people whose gender is female, and to also decree that they have the right to decree what their gender is.
.
The problem is the bathrooms are for the female sex, not gender. And it’s not at all clear that an individual gets to just decree “I’m of the female gender” irrespective of other peoples perceptions of masculine and feminine. So, for example, if I see a photo of Lia Thomas in a swimsuit, I perceive a person whose gender is male, not female. If I am told Lia considers their gender female I still perceive person with a male gender (and male sex.)
.
Now, I might be willing to be polite, yada, yada, yada. But in the swimsuit, I can see the shlong. And the person is tall, broad shouldered etc. Long hair is not, and has never been sufficient to make someone’s “gender” appear female– Louis the 14th had long hair as did many hippies. So to me, Lia presents both male gender. And Lia’s chromosomes are XY.
.
This is all separate from the debate about women’s sports. No matter who “wins” the argument about people like Lia competing what, I will continue to percieve people with visible shlongs, and masculine (i.e. typical of XY development) as having a gender of “male”. I can’t perceive the inner workings of their mind or mental state. To me, they present “male” gender and they do have male sex.
Oh, Crap!
“Mollie Hemingway: GOP Needs To Start Coming to Terms Trump Likely to Be Nominee”
And Mollie is never wrong.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/09/04/hemingway_republican_party_needs_to_accept_that_trump_will_be_the_nominee_and_unify_if_they_want_to_win.html
I expect this is already abundantly clear, but I don’t particularly care about the gender issue at this point, although of course I recognize that perhaps other[s] do. I disagree with Brandon’s advocacy for the viewpoint that writers who express problematic or offensive ideas are wrong and that this is some sort of justification for rewriting their material. The gender / rape controversies in the story were just the spark that ignited the disagreement I care about.
I don’t think anyone is confused about transexuals. Most of the conflict is whether that particular mental condition should be socially acceptable, or should be allowed in children against their parents’ will. This manifests itself in an attempt by progressives to redefine the terms “man” and “woman” to mean something different than they have historically meant. There have always been masculine women (tomboys) and effeminate men. Men and women behaving like the opposite sex is different, people recognize this as different.
.
Progressives try to force language changes in the hope that these changes will help make that condition more socially acceptable. It crosses the line when they try to to put the force of the state behind enforcing this language change, or by prematurely replacing the parent’s will with that of the state. Just like unwise abortion laws in Alabama, progressives are welcome to die on the political hill of overriding a parents’ will on minor transitions or enforcing struggle sessions for transexual ideology. It’s a bad political move.
Russell Klier.
Please keep posting on the war. I find your posts useful.
OK, Mike… On it!
Climate scientist talks about how Nature / Science evaluates papers on climate change and how the narrative is king. Nothing surprising here, but nice to see someone say it out loud.
.
I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
“To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
…
“Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change. Instead, we followed the common practice of looking at the change in risk of an extreme event—in our case, the increased risk of wildfires burning more than 10,000 acres in a single day.”
…
“As to why I followed the formula despite my criticisms, the answer is simple: I wanted the research to be published in the highest profile venue possible.”
Lucia,
“The problem is that some people want gender to be considered indistinguishable form “sex”
Spare me the mansplaining and psychobabble.
Gender, sex, XY vs. XX, and plumbing at birth are all the same in the real world. Anything else is from the “World of Make Believe”
“Normal” is an oppressive construct. To be normal is to have freedom, to be free of stigma. To be abnormal is to be oppressed by that which is normal. True freedom can therefore only be attained once the entire concept of normality is abolished.
.
The reason there is no answer to “what is a woman?” is that defining what a woman is creates a new normal, which by definition would be exclusive and therefore oppressive. The solution, as can be found in some dictionaries, is to define a woman as “someone who identifies as a woman” or “someone who is not a man”. Non-definitions which exclude no one.
.
Judge dismisses lawsuit by sorority sisters who sought to block a trans woman from joining
.
“With no definition of a woman in sorority bylaws, Johnson ruled that he could not impose the six sisters’ definition of a woman in place of the sorority’s more expansive definition provided in court.
.
“With its inquiry beginning and ending there, the court will not define a ‘woman’ today,” Johnson wrote.”
.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/judge-dismisses-suit-sorority-sisters-sought-block-trans-woman-joining-rcna102261
Gender dysphoria has been around for time immemorial. Society has never reacted well to this fringe of the population, and perhaps treated them worse in the past. The opinion of specialists in this field appears to be that gender identity is a bimodal spectrum.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-is-a-woman/
Perhaps the Guardian is just concern trolling. It seems odd to me that a publication that is not particularly friendly to conservative ideology should concern troll about an explosion of teenage girls claiming to be trans, but I guess it’s possible.
[Edit: Or not. Anything for the clicks, right?]
Okay, RB, you’ve read the blurb, so what is a woman?
Tom Scharf,
Very funny. I suspect that fellow will never get another climate science paper published in a “reputable journal”. I hope he likes his new job, because he is not going back to academia.
lucia:
The question was not rhetorical at all. As best I can tell, at least some of the behavior Alabama claims it will prosecute is behavior that’d be carried out entirely by people in Alabama who never leave the state of Alabama. This point has been brought up a number of times, and not just by me. Despite this, you claimed I was ignoring that people had said that right to interstate travel would violated by Alabama’s prosecutions.
I do not understand how the right to interstate travel would be violated by prosecuting people in Alabama who have no plans to leave Alabama for actions that take place solely within Alabama. Since you said I had ignored points which addressed my concerns, I asked you to point me to where this issue had been addressed. You ignored the request and, as far as I can tell, have not addressed how prosecuting actions that take place solely within Alabama would violate people’s right to interstate travel.
You may feel my arguments are bizarre and that I am not engaging with what you or others actually write, but I feel the same about you. The difference is if you asked me a specific question, I would answer it.
Tom Scharf (Comment #223867)
Judith Curry’s reaction:
“I am just speechless (in a good way).”
https://twitter.com/curryja/status/1699131463957111255?s=20
mark bofill:
To be clear, I have not advocated for rewriting any author’s material. I do not think anyone should have their work rewritten by anyone not involved in making it (like editors, co-authors, etc). Me noting changes necessarily get made when adapting things in no way means I think any original work should get rewritten.
What I do think is changing the dwarfs in Snow White’s tale to some other race or races when making an adaptation is fine because them being dwarfs isn’t an important aspect of the story or its themes. I think the same is true for one change made when adapting the Wheel of Time books into a TV show. It’s how I feel about changes in adaptations in general. If changes made for an adaptation don’t significantly impact the themes or story, I think they’re fine.
I believe you may be overinterpreting what I said when I said Robert Jordan’s fandom had come to accept, “Jordan was wrong in how he wrote [certain] scenes, that they are gross and problematic.” This was not me saying it is wrong to write gross and problematic things. It was me saying Jordan wrote the scenes wrong in that I do not think he intended for them to be gross.
I do not think Jordan was trying to promote the idea it is funny for men to be raped by women. I, and much of his (at least vocal) fandom say we think he wrote those scenes wrong because we think they came out significantly different than Jordan would have intended. If a writer intends for a death scene to be tragic but inadvertently writes it in a way that comes out funny, I would say he wrote the scene wrong. That doesn’t mean all death scenes that come out funny are wrong or should be forbidden.
My guess is if someone had raised the issue while the book was being edited, Jordan would have rewritten the scenes so Matt was clearly a willing participant in the sexual relationship and only had an issue with the fact he was the one “being chased.”
Brandon,
But now it turns out that it wasn’t his handling of gender issues or including trans people made by supernatural means at all, it was that Jordan crafted poorly and didn’t come across the way he intended. This is what good faith looks like, huh. Alrighty.
Russell
Like it or not, gender and sex have different meanings. Words in romance language have “gender” not “sex”.
Brandon
But those are not the behaviors and prosecutorial decisions we have been discussing here. I’m not going to conflate discussion about whether Alabama can prosecute acts committed in TN with discussion of whether Alabama can prosecute acts committed in AL. You can feel free to babble on conflating the too– but the issues are entirely different.
.
I also have zero inclination to continue a discussion with someone who ignores what I have written and then babbles on about a topic entirely tangential to anything anyone else is discussing.
RB (Comment #223870)
“Society has never reacted well to this fringe of the population”
My problem is that this ”fringe of the population” [call them ‘The Confused’] and their Progressive enablers are trying to force their fantasy on the rest of the population [call us ‘The Unconfused’]. Over millennia and across many cultures the norms have developed:
Women use women’s bathrooms; men use men’s bathrooms. Women play women’s sports; Everyone plays men’s sports [let the best man win].
Over the ages pronouns have developed in every language; they are fine as they are.
Now the ‘Confused’ want ‘The Unconfused’ to reverse all that to reinforce the fantasy world they live in. No, leave me alone, and, more importantly, leave my grandkids alone. If ‘The Confused’ want to ignore reality I don’t care; Just stop trying to force ‘The Unconfused’ to ignore it too.
I’ll try to make this my last comment on this sorry topic. Censoring and/or rewriting an author because we don’t think the author said what he meant strikes me as poor rationalization. Using the fact that some changes are necessary for an adaptation to occur as cover to legitimize the exercise of these base censorious impulses is also pretty dishonest in my view – if people have an issue with what was written, they have an issue with what was written. The adaptation is merely the opportunity and excuse. I’m sick of discussing this, so I’ll try to let it go now.
Lucia wrote : “The problem is that some people want gender to be considered indistinguishable form “sex”
.
I posted a while back how a graduate questionnaire from Northwestern University classified “cis” as “gender identity” and “straight” as “sex identity”. Yes, they want them to be indistinguishable, but simply removing sex as a category does the same job.
DaveJR,
And here I thought thought “straight” was “sexual orientation“, which meant you were attracted to people with the same sex as you and “cis” would mean “my gender matches the societal normal people associate with my sex.”
.
Russell,
We’ve always had the idea of “gender” as different from sex. That’s why we had words like “tom boy” which describes a child whose sex is female (girl) who displays some likes and dislikes society thinks more typical of children whose sex is male (boys).
.
The word boy and girl generally connoted their sex. Generally that is aligned with their gender.
.
We didn’t used to decree that tom boys might actually “be” “real boys”. Nor did we suggest the “fix” to their “acting like” boys be hormone treatment or chopping off their breasts. And some of these girls grew up to be more feminine, some less.
.
And we have always had the notion there some traits were more feminine and some traits more masculine. Or that some men were “men’s men” and some women were “girly girls”. These descriptions have to do with associations of gender which is not entirely aligned with sex.
.
Lucia wrote : “And here I thought thought “straight” was “sexual orientation“, which meant you were attracted to people with the same sex”
.
Yes. I thought it was an incredibly smart piece of language manipulation. Gender replaces sex. Woman/female is no longer a category, avoiding that issue. Cis-woman becomes just one of a number of different genders, which included “queer” and “other”. Sex is repurposed to refer to orientation. Replacing orientation with identity serves to fit in with gender, as well as erasing the old “born this way” narrative, because that’s not on the agenda anymore and an inconvenience now.
DaveJR,
I think one reason some want to replace “sex” with gender is that Title IX uses the word “sex” not “gender”.
Some want to argue “sex” is the same as gender precisely to then say that Lia Thomas must be allowed on a women’s swim team– becasue Title IX requires that.
But Lia Thomas’s sex is not female.
lucia:
The behaviors and prosecutorial decisions we have been discussing here certainly do cover acts carried out solely within Alabama by people who have no intention of leaving Alabama For instance, a couple early remarks by Mike M.:
I get comments made in these discussions may sometimes not have explicitly stated the conspirators weren’t going to leave Alabama, but nothing about the alleged conspiracies would require them do so. Someone helping a person leave Alabama to get an abortion does not require them leave Alabama. Prosecuting someone who helped a person leave Alabama to get an abortion without leaving Alabama themselves does not require them leave Alabama.
From the start we’ve been discussing Alabama’s stance on prosecuting people for their actions that happen in Alabama. And nothing about the discussion required the targeted people ever travel outside Alabama. So people have in fact been discussing “behavior that’d be carried out entirely by people in Alabama who never leave the state of Alabama.”
You can say you won’t “conflate discussion about whether Alabama can prosecute acts committed in TN with discussion of whether Alabama can prosecute acts committed in AL,” but the discussion was never about prosecuting acts committed in TN. It was always about prosecuting acts committed in AL.
mark bofill:
I pointed out Robert Jordan handled some gender issues in… weird… ways I would say constitute bad writing. For one, I think Jordan simply failed to write scenes the way he intended. For another, I think he included a plot device that went nowhere and served no purpose while raising a host of important questions and issues he never bothered to examine or address. Given I don’t think these or anything about how gender is handled in his series are important aspects of his series, I think an adaptation changing such things is fine or even good.
It looks to me like you’re just creating a false dilemma so you can justify your negative assumptions about me. What I talked about was always about “his handling of gender issues” and things like his inclusion of trans people created by the devil. It was also always about “that Jordan crafted poorly.” Believe it or not, handling issues you include in your story poorly often coincides with the writing you do around those things being bad.
While this thing nobody in the discussion has advocated for or promoted might strike you as a poor rationalization, I would suggest getting exhausted arguing against things you imagine people have said is a far less productive use of one’s time than simply discussing things that have actually been said.
Brandon,
That’s fine. I’m sure you’re right.
[Edit: Thanks Brandon.]
[I’m not sure I’m not just playing cheerleader with this post]
It started with Prigozhin and his periodic rants about not getting any artillery ammunition. It was a recurring theme of his. Since then I have seen periodic reports from Russian troops not getting counterbattery support. It has been more frequent lately. I have noticed [and commented here] that drone videos of Ukrainian forces attacking Russian trenches seem devoid of Russian artillery and tank support.
Now ISW has joined the chorus: “#Russian sources continue to complain that Russian forces lack sufficient counterbattery capabilities and artillery munitions”
Back in July British Intelligence made this observation:
“Russia is suffering from a worsening shortage of counter-battery radars, especially its modern ZOOPARK-1M. Only a handful of the originally deployed ZOOPARK fleet are likely to remain operational in Ukraine.”
Note Definition:
Counter-battery fire (sometimes called counter-fire) is a battlefield tactic employed to defeat the enemy’s indirect fire elements (multiple rocket launchers, artillery and mortars), including their target acquisition, as well as their command and control components. Counter-battery arrangements and responsibilities vary between nations but involve target acquisition, planning and control, and counter-fire.
Links:
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1680813688754778112?s=20
https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1699218354681028652?s=20
Brandon,
Well… that was selective quoting. you failed to quote what the AL attorney was going to prosecute groups for. And that involved actions in another state.
This article discusses what the AL AG is saying
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/alabamas-attorney-general-state-prosecute-women-travel-abortions-102844622
The woman almost certainly has a right to travel out of state. AL cannot infringe her right to travel generally. Certainly they can’t infringe her right to travel to do something legal. And the AL AG seems to recognize this.
.
It’s highly unlikely the AL can make it illegal for to help someone else to exercise their legal right to travel out of state to do something legal . That’s really trying to twist something– and SCOTUS is likely to slap it down. They’ll see it as trying to make it illegal to printing presses to people who want to promulgate their views– while allowing presses to be sold to others.
.
The groups giving money to pay for the abortion may have to hand the money over in another state. Or provide the clinic funds directly — in the other state. Then the transaction has nothing to do with behavior in AL.
.
I have no idea who the federal judge hearing the case is going to be. But I seriously doubt this machination on the part of the Alabama AG part is going to fly.
.
There are something a state cannot make illegal.
The Alabama lawsuit is filed here:
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/documents/yellowhammer-fund-v-alabama-ag-complaint.pdf
The AG’s response.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.almd.80824/gov.uscourts.almd.80824.28.0.pdf
“Gender is biological.
Their is no mental gender.
Mental processes are malleable and changeable by the person concerned.
Mrs Doubtfire was a man.”
–
“History of the concept
The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history.[21] The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades.[21] The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.” wiki
–
“The Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language of 1882 defined gender as kind, breed, sex, derived from the Latin ablative case of genus, like genere natus, which refers to birth.[20] The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED1, Volume 4, 1900”
–
Most cultures use a gender binary, in which gender is divided into two categories, and people are considered part of one or the other (boys/men and girls/women)
–
In the mid-20th century, a terminological distinction in modern English (known as the sex and gender distinction) between biological sex and gender began to develop in the academic areas of psychology, sexology, and feminism.
–
Russell Klier (Comment #223868)
“Gender, sex, XY vs. XX, and plumbing at birth are all the same in the real world”
–
The beauty of language and sophism.
Sex and gender are inextricably the same.
Gender was, is and will be what sex you are having been born that way.
–
The modern preference of some for using gender instead of sex to try to distinguish between your sex [biological] and your way of sexual behaving [biological] is fraught with ideology inveigling its way into a proper scientific discourse.
–
People who identify themselves as animals and want to be treated as animals are making up their own fantasy life and one which most normal people, except Brandon, would realize to be irrational.
It was funny or furry, take your pick, to watch him try to wriggle unsuccessfully off that hook.
[A funny aside for teachers like Lucia is what is said to have happened at our local high school. Two 14 year olds wished to identify as cats and requested the teacher to provide kitty litter for them in the classroom.
Their request was denied and they were moved on to another school. Unlike what would happen in Canada I guess].
–
Brandon sex/gender is binary and biological.
One can talk of problems people have with wishing to be something they are not and demanding attention and respect for their choice oblivious to what choices all others around them may have.
Having beliefs not grounded in reality does not make one necessarily a basket case.
Fixed false beliefs are common in all societies particularly those with a religious bent but this does not stop such people operating normally in other walks of their life.
Pretending to agree or at least not arguing with them when they are a majority is a sensible practice to avoid strife.
I tend not to discuss religion with people I like.
–
However a fixed false belief is a fixed false belief and concurring with
those beliefs does not help those suffering from them when it leads to an insistence on demanding change from everyone else.
-Trans people have issues.
Some are attention seeking,
Some display a Stockholm syndrome, adapting to what they see as a mad world they have to live in, Goths and gangs.
Some have had terrible lives resulting in severe psychological trauma and depression.
Some have no self worth and others respond to parental upbringing
“Felix led a flamboyant life. As a young man, he cross-dressed, wearing ball gowns and his mother’s jewelry to public events.[4][5] From 1909 to 1913, he studied Forestry and later English at University College, Oxford,[6] where he was a member of the Bullingdon Club,[7] and established the Oxford Russian Club.”
Some woman found their only way to progress in a man’s world was to dress and act as a man.
–
I have an easy way of coping with most people in the world.
Live and let live and try very hard not to judge.
angech,
“Live and let live and try very hard not to judge.”
.
And try very hard not to laugh at ridiculous proclaimed ‘personal identities’, like cats, dogs, and paraplegics.
angech
True. And thanks for one of the best examples that prove gender is not sex.
In the story Mrs. Doubtfire knew he was a man, cross dressing to see his kids. He knew he was presenting as female and that other people saw him as female, but that it was a disguise.
.
The fact that you can disguise yourself and role play as the opposite gender actually proves that gender is different from sex
angech
Of course. But this doesn’t mean animals don’t exist. Nor does it mean that if we watch a movie in which the actor is disguised as a gorilla, we don’t recognize the part he is playing is “gorilla”, not “man in a gorilla suit”.
.
If he comes to believe he is a gorilla, we recognize he has a mental disorder. But that doesn’t mean gorillas don’t exist nor that gender doesn’t exist.
.
Look: it is very dangerous to side with the “woke” and conflate gender and sex. That slippery argument– and the equivocation– is being used to strip away rights of women — that is “people of the female sex. It is used to take away hard won rights for the female sex.
.
Modern? Do you mean “the period that goes back at least to the Elizabethan era and Shakespeare?”
.
Shakespear recognized “female gender” when he had boys cross dressing as to play women on stage and occasionally female characters (played by boys) cross-dressing as boys.
.
He didn’t think their “sex” had changed. But their gender had changed– at least on stage.
.
Please use sex to mean sex and stop playing into the hands of the woke by allowing protections for those of the female sex to be eroded by denying the distinction between gender and sex. I’m pretty sure the difference between presenting as a women vs. man was not new even in Shakespeares time.
.
We’ve long long long– probably always — understood that certain traits are “feminine” and certain “masculine”. We can argue which is which (and some of it is social). But we’ve always known that we can see a certain man as feminine (nancy-boy) or woman as masculine (butch) and not think their actual sex changes.
Lucia, angech
Mrs. Doubtfire’s gender, sex, xy vs. xx, and plumbing at birth are Male. He never changed intrinsically. He is just another example that all the gender nonsense is play-acting. People around him acted differently toward him because he pretended to be different, but it was a lie. Throughout time [at least for the last 75 years of it that I have witnessed] there was no confusion; gender, sex, xy vs. xx, and plumbing at birth were all the same. This is a manufactured controversy to distract from the basic truth, and that is ‘The Confused’ are trying to force their fantasy world on me, ‘The Unconfused’.
angech,
Well… that’s only possible if they aren’t making demands on others including me. Demanding to be allowed on a women’s swim team affects others.
.
You can say “live and let live” all you want, but both “sides” can’t have their way because what they want is mutually exclusive.
.
Refusing to distinguish the difference between sex and gender– as the Biden administration advocates for Title IX is very dangerous to cis-women’s programs. I rarely agree with Trump, but he at least knew sex and gender are different things!
Russell
Yes. As I said, he was a man.
Yes, as I said, he knew he was play acting.
.
He is a great example that shows we all recognize gender is different from sex. If it were not different, “playacting” a gender would not even be possible.
.
What rights, protections and so on should be afforded those who play act other genders is a valid question to debate. Whether they truly believe their gender doesn’t match their sex is a valid question. Whether such a true belief is a mental issue is a valid question. Whether the best way to deal with their believe is surgery is a valid question. Whether kids should receive “gender affirming care” is a valid question?
(I think the answer to the last one is clearly “no”.)
.
But gender is different from sex. Were it not, none of the above questions could be asked. And claiming there is no difference between gender and sex is very dangerous to women’s hard won rights.
Lucia,
“But gender is different from sex. Were it not, none of the above questions could be asked. And claiming there is no difference between gender and sex is very dangerous to women’s hard won rights.”
Ok, Unkle. I surrender, I don’t agree but I won’t argue the point anymore.
I do agree that there are men with feminine traits. When I was young, I called them ‘Sissies’. And I do agree that there are women who are very aggressive. When I was young, I called her Mom.
SteveF
I tend to assume the overwhelming majority of cat and dogs (and for that matter, “Apache attack helicopters”) are jokes. Are their people presenting as paraplegics? Interesting if so.
Russel,
Which means you recognize gender.
And you had a name for men with traits corresponding to the feminine. You didn’t like them and considered it a slur. But you did recognize gender was different from sex.
Women are aggressive. They tend to manifest it in different ways from men — Less physical, more social. But they are aggressive.
Russel,
This is on aggression in women. Women are aggressive:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00081/full
Lucia,
“Women are aggressive. They tend to manifest it in different ways from men — Less physical, more social. But they are aggressive.”
My mother was Irish. Physical aggression was one of the arrows in her quiver. She caught me with an uppercut once.
Russel,
Where you small at the time? One of the things that reigns in female physical aggression is the fact that men are stronger and larger. Women don’t want to be obliterated.
.
At least you do recogize physical aggression as a more typically “masculine” trait. But you also recognize women who display it retain their sex as women. So, in truth you do recognize gender.
.
We used to all recognize that women (XX) with masculine traits retained their sex as women. And men with feminine traits retained their sex as men. But we still recognized traits the idea of “masculine” and “feminine” as gender.
.
Forgetting the difference is very dangerous to XX women and their hard won rights. VERY.
She wasn’t worried that I would hurt her, she got mad because I was mouthing off and just shut me up. Hard enough to snap my mouth closed but not hard enough to do any damage. Lucia, I am not going to engage on the gender issue. I respect your position… you’re just wrong.
Russell,
Nope. You are wrong. There has been a long history of people distinguishing gender and sex. And it’s very dangerous to the female sex that people like Biden and the woke are trying to make conflate the too.
.
I suspect you don’t worry about this danger because you aren’t female. But this is very important for woman and this new idea they are not different needs to be nipped in the bud.
SteveF (Comment #223895): “And try very hard not to laugh at ridiculous proclaimed ‘personal identities’, like cats, dogs, and paraplegics.”
.
I see no problem with laughing at some one who identifies as a dog or cat, unless that person is so obviously insane that he needs to be institutionalized. It is not possible to actually believe that you are really a cat and function in society.
.
People with some form of body dysphoria should be pitied and, if possible, helped. But they should not be humored in any way that would be harmful to themselves or others. And they certainly should not be celebrated.
lucia (Comment #223897):
You are absolutely correct. Sadly, that ship sailed some three decades ago. The cultural vandals have long since succeeded in establishing the usage of “gender” as a synonym for “sex”. And now they are gleefully reaping the poisonous fruit they sowed.
lucia (Comment #223906): “Forgetting the difference is very dangerous to XX women and their hard won rights. VERY.”
.
Absolutely true. And right on target.
Off-topic (all the topics!), here is an amazing comet photo:
https://www.astronomy.com/picture-of-the-day/photo/nishimura-approaches/
For those of you unfamiliar with “LRGB imaging” (as I was), here is a good explanation.
Lucia,
I hope you don’t mind….. I have another strong Irish woman story.
My mother’s grandmother was born in County Kildare, Ireland. She and a lot of my ancestors immigrated to Pittsburgh during the potato famine in Ireland. My great-grandfather, James Kenna, opened a general store and saloon on 33rd Street during the 1850s when Pittsburgh was a frontier town. After her husband died of cholera in 1881, Brigid ran the saloon herself until she died in 1905. I can’t imagine the amount of gumption it took for a woman to run a frontier saloon. She was also the mother of ten.
A couple of side notes. She was christened ‘Brigid’, in honor of St. Brigid of Kildare, but ran the saloon as ‘Boston’ Kenna. I guess Boston had more street cred than Brigid. She signed her will ‘Boston Kenna’. [I have a copy]
Another side note…. My great-grandfather’s brothers also had business on 33rd Street. One was a blacksmith and one was a wagon maker. Finally, at about the same time, the Union Iron Mills Company opened their factory on 33rd Street at the Allegheny River. This was destined to eventually become the Carnegie Steel Company.
Factory Rendering and Reference:
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1699460651683369027?s=20
Lucia,
Yes, there are crazy people who “self-identify” with all kinds of physical disabilities, including being paralyzed.
.
With 330+ million people in the USA, the very small fraction of true crazies represents a pretty big number. Odd then that lots of people in Africa (with a population 4 times that of the USA) don’t self-identify as wildebeests, zebras, and lions.
.
My theory: you have to live in a half-bonkers society where “progressives” are ascendant for people to think it is acceptable to behave in such bizarre ways. And to believe it is perfectly OK to cut the breasts off a 15 YO girl. We live in strange times in the USA.
Steve,
Yes. I think you have to have a considerable amount of stability and leisure in society for these things to become problems, otherwise nobody pays them any attention. Maslow’s hierarchy and all that.
[Edit: And yes, when you’ve got people who are trying to bring about societal change, I think it’s almost inevitable that bizarre ‘mistakes’ will be made in the social movements behind the change, I agree with that too.]
mark bofill,
“Maslow’s hierarchy and all that.”
.
Sure, but even though I studied Maslow’s hierarchy (to better understand the role of ‘leadership’ in an organization), I don’t remember the part where you have risen to a Maslow level where mutilating children becomes OK. (Edit: OMHO, mutilating children is never OK.)
Steve,
Yes. Part of the trouble, in my view, is that people will quote me studies that claim that very small percent[ages] of post op transexuals ever want to detransition. Personally, I suspect confounding factors (such as – were these studies run prior to to the increase in public attention that trans social issues receive and the explosion in young people claiming to be trans?)
.
I don’t want anybody killing themselves, I’m sure you don’t either. I don’t want children doing irrevocable damage to their bodies either unnecessarily, just like you. There is way too much spotlight and circus on this issue to do anybody any good, and that I do lay directly at the feet of progressive activists and college intellectuals. It’s past time for the wanna be dragon slayers to put up their swords and stop traipsing around skewering innocent victims in their quest for civil rights glory, as far as I am concerned.
mark bofill,
My view is that those under 18 (heck, probably under 21!) are intellectually and emotionally incapable of rationally making such permanent choices. Full stop; no exceptions.
.
I have no problem with adults mutilating themselves. Weird, but whatever. I do have a problem with crazy parents enabling crazy children to do crazy things.
.
As to threats of suicide: those kids need to be involuntarily committed and treated by competent medical staff.
SteveF,
I definitely think some mental illness is…. kinda-sorta self indulgence. You could “snap out of it”. I’m not going to go quite so far as to say it’s a full choice, but there is such a thing as “wallowing” in emotions, habits etc. Or perhaps equally, to pull your self out of some things you have to chose to do things that make you uncomfortable.
.
Ok… I found this
https://www.healthline.com/health/reality-therapy
Later
But… honestly…. I think there is a element of this in some “mental illness”.
I also know my brother was a bit taken aback in medical school when (evidently) some materials were categorizing being sad for a prolonged time is depression in the sense of “mental illness”– and that included, for example– being sad because your spouse died. Society used to recognize that it was just normal to be sad for a rather long time if your spouse or child died. They even sort of expected morning period. Women wore black, then lavender. It was supposed to communicate to others that your feelings might be delicate during that period.
.
Mind you, given how people got married off in some eras, the woman might be delighted her husband died….. But still…
On detransitioning studies. This was the first I came across
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/
.
Possible issue: I don’t know which organizations fall under “community outreach”. And I don’t know if those who detransition tend to remain involved with these “community outreach” organizations.
.
Of those surveyed 13% tried to detransition at some point.
Mark: “Personally, I suspect confounding factors”
.
I heard detransitioners who hadn’t had surgery were excluded ie people on blockers/hormones. I can see how this would affect the detrans stats if true. Surgery is a decision that cannot be reconsidered, making detransitioning something of a moot point.
Lucia,
I shouldn’t opine because I know perfectly well I have no idea what I’m talking about, but who am I fooling right, that never stops me anyway. So – I think there is definitely a component that is voluntary. People can choose to wallow, exactly as you say. People can make poor choices that probably aggravate their conditions. If people can make poor choices, it implies they can make good ones to me.
Regarding that study, wow. Maybe you got lucky right off the bat. [Edit: I mean the 13% thing. Most studies I read quoted cite numbers much lower.] Maybe I need to invest some time at least scanning some studies.
Thanks.
Thanks Dave. I’m going to try to make some time to look into this soon. I’ll keep my eye out for that as well.
~grins~
Jordan Peterson pointed this out in some of his videos as well. If you’re depressed, you might have a mental illness. It might also be that depression is the inevitable and justified state to be in if your life is enough of a mess or pit or dump or whatever. In which case medications aren’t really going to fix it..
Mark,
Afterwards I found studies that had much lower numbers. That was the first I found. Perhaps it was the more recent and so had lots of links from magazines? (It does seem well linked because I kept getting sent back to it.)
.
I have no idea if the sample was or was not biased nor what effect it would have. Though, I tend to think “community outreach” might be “trans friendly groups”. It’s not impossible they are “detrans hostile”. Though… who knows?
.
I imagine it’s difficult to create an unbiased sample unless someone “tags” every transitioner and then follows up on everyone later in their lives.
.
One article did comment that some studies just look at who detransitioned in 2 years, but the median time is more like 5 to 7 years. I didn’t keep that link. I also have no idea what the “median” time for detransitioning would be.
mark bofill,
Yes. There’s what Jordan Petersen said.
I also think… well, I know a person. She has a trust fund. And I would characterize her life as having lots of episodes of “retreating” or “running away” from life. Some of the episodes have been very severe and at least as described by her do sound like mental illness. And she did get institutionalized.
.
But… I also think to some extent, at certain times she might have been able to “just buck up” or even “just suck it up”. I think after certain points she’d really tumbled and couldn’t “just suck it up”. But…. well…. hard to describe without giving details. (Some of which I know; some I only suspect.)
And I think one reason she did not “just suck it up” is she didn’t really have to work. Most of us can’t just retreat fully. Can’t use your UChicago Business degree doing super mega lucrative things? Because you’ve decided that path was not what you thought or wanted? Still gotta eat. Why not be a lowly manager of a Walmart. Brings in money to pay the rent. But if you have a trust fund? Maybe you wait… and wallow and wait… Think about “repackaging”…. into some dream…
.
So you retreat…. run away…. and then where are you? In a worse place. So you retreat more… and so on.
.
Mind you, some “sucking it up” doesn’t always save you. But sometimes… well it does.
Russell Klier (Comment #223901) “Ok, Uncle, I surrender, I don’t agree but I won’t argue the point anymore.”
–
Very wise. I should take heed of past experience and your advice, but…
–
lucia (Comment #223897) agreeing with Brandon on separating Sex and gender?
“angech People who identify themselves as animals and want to be treated as animals are making up their own fantasy life. Of course. If he comes to believe he is a gorilla, we recognize he has a mental disorder. But that doesn’t mean gorillas don’t exist nor that gender doesn’t exist.”
–
A small question here.
“Nor does it mean that if we watch a movie in which the actor is disguised as a gorilla, we don’t recognize the part he is playing is “gorilla”, not “man in a gorilla suit”.
Is the sex/gender of the gorilla male or female? If the actor is a trans male does this make the gorilla in the movie male or female?
Serious question.
Acting a role is different to being the role as in a map is not the territory.
It exposes the flaw in the modern (post 1970’s by the way) problem of pretending that gender and sex are not exactly the same thing.
Why.
Because no one should argue that a gorilla’s gender and sex are not exactly the same.
–
In our anthropomorphic world only humans are allowed to conceptualise/fantasise that gender and sex are different.
–
“Look: it is very dangerous to side with the “woke” and conflate gender and sex.”
I am not woke and as far as I am aware it is woke people like our mate and the trans community and the woke part of the social science community that insist there is a difference.
–
“That slippery argument– and the equivocation– is being used to strip away rights of women — that is “people of the female sex. It is used to take away hard won rights for the female sex.”
.
Not by me.
Trans lawyers pretending to equate trans men with women are already taking away women’s rights in the athletic field by stating that your sex/gender is what you want it to be is legitimate.
–
“The modern preference of some for using gender instead of sex to try to distinguish between your sex [biological] and your way of sexual behaving [biological] is fraught with ideology inveigling its way into a proper scientific discourse”
.
“Please use sex to mean sex and stop playing into the hands of the woke by allowing protections for those of the female sex to be eroded by denying the distinction between gender and sex.”
–
Apart from the unintended humour in the opening words that is not and never has been my intention.
I fear that presuming there is a difference between sex and gender is exactly what is playing into the hands of the woke, as you put it.
–
“I’m pretty sure the difference between presenting as a women vs. man was not new even in Shakespeares time.”
–
Exactly. “Presenting as”being the key expression.
How does one distinguish between the sex and the gender of a man and a woman?
The meaning is the same.
–
“We’ve long long long– probably always — understood that certain traits are “feminine” and certain “masculine”.
Again we can just say male and female,surely?
–
“We can argue which is which (and some of it is social).”
Not the understood ones.
“But we’ve always known that we can see a certain man as feminine (nancy-boy) or woman as masculine (butch) and not think their actual sex changes.”
–
If the sex does not change the gender does not change either, whatever their traits , imagines or behaviour are.
They are male or female traits in a person of the gender\sex male or female.
Acting as a member of the opposite sex/gender is an imagined world imposed on the real world.
Whether it is an actual actor, an affectation, attention seeking, a genuine false belief or a psychotic delusion on the part of a person presenting as trans it has no basis in reality to seperate sex and gender.
I personally will continue to view the two words as equal, realise as Bill Bryson says that meanings and usage evolve over time and that very little is fixed because some group has prominence at some time.
-As to title 11 ? And lawyers. And women’s rights. I am sure that a Supreme Court of well meaning and intelligent people can sort out the wheat from the chaff to the satisfaction of women in general and women’s events in time.
Angech,
Irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is that the actors species does not change when he puts on the gorilla suit. The audiences perception of the part he is acting on the state does depend on the gorilla suit. In terms of acting — or presentation, the “parts” of gorilla and man both exist. In terms of the biology, the actual fact of man and gorilla exist. But the two can be different things.
.
Well… only humans conceptualize all sort of things. But it’s more accurate to say that only humans can possibly get confused and think they are the same. If I put a dracula costume on a dog, the dog isn’t going to think his species is “vampire”. And if I put on a dog costume, a dog isn’t going to think my species is “dog”. (Well… he really isn’t likely to think about what his or my species are at all. )
.
But you are wrong. It is the opposite.
It is the Biden administration who is pushing there is no difference, and so Title IX which uses the word “sex” really applies to those whose identify as having a “gender” of woman. And that is why we need to allow XY “women” into bathrooms and on sports teams. That’s the argument by the woke..
.
It was the Trump administration who is sticking to “sex means sex and not gender”, which is why Title IX which specifically says “sex” does not require schools to allow trans-men on women’s swim teams or in women’s bathroom.
.
Not making a distinction between protections for people of the XX sex and insisting sex is legally, socially, morally, culturally, ethically no different from gender is the argument used to by trans advocates to take away protections and rights from XX women in deference to XY-trans-to-women.
.
Lucia
“But you are wrong. It is the opposite.
It is the Biden administration who is pushing there is no difference, and so Title IX which uses the word “sex” really applies to those whose identify as having a “gender” of woman.”
–
I am wrong more often than I like.
Thanks for putting me straight on Title IX.
I think we agree that the Biden Administration is wrong to be doing so.
When I equate gender with sex I am not referring to the Biden/current vogue definition of gender.
–
Unfortunately if we want to grant everyone equal rights to everything willy nilly it does mean that women will be exposed to male nurses, doctors, athletic and sport male competition, kindergarten teachers etc in all walks of life despite this being very uncomfortable for a lot of women.
Realising that the differences between the sexes means that sensible restrictions and exemptions need to be in place is common and legal sense.
When a conflict arises due to two different moral and legal practices most people understand that an individual right in those settings is subservient to the right of a lot of like minded individuals, otherwise known as society.
angech,
Well… women have always been explosed to male doctors, and some male nurses. Male sports competition? Rather less. Before title IX women’s sports basically did not exist and women weren’t allowed on sports teams. After, high schools and colleges needed to provide womens team’s roughly proportionate to men’s teams. (There are some details.)
.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
lucia:
You said nobody other than me was discussing the idea of Alabama prosecuting people who had no plans of leaving Alabama for their actions which took place only within Alabama. Given the question was what people were discussing here, I thought quoting parts of the discussion here was best.
This part of your response would seem to me to acknowledge the Alabama AG is not claiming he will prosecute people for acts they commit in other states, that the people he would prosecute may not even leave the state of Alabama at all. Or as I said before, “at least some of the behavior Alabama claims it will prosecute is behavior that’d be carried out entirely by people in Alabama who never leave the state of Alabama.” If so, then it would seem to me we agree those are (at least some of) “the behaviors and prosecutorial decisions we have been discussing here.”
Helping a person get an abortion would mean engaging in a conspiracy. If the abortion would take place one mile within Alabama’s border, the courts would rule Alabama could prosecute people for conspiring. Would the fact a planned conspiracy involved someone traveling one mile outside Alabama to carry out whatever act mean SCOTUS would say Albama cannot prosecute people for the conspiracy? If the act is illegal in the other state, no. If the act is legal in the other state… I don’t know. I hope so. It seems the sensible thing to do.
But the courts didn’t strike down a similarly crazy abortion law in Texas written to punish people who enabled abortions while Roe v. Wade was still in effect. I have little faith they’ll do the sensible thing here either.
lucia:
FWIW, my impression is the numerical difference between such studies is largely a matter of what they’re looking at. For instance, some studies look at who detransitions in the longterm, but the one you linked to looks instead at people who have detransitioned for any period of their life.
It’s quite common for people to detransition temporarily because of things like not feeling safe, fear of losing a job or simply not being able to afford to continue paying for prescriptions. Including those people will give you a much higher number than if you only look for people who detransitioned because they regretted their past decisions.
I’m not sure if you already know this, but “gender affirming care” (GAC) does not need to involve medication much less surgery. Those are what get the most attention, but there are many other things, like simply talking to therapists. One of the most common forms recommended to parents is to simply use their child’s preferred name and pronouns.
Similarly, it’s not just for trans people. It also covers care that affirms a gender identity that matches one’s biological sex. Males who get testosterone from doctors to make up for a deficiency in it can be engaging in GAC as well. Even things like women getting breast implants can be. That may sound silly, but many women have said having a “flat” chest makes them feel like less of a woman.
I wanted to mention this because I feel like people often talk past one another due to how they understand words to mean different things. For instance, I think a lot of people who oppose “mutilating children” wouldn’t take issue with a parent using their child’s preferred pronouns. They might still say they oppose GAC though because they don’t think of those smaller things as being part of it.
I guess the Russians are fed up with watching Ukrainian drones terrorize Moskow:
Major General Konstantin Ogienko commander of the city of Moscow’s air defense force has been charged with bribery in connection with the expropriation of Russian Defense Ministry-owned land, the Kommersant business daily reported Thursday, citing case materials.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/09/07/army-general-overseeing-moscows-air-defense-charged-with-bribery-kommersant-a82384
And, this is the first I’ve seen this concept:
@TheDeadDistrict
“A side-effect of Ukraine’s slow, infantry led advance is that more of the tanks and fighting vehicles donated by the west earlier this year for an anticipated armoured offensive remain undamaged. “A lot more of the kit has been preserved”
Harvard University leads the way:
From https://news.yahoo.com/harvard-university-ranks-nations-worst-230613749.html
Brandon
Wrong. First AG is being vague. He’s not specifically saying what he will prosecute them for.
.
Some of what he is waving it is prosecuting for things that would happen out of state (if they happen at all). Some if for things that appear covered under free speech — telling people abortion is legal out of state. Some is for things that people have a right to– travel.
.
We’ve already discussed these things above. You didn’t seem to want to be involved in those discussions and wanted to go off onto child sex traffic.
Brandon
Well then– I think the answer is that it clear we should not provide Gender Affirming medical intervention– meaning no surgery, hormones or drugs that affect the physical body. No one is “talking past”. And if someone means “using pronouns” as under the “umbrella” of GAC, they should say they are against the parts of GAC that include that rather than give a lecture on language. Saying what you are for or against is more substantive.
What a bunch of BS. Gender affirming care is a euphemism for providing transitions for minors without their parent’s consent and other controversial actions. I don’t care what else Brandon thinks it includes, feel free to invent a new term that specifically excludes that rather important detail. But that is really the point of that broad euphemism, right? Yes. This is similar to equivocations on CRT. Motte and Bailey, all they way.
Tom
It can be with or without consent. But as used, it generally means what people consider medical treatment: hormones surgery.
Yes. It’s mote and bailey.
.
The two controversial things are:
a) Anything including pronouns without parental consent or knowledge.
b) Overt medical treatment– like surgery, and drugs that affect hormones involved in physical development.
.
Another controversy is whether third parties (e.g. teachers, professors, neighbors, other kids) can be obligated to use the pronouns an individual prefers.
Angech,
When dealing with someone in “Mad Dog” mode try using a tranquilizer dart.
Tom/Brandon,
And I should add: I’m dubious to Brandon’s claim that the term “gender affirming care” is used for things like breast reconstruction after cancer surgery. The American Cancer Society doesn’t use that term. That term is used on the gender disphoria treatment pages.
.
I do suspect some people are wanting to claim these “Gender affirming” includes that– but the term has not been used widely in the past. And when people do say GAC– they mean “affirming” the opinion of the patient whose natural appearance (e.g. having a penis) caused people to “assign” them some other gender at birth and causes people who see them to continue to “assign” them that other gender.
.
Women who lost their breasts– or merely are dissatisfied with the size of their breasts don’t need something to “affirm” they are women. They want to change their appearance– but others already agree they are women.
Lucia,
“Another controversy is whether third parties (e.g. teachers, professors, neighbors, other kids) can be obligated to use the pronouns an individual prefers.”
.
Yes, and I think that outside employment, where an employer can usually insist on what speech is acceptable, this is ultimately going to be settled in Federal courts, based on free speech arguments. I say Federal courts because individual states (many, if not most blue states) will pass laws restricting what pronouns individuals are allowed to speak. It may take years for this to play out, but I suspect the SC will ultimately not allow states to enforce these laws.
Gender dysphoria is when a person believes their gender identity does not match their biological sex. What does that even mean anymore in today’s world, gender identity not matching sex?
.
It seems to me that our society encourages women to adopt attributes historically deemed ‘male’ and vice versa for men, and lauds and celebrates those who do. This being the case, it seems incongruous to me that ‘gender identity’, which appears to me to consist at least largely if not entirely of internalized stereotypes of superficial attributes and characteristics that historically associate with a particular sex, should be of such importance to our mental health and well being. It’s downright odd when you get right down to it.
IF gender identity is so important, perhaps there ought to be more respect and acceptance for traditional sex related stereotypes, since at the end of the day sex related stereotypes appears to be what gender identity is all about. Just thinking out loud here.
” When a conflict arises due to two different moral and legal practices most people understand that an individual right in those settings is subservient to the right of a lot of like minded individuals, otherwise known as society.”
Lucia “I have no idea what you are trying to say”
–
When a male gender/sex person wants to pretend to be a woman gender/sex person that is a right that person has to act that way.
Go for it.
But everyone understands that it is a pretense of acting the part of a woman.
Otherwise there would be no need for the term transformation.
–
If some other people of both sexes wish to pretend that the person is now actually a woman when they know that biologically his gender/ sex is male and treat him as a woman that is a right they have.
They are ignoring the rights of everyone else though.
–
It does not change the fact that most other people of both sexes brought up in the western world do not find such thinking and demands normal.
Their society functions by recognizing the rights of the majority over the minority.
A right for people who play sport with a sex/gender bias, in this case women’s sport to be played by actual women.
Aright for women to go to changing rooms and dress and undress without men around.
–
In respect to behavior where the behavior is of this level of inappropriateness the right of an individual trans person to engage in such activities should not supersede the societies expectations.
–
I guess when I boil it down it comes to this: I think gender identity has two components. (1) A person’s belief regarding what their physical sex should be, and (2) A bunch of idealized sex related stereotypes.
Do I have this right, or am I missing something important?
angech,
Nopers. You can’t make statements like that and expect people like me to smile and nod. What you’re saying here is seriously incorrect as far as I am concerned.
[Edit: You’re reducing the question of right and rights to evaluating majority and minority. You can’t resolve the question that way. Majority and minority have nothing inherently to do with rights or what is right.]
mark
What traits are considered masculine and feminine have varied over time. No doubt about that. Louis XIV wore wigs, fancy hose etc. Mid 20th century men tended to be less peacock-y. We see a bit more peacock in men from time to time now. But still… really ornate clothes tend to be seen as more feminine.
.
I agree with this. To some extent the idea you are “in the wrong body” sort of springs from strong gender stereotypes. I mean…sort of like “it’s wrong for a girl to be a tomboy”. Before the admonision was “Change your behavior into girly-girl.” Now it’s. “So, you must really be a boy. Let’s affirm your identity as a boy.”
.
The better thing is: “Yeah. You are a girl. And you like running around in mud, playing sports, tonka toys. That’s fine.”
angech
I think an adult person generally has the right to decide how to dress, how to present themselves and what they are going to say. They have rights to choice in medical procedures and care. I don’t think society gets to decide that some choices in dress are just “inappropriate”.
.
I do think other individuals get to have an opinion on those choices, express their opinion and retain their own right to live their life.
.
So I think a XY-trans-to-woman person should be free to wear dresses, makeup fancy “feminine” hair styles yada yada. And other people who see them can form their own opinion about whther that person “is” a woman, a “cross-dressing man” etc. But I don’t get to decide that the XY-trans-to-woman person can’t wear pantyhose, fancy hairdoos and make themselves look as feminine as they chose. I don’t get to do that even if I’m in “the majority”. Individual freedoms still exist.
.
Now, there are some things the majority does get to decide, and some of those have to do with people rights to things like participation in sex-specific sports. (Only the women only is contentious. XX-trans-to-men people don’t dominate sports. So…. the question of their “right” is moot.) Access to sex-specific bathrooms and dressing rooms. (My view–you got a shlong? Women’s changing rooms should be “shlong-free zones”. Bathrooms? That can be a bit more lenient since most women’s bathrooms have private stalls. But safety issues do arise if violent men use the ability to access bathrooms to harm– or even potentially harm women. And of course, XY-trans-to-women people might be harmed in XY bathrooms too. (I always hear this brought up, but I don’t know how commonly any harm occurs in bathroms. ) So it’s better to have some unisex bathrooms to avoid the issue.
.
(Note: We do have some nudity restrictions, some restrictions on speech and some restrictions on medical care. But those restrictions aren’t the ones we are talking about with respect to the trans issue.)
.
From the American Association of Medical Colleges:
https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered
.
That is perverse. It amounts to saying that if a person is suffering from a delusion, they should receive “care” that reinforces their delusion up to and including irreversible medical procedures that permanently prevent them from living normal lives.
.
Note that the above cited web page is very much directed at providing “gender affirming care” to children.
.
If a person is confused as the their “gender” the first thing to do is to attempt to align their “gender identity” with their sex so that they can live normal lives. That goes double for children.
.
With the possible exception of rare intersex individuals, no child should ever receive any form of “gender affirming care” as defined above. With adults, there might be cases where it is appropriate after more conservative treatments have failed.
——–
I confess that I only skimmed the AAMC web page cited above. My stomach is not strong enough for more than that.
———
Addition: Aligning “gender identity” with sex would include recognizing that one need not align with sex stereotypes.
The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. While hatred is a simple emotion to understand, in that nothing good comes out of it, if you can harness love and compassion to your cause instead, the greatest evil can instead be disguised as the greatest good!
.
Morals and ethics exist to prevent us from heading down these roads. They are lessons learned from the past mistakes of history. If you have to ignore them because your cause is so great and good, it’s time to stop and consider where your destination lies, as well as to understand that some people are so broken, they really want to take you there.
Lucia,
Thanks, well put. This is what I was trying to get at.
angech,
“Their society functions by recognizing the rights of the majority over the minority.”
.
In British Commonwealth countries, that is generally true. But in the USA it is true for some things, (eg who gets elected to public office), but not for others (the majority can’t take away my right to speak, and ex-post-facto criminal laws can’t be used to prosecute me). The US constitution and subsequent amendments were in large measure designed specifically to prevent the majority from dominating the minority.
.
Of course, a sufficiently large majority could amend the Constitution, but the hurdles are so high that those on the left who are opposed to the anti-majority structure of the Constitution never attempt to pass amendments. Instead, they work to subvert the Constitution by placing judges on the Supreme Court who are willing to change the “legal understanding” of the Constitution to the point that it is “understood” to not actually mean what the words plainly say. This subversion goes under the description “living constitution”… meaning essentially “we will change the meaning to be whatever we want” so that the Constitution no longer protects the interests of the minority.
The abortion tourism winner is Illinois, just as I predicted:
“The state with the largest estimated increase in abortions from January to July 2023 compared to the same period in 2020 was Illinois; Guttmacher estimates the state saw 18,300 additional abortions.”
and:
“Illinois already provided a lot of abortions in the past, and the number increased by 69%.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-data-shows-increase-abortions-states-bans-compared/story?id=102978207
I thought this seemed like relevant news:
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2023/09/06/ca-senate-passes-controversial-law-requiring-parents-to-affirm-childs-gender-identity-or-face-punishment-n2163512
mark bofill,
Of course. California’s legislature is just as nutty as the legislature in Alabama, if not more so.
.
What is wrong with these people that they presume the right to control everyone else? I have not a clue, but these extreme positions suggests a divide which will not easily be mended.
lucia:
I’ve seen many people talk past one another on this topic. If I had responded to what you said without considering your understanding of the term is different from mine, I would have certainly talked past you. Even now, I suspect some things I’d instinctively say are non-responsive to the ideas you have in mind.
For instance, suppose a teenage boy has a hormone deficiency so doctors prescribe testosterone supplements. My guess is you’d think that’s fine and don’t view it as gender affirming medical intervention. I think it’s fine and is gender affirming medical intervention. Similarly, suppose that same boy develops gynecomastia (grows breasts akin to a woman’s) due to the hormonal imbalances. I would think him having surgery to remove them could be okay.
As for my personal stance on GAC, I put a lot of weight on the opinions of medical professionals and the people they treat so I don’t have many absolutes. Giving a 10 year old surgery? Sounds bad to me. Giving a 17 year old hormone pills both the patient and doctor feel are appropriate after lengthy examination and discussion? Doesn’t seem very bad to me. I’m not sure how I’d draw any absolute, hard line.
FWIW, you won’t see the terminology used by people in those situations that much because it’s newer terminology (which has a certain stigma) and is focused on the psychological whereas they’re more focused on the physical. Where you’d be more likely to see it is in places like a therapist’s notes on why they recommend the person see a plastic surgeon.
I disagree. If a woman has lost her breasts and feels “less like a woman,” she could very much benefit from things that help affirm her gender to her. It doesn’t matter if other people agree she is a woman. What matters is if helping her “feel more like a woman” would improve her quality of life.
mark bofill:
This is a common misconception. Gender dysphoria is not the belief there is such a mismatch. It is the distress which can come with such a belief. If someone holds such a belief but does not feel distress because of it, they do not have gender dysmorphia. That’s why most treatment for it is aimed at reducing distress not changing someone’s view on their gender identity.
Mike M.:
As a person who has known several trans children as they dealt with these sort of issues, I want to say I find this stance incredibly unsettling. So many children have suffered abuse justified by their parents holding this sort of view. I think a child should never feel afraid to tell their parents how they feel, but I know many do because they fear their parents will “attempt to [re]align” their gender identity.
Here’s a simple question to consider. Suppose a child told you, “I don’t feel like a boy or girl. I think I’m nonbinary.” What would you do? Would you think that’s bad and needs to be “fixed?” I wouldn’t. I’d just say, “That’s okay. It doesn’t matter what you are as long as you’re happy.”
Thanks Brandon. Do you think that this impacts the point I was making in any significant way?
Brandon seems to be engaging in standard leftist deceit. Take a term that refers to something to which people reasonably object. Redefine it so as to include things that are not objectionable. Then when people object to that which is objectionable, accuse them of unreasonably objecting to to that which is not objectionable. Then, when they say they are not objecting to those things, insist that they must therefore be agreeing to those things that are objectionable. If they object, then repeat the cycle until they give up.
Mike M,
As noted above “It’s mote and bailey.”
.
Dishonest argument? Yes! An argument made in good faith? No!
.
As far as I can tell, the left is pretty much always dishonest in the arguments it makes. I suspect it is because for them the (political) ends justify the (dishonest) means. (EG, see Biden’s link of USA disaster relief funds to increased aid to Ukraine.)
Brandon,
Do you believe that experts designated by the state should have authority over parents in allowing minors to medically transition?
Tom Scharf,
I doubt you’ll get a straight answer. Expect a bit of mote and bailey.
.
I think parents should have authority over their children short of obvious physical abuse.
mark bofill:
I think it does. I think you are right to say it’s odd how important incongruities in sex/gender pairings are for people’s mental health. My personal view is a lot of distress found in gender dysmorphia could be eliminated if we simply got rid of gender stereotypes. Those stereotypes have differed so much by time, location and culture I don’t see why they ought/need to exist at all. Gender stereotypes simply do not seem beneficial to me.
I think the fact the distress of gender dysmorphia is not an inherent aspect of being trans supports this view by showing trans people can be completely healthy on a psychological level.
Mike M.:
Tom Scharf:
To an extent, yes. I feel the same on this issue as I feel about parental authority when it comes to abortions. Namely, I think the person who should have the most authority is the minor. I think the minor should then be able to delegate that authority to people they trust, such as trained medical professionals.
I don’t think requiring parental approval for abortions is appropriate. Similarly, I generally don’t think requiring parental approval for treatment regarding gender issues is appropriate. Age issues make this complicated, but my basic policy is to support the bodily autonomy of all people. The patient’s desires are what will always matter the most to me. And if that patient happens to trust a doctor more than their parents, I’m okay with supporting them in that.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223959): “So many children have suffered abuse justified by their parents holding this sort of view.”
.
Rubbish. I have not anything that would promote abuse or that could reasonably used to justify abuse.
SteveF (Comment #223962): “As noted above ‘It’s mote and bailey’.”
.
Indeed. I can never remember the term ‘motte-and-bailey fallacy’ because it does not mean anything to me.
The clown show continues…
Thanks Brandon.
Brandon,
Sure, and adolescents ought to be able to kill themselves over their parents’ objections, right?
.
You seem to me utterly disconnected from reality.
.
I raised 6 children (3 girls, 3 boys, no gender dysphoria). But I have observed that adolescents often make terrible, self defeating choices. How many children have you raised? How did you find the quality of their choices as adolescents?
The trouble with asking Brandon questions is that he will answer you. You have to ask yourself if you really want to listen to the bullshit. Maybe you do. I think I’ve already had enough from earlier, but I’m sure Brandon would be glad to feed the rest of y’all all of his shit that you can eat for as long as you can choke it down.
mark bofill (Comment #223971): “The trouble with asking Brandon questions is that he will answer you.”
.
🙂
.
In other words: Don’t feed the troll.
mark bofill “angech,
Their society functions by recognizing the rights of the majority over the minority.
Nopers. You can’t make statements like that and expect people like me to smile and nod. What you’re saying here is seriously incorrect as far as I am concerned.”
–
Interesting perspective.
–
Lucia made a similar response to you so you have a majority view on this.
–
I will put on my Brandon hat and point out that since I am in the minority and you agree that a minority has rights that I can and should expect you to smile and nod at my view.
Both of you are ignoring how societies need to function for the majority.
Yes America legislates some freedoms.
Yet France has just ban hijabs at school.
Said men have worn dress type outfits for years.
Denying that a majority has some rights just because America?
Slow down and think about the concept
–
For what it is worth I sm fully supportive of most of Lucia’s view just expressed
Mike,
Yeah, pretty much. Unless you want to I guess. I don’t mind personally, but I might pass on it for now. I spent lunch reading about Judith Butler, queer theory, and Standards of Care version 8. I’m still feeling a bit nauseous.
angech, someday (and that day may never come) you will constrain your responding summation of my position to something I actually said, or even meant, and on that day there will be great rejoicing. I will kill the fatted calf on that day and invite you to a fantastic celebration. But until that day, accept these words as an acknowledgement that I have read your response and remain patiently resigned to waiting.
https://segm.org/ajp_correction_2020
August 30, 2020
Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
(Basically: there were lots and lots of suicides after sex reassignment surgery. So the surgery doesn’t fix that problem.)
Thank you Lucia! I’m reading now.
MikeM
It means that someone makes what absolutely most certainly is a very, very broad claim (W,X,Y and Z are all true! ) at the beginning. It is shown to be unsupported by facts etc. So then they retreat and say “Well what we said really only means Z is true where Z is a tiny snippet of the original claim.” Z will not only be true but uncontroversial. The real arguments are about W, X and Y.
See https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/motte-bailey-meme/
This is an example given
“Here’s an example in a hypothetical argument about homeopathic medicine:
A: Homeopathic medicine can cure cancer.
B: There’s no evidence showing homeopathy is effective.
A: Actually there are many ways for people to be healthy besides taking doctor-prescribed drugs.”
Mike M.:
Without knowing what methods you’d use to try to “align” a child’s gender to what you feel it ought to be, it’s impossible to say with any certainty your view would justify abuse. However, what you said sounds very similar to things people do say to justify abuse.
It’s not just the idea either. It’s also things like your choice of verbiage. You refer to these people being “confused about their ‘gender,'” which suggests you believe they are wrong. You say this should be done to let them live “normal lives,” suggesting you think trans people can’t live normal lives. You even say the *first thing* to do is to try to change their minds not to try to find out why they feel the way they feel.
All in all, I find it unsettling.
mark bofill:
Other than dismissively insulting things, do you have any response to what I said? You seem to be ridiculing the idea I expressed, that trans people can be completely healthy on a psychological level, but I’m not sure if that’s your intent. If it is, I’d point out psychologists and therapists say the same thing. Being trans in no way indicates someone has a psychological disorder or anything like that.
SteveF:
.
This is a bizarre strawman. Consider the inverse of it. What if a parent wanted their child to commit suicide. Would the parent’s desire outweigh the child’s rights? Of course not. Whether a parent wants a child to commit suicide or not in no way determines if the child should commit suicide.
Or to put it another way, I support the bodily autonomy of adult women. That doesn’t mean I think we should let them kill themselves. Believing people should be free to make their own choices in regard to things like medical treatment doesn’t mean you’re advocating for suicide.
Brandon,
Do feel free to continue the conversation you’re having with yourself. If you feel like it raises the clowning to new heights, by all means, continue to frame it in response to me.
I don’t remember asking about abortion.
.
I think you have to defer to the parent’s judgment on transitions, thus the term minor and the term guardian. There are limits, meth-heads who can’t find the time to feed their kids or send them to school do need state intervention. However the bar needs to be high, perhaps very high, before any type of state intervention. Medical transexual transitions of minors don’t even come close to that bar, and that is why progressives look like overbearing lunatics on this subject and others. You do not get to raise my kids, thanks for asking. I’ll venture to guess you don’t want me raising your kids either, but if you want we can try some experimental social engineering on them without your consent.
.
Who is going to pay? The parents are going to be forced to pay for this treatment or am I the taxpayer? No thanks, either way.
.
Am I to trust that the state’s experts are not actually a bunch of activists with a minority viewpoint? People who work in this area are likely going to have a distinct point of view, similar to climate scientists. How many professionals who choose to work in gender affirming care are against it? About as many reporters at ESPN who aren’t sports fans. I don’t have much faith they will reflect the proper pros and cons on this subject and I choose to not defer to those type of groups.
.
Shall we transition an 11 year old because some blue hair activist with daddy issues and a nose ring with a social science degree from Oberlin wants to make a statement to society? No, I think not.
.
The position that the state should decide here is lunacy. The science is way too immature and the social acceptance is low.
.
OTOH I am also not a particular fan of a complete legal ban on these things if the parents do want them. I assume Brandon also supports red state experts preventing a transition even if parents and the minor want it, because … experts of the state are omnipotent.
.
To sum it up, parents get veto power on transitions unless the minor convinces a judge to dissolve the parental relationship. Otherwise they need to wait until they are an adult and pay the bills themselves.
Brandon,
“Whether a parent wants a child to commit suicide or not in no way determines if the child should commit suicide.”
.
As ways, you are being obtuse. No child should commit suicide. No parent would want their child to do so. That doesn’t mean there are no adolescents who want to kill themselves; sadly, there are. The point is that parents are 100% opposed to their children killing themselves, and shockingly enough, nearly all parents are also opposed to their children choosing to be militated (surgically or chemically) due to some combination of immaturity and mental illness. That you think the state should intervene to prevent parents from blocking that mutilation is a sorry commentary on your bizarro world view.
.
So, exactly how many children have you raised?
“Defund the police” is an example of motte and bailey. In this case, the bailey position was clearly stated up front. The motte was built afterwards by creating various “interpretations” of what “defund the police” really meant ie “we just want police reform”. Ironically, the indefensibility of the bailey position helped sell the less controversial, motte “interpretations”.
Tom Scharf,
You are being so damned rational about the relationship between parents and their minor children. You are never going to get a job in a gender studies department.
Thanks lucia. I can look up that explanation, but I can not remember it. “Motte” and “bailey” are terms I have never had occasion to use and their connection to the actual fallacy does not make much sense to me. So I simply can not retain the terminology (at least not without relearning it many more times). It might as well be called the “frim-fram and shafafa” fallacy. Actually, I would probably find the latter easier to remember.
A classic example of Motte and Bailey:
“A vote for Trump is a vote for white supremacy”. The motte here is that they are only saying that voting for Trump is sustaining a system that supports the existing systemic structure that results in disparate outcomes, not that all Trump supporters are overt white supremacists. Super clever, ha ha.
.
One of endless examples of this one:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/this-is-what-white-supremacy-looks-like/
.
Once you start seeing this rhetorical tactic, it is hard to unsee it.
It’s been around forever without the name.
Mike,
‘Frim-fram and shafafa’ is pretty catchy. You can be sure I’ll be looking for a use for that in my day to day life. 😉
I understand the rhetorical tactic. I just can’t remember the name of it. Too random for my brain.
The name is a bit obscure.
.
Every headline in the legacy media pretty much uses that tactic. People want to get attention and being extreme is one way to do it. The article will then back down the rhetoric of the headline by paragraph 13 or so.
SteveF:
It’s a big world so I doubt no parent wants their child to commit suicide, but I think suicide was a total canard on your part. What I think does matter is that it seems you are saying children being trans can only stem from immaturity and/or mental illness. That is incorrect. If you are trying to say that, you are wrong.
As for the rest, I think a 16 year old should have the legal right to choose whether to get an abortion or not, to even take on the responsibility of raising a child. Similarly, I think they should be allowed to make other medical decisions for themselves if they want. This isn’t about the state intervening. It’s about saying the patient should get to decide for themself.
Tom Scharf:
Nobody has said they get to raise your kid. What people have said is your kid gets to make decisions for themself. My view is you shouldn’t be able to prevent your child from getting an abortion or force them to get one. That decision may greatly affect the rest of their life, but it’s one they should get to make, not you and not the government.
As much as you may want to rant about the state and its control, this isn’t about the government. It’s about the child. Children have freedoms and rights. Some people, like me, believe that involves a fair amount of bodily autonomy even before the age of 18.
That is why I would also oppose a parent trying to force a child to transition against their will. Parents have rights over many aspects of their child’s life, but they do not have complete authority. I think one limitation to that authority should be regarding bodily autonomy. I certainly don’t think it makes sense to treat turning 18 as a magical line being crossed for medical decisions regarding oneself.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #223992): “Nobody has said they get to raise your kid.”
.
Another standard leftist tactic: “Nobody said what we routinely say”. I suppose that is part of the bailey. Or is it the motte? I have already forgotten which is which.
.
Not that I actually care which it is. It is enough that I know what it is: Dishonest.
Mike,
Frim-fram. Definitely the frim-fram.
Mike M.:
If you think it’s dishonest to say nobody said they get to raise your kid, could you point me to where someone says they get to raise your kid? I can’t completely rule out the possibility somebody, somewhere, said that, but I’ve never seen anyone say it. Certainly, nobody here has said it or been quoted as saying it.
FWIW, I think I’ve been clear in saying nobody gets to raise your kid for you. My position is simple. You get to raise your kid yourself, but as your kid grows older, they get more and more say over decisions involving themselves. If your child wants medical treatment you don’t want them to get, I think your child’s wishes are probably what matter the most. The only role I want the government to have is for it to say, “The person affected by medical decisions gets the most say in making those medical decisions.”
That said, I think a more central issue is several people here seem to have said anyone who thinks they are trans are suffering from a psychological disorder. Nobody seems to have explicitly stated that though. Would anyone care to confirm or deny they think being trans inherently makes you mentally ill?
Brandon
The abortion standard in many ( I think most) states is kid can get abortions with a parents permission. If they can’t get that, they can request a hearing with a judge who might grant it. This process can ensure kids have been sufficiently advised about the choice.
.
The equivalent standard would make sense for children wanting medical interventions with fairly dramatic effects. This would include puberty blockers, and surgery to “affirm gender”. The judge could decide if the child was sufficiently advised, understood the pros and cons etc.
.
And I think if the child is old enough to make a decision about this sort of medical care, they also ought to be old enough to assume the financial burdens of the treatment. Or someone who supports their having the treatment could assume those burdens. This is rather expensive treatment and whoever is making this decision ought to be informed of the costs — both immediately and ongoing as they enter adulthood.
.
Kids could also, of course, sue for emancipation if they feel that’s necessary or helpful.
.
I don’t think the time involved in hearings should be a big problem. Treatment itself will be much more time consuming.
lucia:
FWIW, this matches my understanding of how things work for abortions, and I would be completely fine with it being the standard for medical intervention for gender issues as well. There are real issues and concerns with letting a minor make major medical decisions so I think it makes sense for there to be some judicial oversight to ensure any minor making such decisions is well-informed and cognizant enough to reasonably make those decisions.
I agree here as well, with my only caveats being some things about insurance policies which I don’t think are important for the current discussion at all. (But I do want to say the American insurance system is messed up.)
This is a possibility I wish I knew more about. I don’t know how difficult it is to become emancipated or what difficulties/complexities arise from being a “minor” who has to handle “adult” legal situations. I support the idea on a conceptual level, but I have no idea what the practicalities of it would be.
Brandon
I think in this case, the hearings should require informing the parents and allowing them to bring forward their arguments in favor of their position also.
Among the practicalities are that in many ways the kids are now legal adults. Their parents also lose the obligation to support them financially.
Brandon,
Well, they are more likely to be diagnose with psychological disorders of various types. They are also more likely to commit suicide. The more recent Swedish studies that had good tracking suggest that the surgery doesn’t change this– those who had surgery continue to be more prone to suicide and mental disorders. See the links above.
.
Maybe no one else has said it, but I’ll go on record as saying I do think persistent gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Rejection of the body you actually have as not being “really you” is turning away from reality. I think that’s disordered. And the disorder is in thinking– or of the mind. And so mental.
.
But there are tons of mental disorders. ADHD, Depression, bi-polar, anxiety disorders, PTSD, eating disorders, Autism…. We mostly don’t think it’s horrifying to admit that somethings are mental disorders.
.
People with a variety of different mental disorders can function in society and we would like them to do so. When someone has one, the valid question is what’s the best way to treat a particular one.
lucia:
I don’t know if I agree. It’s not something I am inherently opposed to, but I’m not completely convinced it’s right either. There’s so much room for specific details and nuances I don’t feel qualified to say. It may be your view is the best one. It may be a slightly different view is better. My personal view is if we can get this close to being in agreement, things are pretty good. I’m happy to let other people work out the exact details and specifics.
FWIW, I have no problem with saying parents are not financially obligated to support any medical care related to transitioning. While I don’t morally approve of a family “abandoning” a child, I think in legal terms families should be allowed to say, “We don’t support that optional treatment you want so you’ll have to pay for it yourself.”
I stress “optional” there because I don’t want something like a family to let their 15-year-old kid die because their religious beliefs say blood transfusions are immoral. I’m all for their personal religious freedoms, but I’m not okay with a kid who had no say in the matter dying for them.
Brandon
Certainly, parents should not be able to allow their kids to die and block life saving medical care. So parents should have to allow and pay for that.
.
Gender affirming care…. not so much.
.
Oh… I am completely convinced parents should be able to bring the cons about the surgery up. They have known the kids longest. And, in fact, now that I think about it more, if parents cannot bring these things up in the case, and their views utterly discounted, then parents should be probably be free to not support their kids financially, not house them etc. If you are stripping parents of their parental rights to this extent, you should be relieving them of the financial obligations too.
.
This isn’t something life-saving like blood transfusions. It’s elective.
lucia:
My understanding is such studies say things like surgery don’t remove the increased risk of problems not that they don’t reduce it. Even if something doesn’t completely solve a problem, it can still be valuable in combatting the problem. It’s hardly a surprise people who deal with such a stigmatized issue might struggle more than people who don’t have to deal with one even if there are treatments that can help deal with it better.
That said, I’m not particularly well-informed on the results of scientific research on the issue so my ability to comment on that is limited. My experience I can comment on is much more anecdotal and/or personal in nature.
As I mentioned to mark bofill, gender dysphoria is distress caused by the mismatch of one’s physical sex and perceived gender. Someone who perceives such a mismatch yet feels no distress over it would not be diagnosed as having gender dysphoria. As such, I’d ask what you would think of someone who has a persistent view of themselves as being a different gender than their assigned sex yet feels no such distress over it? To me, the fact such a person can live a completely happy and normal life despite their gender situation indicates there’s no mental disorder involved.
If it helps, I can cite specific examples of people I know. I can even direct you to a nonbinary person I know would be willing to participate in discussions here. If you talk to these people, I think you’ll find they show no signs of mental distress or psychological impairment over gender issues.
lucia:
To me, it should work much the same as a dispute over abortions should. Should a judge require parents be allowed to state their view on whether or not their child should get an abortion? I don’t really think so, but I’m not completely convinced it’s a terrible idea either. You could probably get me to support either view as long as it meant getting the “bigger picture” stuff passed as well.
As for the financial aspect, if parents want to disavow their child over any transition decisions, I think they should be allowed to just as I think they should be allowed to disavow a child over abortion issues. Morally, I think it’s wrong to “abandon” your child over such things, but legally, I think it’s something that should be allowed.
Brandon
I don’t think these are entirely alike. In fact, I think the medical interventions, and life changing aspect are much more dramatic and long term in the case of gender affirming surgery and puberty blockers.
.
I think the child’s biography and history are relevant to figuring out if there has been long term, stable, disphoria, and to figuring out wither medical interventions like hormone treatments and surgery are the way to handle it. This is different from an abortion.
.
I also think the transition affects the parents and family more than those associated with getting an abortion. Or at least it does if parents are going to continue to house the child and support them financially during and after the medical interventions which physically change the child in dramatic ways, and which are on going. This is different from an abortion.
.
The most major life changing aspects associated with abortion are actually those associated with bearing the child and keeping custody! Not getting the abortion.
Brandon
Uhmm… https://segm.org/ajp_correction_2020
Not sure what you distinction you are making between “remove” vs “reduce”. The paper shows that no reduction in prescriptions for mental health drugs, visits to psychiatric offices, or hospitalizations for suicide attempts is observed in the “treated” group vs. the matched “untreated” group. (In fact, the treated group had slightly more of all these things– it just wasn’t a statistically significant difference. )
Basically: the observation is most consistent with “no change”– but there really is no “t-test” for “no change”.
.
The paper on mortality after gender reassignment shows extremely high death by suicide rates after sex-reassigntment vs. controls. The odds ratio was 19!
And deaths by all causes was also notably higher for those who had surgery.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
Brandon
I think someone who perceives their sex as not matching their physical sex has a problem with seeing and accepting what is real. That mis-perception is mental. So they have a mental disorder. I think they have a mental disorder whether or not the feel distress.
.
Some people with mental disorders I listed live happy and normal lives. I know people with high functioning autism. ADHD, ADD who have happy normal lives. Heck, some people with bulimia have pretty normal lives– as so some with certain degrees of anxiety disorders.
.
Living a fairly happy normal life doesn’t mean you don’t have a mental disorder.
.
I think you are probably wrong.
.
If after talking to them, I find they think is they chose to present in a manner stereotypical of the gender that doesn’t match their sex, they don’t necessarily have a mental disorder. It’s just a choice of how to present. Cross-dressers can have a perfectly reasonable grip on reality. Knowing that you chose to present a different gender shows understanding of what gender means.
.
But it also makes it clear they don’t think they “are” a gender. And you used “being a different gender ” which suggest they think they are some gender.
.
The present vs being distinction matters. Because to the extent “gender” is defined it is a social construct and how you chose to present yourself within that social construct. So you can’t be or not be a particular gender. You can chose to present yourself as a particular gender. That gender could match your sex, or not.
.
But presenting as a particular gender isn’t the same as “being” that gender.
.
So if someone insists they “are” a different gender from their sex they
(a) likely don’t understand what “gender” means (because you can’t “be” one). And
(b) they are likely claiming they are a different sex from the one they really are.
If they claim their real sex doesn’t match their real sex, they have trouble dealing with reality. As far as I am concerned– not a psychiatrist but just daily life– the disconnect with reality is sufficient to be described as a mental disorder.
I suppose it’s nice for them they aren’t also distressed. But if you thought you were Napoleon, Elvis or JFK but were not distressed about it, I’d still think you had a problem with grasping reality.
lucia:
There are definitely differences, and those differences may justify some differences in how the matters are handled. I just don’t have the personal knowledge or expertise to be confident in reaching strong conclusions about specifics of how the legal process should work. That’s the sort of thing I’m happy to leave to more knowledgeable people to hash out.
Ultimately, if people agree on the basic framework of minors being able to petition a court to be allowed to make their own decision on gender issues, I’m content. There may be plenty of details that come up beyond that, but I’m fine with leaving those to be hashed out by people more knowledgeable than me. The main thing to me is simply that I think, as a general rule, the people affected by medical decisions should be the ones who have the most say in making those medical decisions. Beyond that, I’m largely ambivalent.
The distinction you say you’re not sure you can identify is simple. Suppose control group Y had a rate of getting colds at 5%. Group X is thought to have an elevated risk of getting colds (for whatever reason) at 20%. Some members of group X are given a medicine and wind up getting colds at a rate of 10%. This would seem to indicate that medicine is beneficial in treating people in group X even if the control group Y retains an even lower rate of infection.
In other words, self-identified trans people in general are identified as suffering more mental health issues. The question of whether or not gender affirming care helps combat this is not addressed by the question of, “Does GAC reduce those rates to that of non-trans people?” A treatment can help combat a problem even if it does not fully solve the problem on a societal level. In regard to the (correction to a) paper you cite here, it says:
Given the fact the editors for that journal felt the paper needed a “correction” and in that correction effectively said, “The analysis could be interpreted to support almost any position,” I do not understand how you claim the “paper shows” the treatments are not effective. Your claim seems (to me) to contradict the quotation I provided from your citation just above. Even if that were not true, I think it is unwise to rely on conclusions regarding a paper acknowledged to have “multiple serious methodological problems.” You may be able to correct those “multiple serious methodological problems” to try to get a new result, but I don’t see how anyone could have faith in them. My view is if a paper is done that poorly, it should be discarded. I don’t think any confidence should be put in conclusions drawn by people who claim to “reanalyze” a paper acknowledged to be that flawed to get new results.
lucia:
Assuming when we say “sex” we mean biological sex, I am not aware of anyone who feels an incongruity between their “sex” and “physical sex.” To the best of my knowledge, every trans person I know would say a person’s “sex” and their “physical sex” or “biological sex” are the same thing.
I don’t understand how you think a person presenting as a gender different from their assigned sex “makes it clear they don’t think they ‘are’ a gender.” I have no further response to this part of your comment. If these three paragraphs contain some coherent argument or idea, I am not seeing it. Perhaps that’s due to the many grammatical errors making it difficult for me to parse your sentences.
I must say I am struggling to parse much of what you say in this comment, but this sentence caught my eye as being rather straightforward. You say people cannot “be” a gender. Would you please elaborate? That claim would seem to mean men cannot be men (in regard to gender) and women cannot be women (in regard to gender). I have never seen anyone make such a claim so it’d help if you went into a bit more detail as to what you mean by it.
Why shouldn’t people be able to “be” a gender? Does that mean no “men” here are actually “men” when it comes to gender? I am very confused.
[off-topic but it’s allowed]
This is a recurring theme, I have posted it several times. Russian troops seem to have no armor or artillery support. This is a drone video of Russian troops retreating under artillery fire from the town of Klishchiivka. There is no Russian armor, no trucks, no military discipline. Just some guys hurrying down the street in broad daylight with artillery bursts landing all around them.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1699845835117277345?s=20
Russell Klier , I think it’s pretty clear the Russian military isn’t being organized with any specific intent to win. It seems to me Putin is going with the classic Russian strategy of throwing lots and lots of bodies at the problem and hoping that works.
I think a big focal point for that strategy will come if/when Russia has to conscript new troops. I think a lot of Russians are trying to distance themselves from the war in Ukraine, basically ignoring it and hoping it goes away. If so, any effort by Russia to conscript new/more troops could potentially disrupt things.
Brandon
Well… and yet you thought you were knowledgeable enough to form an opinion the two things were the same. Honestly though– it’s not even close. Sex change transformations are much more dramatic, take much more time and have much longer on going consequences. This is so obvious that claiming you aren’t “knowledgable” to see this seems… ok… not gonna say. (Mark? Steve? Anyone?)
Lucia,
For you, I will jump back in the conversation and let the clown throw another pie in my face. What the hey. Keeps me from taking myself too seriously. Lemme get to the office first.
Brandon
Sure. But with the mental health cases, the comparison is two subsets of group X: on treated one not. And both got colds at 20%. The treatment did nothing. No reduction.
.
And in the suicide case: the match is x to y. There was also no reduction from 20% to 10%. X continued to commit suicide at astronomical rates.
.
First: I think a person knowing they are “presenting” rather than “being” has a different level of knowledge. Just as a person playing Napoleon on the stage has a different mind set from one who thinks he is Napoleon. This is not hard.
.
If a person clarifies that they know they are “presenting” not “being”, then it’s clear they know then are “presenting” not “are”. So to your question about mental illness, I have excluded the group of people who understand they are only “presenting” from the category of “mentally ill in the way that they thing they “are” “wrong gender”.” That should clarify that.
.
Second: If you understand the difference between gender and sex– which you emphasized before, I don’t understand how you can even think a person can “be” a gender.
.
You previously (correctly) told Russel this
Gender is social, behavioral, and cultural. You can’t “be” it. You can only “present” it. If they think they “are” a cultural, social aspect they are confused about what gender even is. They are presenting it.
.
So if they really think they “are” a gender, then they must be confused on the distinction between gender– which is something you present– and sex which is something you “are”.
.
I mean… either gender and sex are the same thing or they are not the same thing. You can’t have that both ways.
By the definition you gave– which is accurate, gender is not something you can “be”. Only sex is something you can “be”.
.
So, if they think the “are” a particular gender, they are confusing what gender is with what sex is. And the definition the apply to both is actually “sex”. And confusing the words is rather mundane. But since– by their internal definition, sex and gender are the same thing, and sex is actually the biological one– they clearly have lost some grip on reality.
Brandon,
Correct. XY-Men can present as men. By this I mean they can adopt the cultural aspects (i.e. stereotypes) of men.
.
Likewise, XY-Men can present as women — adopting cultural aspects of men. XX-Women can present as women or men.
.
Most XX-Women present as women most of the time. Most XY men present as men most of the time.
.
And if you like, you can change the word “present” to “identify”. Identifying is still not “being”.
.
But the idea their gender “is” one or the other is a category error. Presenting and being are very different things. Gender is not something you can “be”.
Lucia,
Brandon is disingenuous like the day is long when his interlocuter has made a point he can’t refute.
FWIW, I think that what you are touching on now is one of the serious theoretical problems in Gender Theory, which can be summarized as ‘biological essentialism’ or in this case gender essentialism. Typically this is held to be anathema by trans friendly thinkers. The trouble is, without some sort of essentialism trans people are left on the same arbitrary socially constructed (unstable, I think is what Judith Butler would call it, but I’m a long way from getting through reading about her ideas) footing as everyone else. Is it a preference, a fetish, what. [Is there nothing more to it than the arbitrary social conventions of our time and culture.] Do we have male and female souls, like a Wheel of Time fantasy novel. What does it actually mean to be a gender if genders are not tied to anything concrete.
Judith Butler thinks gender is performative. I won’t pretend I really understand what she was saying yet, but.
..
The horrifying question to me is, why is third wave feminist theory the guiding force behind how our mental health community views gender issues today? We are wandering around in a house of horrors that has (IMO) nothing to do with philosophical reality.
Russell Klier (Comment #224009): “Russian troops seem to have no armor or artillery support”.
.
I have not been seeing anything in other sources about Russia having a critical shortage of armor or artillery. So I wonder if such instances are localized, due to local supply failures and/or disorganized retreats.
.
Or maybe I am just not following the war closely enough.
mark bofill,
I think she’s saying what I’m saying.
.
You know you can dress up as Dolly Parton on Halloween. Or even every single day. That’s a performance. You present as Dolly Parton. If your costume and make up are good, other people will recognize you are (presenting as/dressed up as/ playing the part of) Dolly Parton.
.
In your mind, you may “identify” as Dolly Parton. Likely other people will not identify you as Dolly Parton. They will likely consider you a Dolly Parton imitator.
.
You can’t actually be Dolly Parton. It can only be a “part” you play/present/project etc. If you think presenting as Dolly Parton makes you “be” Dolly Parton or you think you “are” Dolly Parton, you have lost connection to reality.
Lucia,
.
Re Judith Butler: Maybe. I get the impression that she is trying to square the circle and somehow put gender on solid (stable) footing without resorting to biological essentialism through some sort of post structural voodoo, but I don’t think there’s any actual substance to what she’s arguing at the end of the day. But we can dispense with feminist theory and discuss your views.
.
I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly. It would seem to pose problems for trans people though. If trans people know what sex they are and are merely interested in pretending to be a different sex, it’s not clear to me why anybody should respect that. As I wondered above, is it just a fetish or an arbitrary preference? If so, how about you keep your sex life to yourself and I’ll keep mine to myself, or at least keep it to like minded people. There is no impetus for any societal change if there is no victim here, and people not having their fetishes lauded and respected doesn’t strike the right tragic note of victimhood.
Haven’t thought this through carefully, but that’s my casual two cents I suppose.
.
Mark wrote: “Do we have male and female souls.”
.
I think we can get a basic answer to this question by looking at our animal brethren. Male and female animals behave in different, ways according to their sex. These differences can be extremely complex. This is often very far removed from being socially constructed. We are woven from the same cloth using similar elements. It is not a leap to suggest that we also contain behavioral elements in our genetics (twins have a 48% chance of both developing schizophrenia). I would say the great leap is to insist that males and females are born without male and female behaviors. The question then becomes, what is socially constructed and what is not? The sudden impetus for people to attempt to change their sex?
Lucia,
“(Mark? Steve? Anyone?)”
.
Brandon is OK with all kinds of things which I find terribly harmful; in this case harmful to emotionally troubled children, but in other cases harmful to adults and to society in general, and almost always associated with leftist leaning government dictating the actions of individuals. The collective must rule over the individual. Unless, of course, conservatives control government, in which case they must have no power over the individual.
.
At the same time, he will always find an excuse for why he can’t be mistaken (often little more than a comical fig leaf), even when someone presents clear data that refute the benefits of his desired policies. I tire of this, and life is too short to waste time on his obtuse and dishonest arguments.
.
So my only response is a paraphrase: ‘Let’s go Brandon’.
Dave,
I’m sure there’s a whole body of work that addresses this that I haven’t bumped into yet, but seriously. Have these people completely forgotten that sex isn’t merely a recreational activity but is also a crucial one on which the perpetuation of our species depends, one which demands male and female biological sex? Sometimes it seems to me like they have. There is obviously a strong biological component to gender. Obviously!
Merely because the biological component is not simple or 100% deterministic is no reason to dispense with the fact. Overwhelming percentages of biological women are the female gender. Overwhelming percentages of biological men are the male gender. One of the hard coded biological gendered behaviors of males is that they seek to copulate with female sexed humans, and vice versa for women. Obviously. Simply because exceptions exist is no reason to lose sight of this! If biology has nothing whatsoever to do with this I will eat my shoes. [Edit: Evolution clearly has something to do with this.]
mark,
My view is unrelated to feminism. I know Judith Butler is writing in some feminist frame. It’s still useful if we extend it to trans.
.
But my views: We need to start with “what is gender”? vs “what is sex”. If they are NOT the same but describe different things, we need to identify WHAT that different thing IS.
.
Sex is biological. As far as I can tell, no one in the discussion disputes that.
.
And, at least those who use “gender” to mean something different use it to describe a role of some sort. Or synomimously a “part”. (You can see Butler referrs to acting and theater at times.) The sort of role you might take can vary. You can feel strongly about it. Even “identify” as it. But a role is not something you “are”.
.
Unless you become somewhat unhinged to reality, you do not think you “are” King Lear or Don Quixote, just because you play that part.
.
You can present/play a role. People can see/identify you as playing/presenting a role. They can use metaphors and can consider your performance to be the “truest 007 every!” But people who are not unhinged from reality don’t literally think Sean Connery “is” 007. Nor is Daniel Craig.
.
Butler did quite a bit of writing before the “trans” debate was as much in the forefront as now. And I think… there is some attempt to run away from this undersrtanding of “presenting a role” vs. “being”. But there is a difference.
.
And of course, Butler puts a lot of it in a “feminist” framework which then distracts from some of the fundamental issues related to “being” vs. “presenting”. But there is a difference.
Mark: “Haven’t thought this through carefully, but that’s my casual two cents I suppose.”
.
Not surprised really. To try and think it through, you have to hold two contradictory ideas as simultaneously true to make it work. Concentrate too much on one side or the other, and half of the argument fails.
Mike,
“I have not been seeing anything in other sources about Russia having a critical shortage of armor or artillery.”
I also have seen no news about armor, but I have seen a lot of reports about the lack of artillery. See “Russell Klier (Comment #223890)”
The videos I cited showing a lack of support for soldiers were shot by drones over the front lines. I think the armor may be waiting out of harm’s way. ORYX is still reporting destroyed armor, but they show the date confirmation was received and recorded, so it is not real-time:
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1696874114466685386?s=20
lucia,
I think I basically agree with you. I’ll accept what you’re saying about Butler, honestly I have just started reading about her ideas and it could well be I’ve gotten things wrong.
I think you are right that there is a difference between being and presenting, absolutely, and I think you are characterizing the difference clearly.
.
To return to the discussion, there is no way in heck you or anyone is going to make any progress talking with Brandon about this. There is more than ample cover for him in all of these ambiguous definitions and subtly nuanced distinctions for him to rationalize anything he wishes to. So. I guess lets see what the antic will be in response to this. Maybe it’ll be fun. I didn’t think it was last go round, but who knows. Talking with you is fun Lucia, so maybe I’ll come along for the ride. Heh.
mark
If they know sex and gender are not the same, and know their gender is a presentation, then they should recognize that some things that matter are those associated with sex not gender. (And it’s obvious some things are associated with sex. XX females can get pregnant. XY males make sperm. Developmental disorders exist, but that doesn’t really change these the fact that chromosomal sex matters to some important things, as do the physical manifestations of chromosomal sex.)
.
If we know they are different then it follows that we can admit they are different. And we can recognize that people do have a sex and/or are their sex. And we can admit there is a small subset of people who have developmental disorders that do make them not fully some biological sex (XYY, other hormonal issues.) But these issues with sex are somewhat distinct from the issues of gender.
.
And, of course, if gender is not sex, but something else and they think gender is not a role/presentation etc, they need to say what gender is.
.
And… well, substituting “identity” is a doesn’t help much. Because “identity” would include both (a) what you think you are presenting or what you try and want to present and (b) the identity others perceive when they interact with you. And the fact that (b) is part of identity means identity is no longer under the individual’s control.
.
You can’t decree other people must identify you as being Dolly Parton even if you think you are presenting that. You can try to decree their perception, opinions, or judgments– but it’s really not going to work. I see the shlong in Lia Thomas’s bathing suit. And the shoulders. And etc. And I do not identify Lia as a “woman” either by gender or sex. Lia is an XY-man and presents as a man. The latter happens even though Lia wishes or tries to present as a women. It happens even if legal paper work lists Lia as “woman”. Like it or not there are a lot of people with my perception. And that’s not going to change.
.
Maybe surgery and medical treatment can eventually change Lia’s physical morphology enough to make all or most people who interact with Lia identify them as a woman. I have no objection to them trying. I await the day it might occur. (That day will not arrives until the shlong and ball sacks are gone or or they dress in a way that these items do not show. But other things need to be changed too. Sometimes physical stature and build– e.g. lack of hips, appropriate body fat etc– preclude “others” from identifying a particular person as “female”. This might be sad, but it is a fact.)
mark
There is feminist stuff in there… No doubt.
Lucia,
Exactly! I’m not trying to make you throw up in your mouth a little or anything, I get that you are not a fan, but this is what Jordan Peterson means when he says identity is something you negotiate with society. It’s not a one way street, you don’t get to just claim an arbitrary identity and expect everyone to bow to that.
[Edit: I guess I didn’t really have to mention Peterson. But that’s where I last bumped into this, honestly.]
mark,
https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1650/butler_performative_acts.pdf
Note verbs like “dramatize”, “reproduce”,
Nouns like “strategies”, “style”, “act”, “performative”.
.
I would differ from her in every saying a “body becomes its gender”. At least, a physical body can never have the property of “gender”. It has the property of sex. But she seems to never quite get into the distinction between something like “the image of the body” or the “presentation of the body”. But we really can’t get away from the fact of physical bodies because (a) we have them and (b) at this point, surgery and drugs are being used to try to modify physical bodies.
mark Bofil
I don’t dislike Peterson. I just think he is utterly mistaken about Frozen. Based on his criticism of Frozen:
(1) He’s seems to have developed an idea that “art” is not “art” if the authors had specific messages in mind when they wrote or produced them. (This is clearly nonesense. Most good art has specific messages– if it doesn’t it become terrible art. I suspect the writers intended to get specific messages and idea across. I mean.. Tolkein had specific ideas about the world, god…. blah blah. And he worked pretty hard to create an entire mythos that aligned with the ideas he wanted to communicate.)
(2) He seems to think all cartoons and fairy tales must somehow communicate the underlying theories of Jung. Otherwise they are somehow “bad”. That’s nonesense. Just because Grimm’s fairy tales can be used to explain Jung’s ideas (or vice versa) doesn’t mean every dang “fairy tale like” story needs to be a nice example to use in your course lecture on Jung and his theories.
.
I sometimes like what Peterson has to say. It certainly has elements of correct. Sometimes… a bit too far. Or to black and white. (I don’t think you must make your bed to have a decent organized life. I think it can be good advice for people who have fallen into wallowing in complete disorganization and lack of direction.)
.
I have also heard Petersen on the identity question. And I agree with him. (He’s still wrong about Frozen.)
Makes sense. One of the criticisms of Butler is that she tends to reduce gender to language. One of the inherent perils of being a postmodernist voodoo practitioner I shouldn’t wonder.
Lucia wrote: “Butler did quite a bit of writing before the “trans” debate was as much in the forefront as now. And I think… there is some attempt to run away from this undersrtanding of “presenting a role” vs. “being”.”
.
Of course, because Butler presented her arguments to support a different political narrative, namely, that the only reason there is not a 50:50 split between sexes in any activity is because of sexism and male oppression, not because of choices stemming from biology. This “hard” separation of sex from gender is now an inconvenience in the trans argument so is being memory holed, first by conflation. Just a few years ago you were an idiot if you didn’t realize that sex referred to biology and gender referred to identity. Funny how the “smart people” keep getting that wrong now and no one bothers to correct them.
mark,
Progress? No. But we can hear what some of the arguments du jour are. And we can see the “motte and bailey”. Or other weirdnesses.
.
I mean… He leaves it to people with more knowledge to assess whether abortion takes less time, results in less dramatic life changes yada, yada, yada than sex change operations?!
.
Like it or not, whether surgical or drug induced never takes more than a week. (misoprostol, misoprostol) has a schedule that looks like it will take about 3 days. It that’s pretty much the longest.
.
Of course things can go wrong– but there have been many, many, many successful abortions.
.
Puberty blocking medications, hormonal therapy to get ready for surgical changes, after care for vaginoplasty (which pretty much seems to require inserting dildoes of various sizes with great regularity to avoid closing up of the wound). These all take months to years and some of the treatments go on forever. And physical transitions often involve multiple surgeries– shaving jawlines, reducing adams apples yada, yada.
.
And this isn’t even discussing the “features” like sterility (which may or may not be a bad thing. After all, some adults get vasectomies or their tubes tied.) But these features often accompanay successful procedures– not the ones that go wrong!
Not admitting obvious facts and retreating to needing to find “people with more knowledge” is ridiculous. These surgeries and medical treatments are life changing to the primary patient and intended to be so.
mark bofill
I’m not reducing it to language. I’d liken my reduction to gender being more like acting-presenting-role playing. In my view, language just recognizes the difference between acting-presenting and being.
.
Now the “feminist” issues would arise if we were discussing
(a) Why do women and men act certain ways? And must they?
(b) Can/should/do we permit them to act/present otherwise?
(c) How do we value people who act certain ways? How does this intersect with whether we permit them to act any other way?
.
But those, in my mind, don’t change the fact that there exists a difference between:
(a) some inherent attributes that you “are” or “have” that are stable and sometimes unchangeable. Chromosomal sex is one of these things. Old or young is also one of these things!
.
(b) Features you act/present/perform.
.
The reason we have (and need ) two words is that (a) and (b) are not the same. If gender and sex do mean the same thing, then we need to create and define words to distinguish between (a) and (b) because there is a huge ongoing discussion about these things.
.
And no, you don’t get to sometimes treat the words as the same thing when it benefits your argument and then different when it does not.
Right, you think that because you’re a child of the enlightenment; a creature of logic and reason who exists in a reality with a strong objective component which exists separately from our understanding of it and our language referring to it. Me too, and I largely (maybe completely) agree with you. Not everyone proceeds from that starting point though is what my claim is. There are other schools of thought out there.
Shrug.
[Edit: I might add, this doesn’t make me particularly happy or anything. I think I’m just observing the state of things today.]
mark,
Back to Brandon: it’s also interesting to observe another tactic. Trying a direct confrontation on whether “anyone” is willing to say trans people are mentally ill — that is have a disorder. I’m willing to say it. I’m willing to say people with ADHD, depression, have bipolar disorders and so on are mentally ill too.
.
I advocate treatment for that. I think people with mental disorders remain people, have rights, are as worth of respect as those with without those disorders… yada yada. I don’t go around pretending those aren’t disorders. I don’t think calling those disorders disrepects of devalues the people who have them. I’m not going to be unwilling to say some other things are also disorders.
.
The valid question with any disorder is: So what’s the best way to deal with that disorder? Sometimes it’s doing very little. I have a friend with anxiety problems. She got meds. Guess what? She was worse. She got taken off… and just had “talk therapy”. (Which informally included me saying, “You just need to do it. Walk up to the door. Now put your hand on the knob. Now turn it. Now go out into the hall….”. This was intersperesed with “I know… that’s what my therapist says”. I’m like… so… get up off the couch! Are you up? Walk to the door. Are you there… .
.
The talk therapy (which was not exclusively me) worked. She still feels some anxiety, but she goes out to buy groceries now instead of having everything delivered. (Covid restrictions did NOT help her. What had been mild phobia exploded into…. But we don’t need to go further into that. )
Those other schools of thought are having a strong influence on psychology and psychiatry, law, art, and god knows what else today, I might add. It’s disturbing to me.
[Edit: Alright, we can disregard this.]
mark
There are entire fields that can’t function if we don’t base things on the notion of some amount of objective reality.
.
We are engineers: so that.
.
But also, What does an MD do if a patient with a real, honest to goodness shlong, no uterus, XY chromosomes schedules a visit to the office and reports that he is sure he is pregnant, and could the doctor schedule things like ultra-sound, and any other prenatal screening? I’ll tell you want the MD does not do: just believe the patients diagnosis.
Yup.
Oh well. Our culture will get past this eventually. Doubtless after we suffer through paying a high enough price for being willing to go along with the folly. I hope I live to see it.
I better go do some work now! Thanks for talking with me Lucia!
Oh. One more thing. I agree, I think trans people can be mentally ill without suffering due to gender dysphoria too. It wasn’t that I lacked the courage of my convictions earlier so much as it was the fact that I was sick of dealing with Brandon.
lucia (Comment #224028): “Maybe surgery and medical treatment can eventually change Lia’s physical morphology enough to make all or most people who interact with Lia identify them as a woman.”
.
I have been mostly ignoring this discussion, just skimming down looking to see if there is an interesting post (%hanks, Russell). But the above caught my eye.
.
I suspect people will have doubts about Lia being a woman as long as Lia is a “them”.
I think this essay by Solzhenitsyn is relevant even though it makes no reference to trans ideology:
https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/live-not-by-lies
“Trans rights” is not really about trans people. It is about forcing people to aver things they know to be false, the better to enslave us.
Lucia,
“He leaves it to people with more knowledge to assess whether abortion takes less time, results in less dramatic life changes yada, yada, yada than sex change operations?!”
.
Yup, and a certain well known jurist can’t define what a woman is, in spite of a) being one herself, and b) having a couple of kids herself.
.
I have discovered when to instantly stop reading a news article or commentary: any use of ‘they’, ‘a person’, or ‘people’ when they are describing a woman or women, means I stop reading. Example from an AP news report: “At 6 weeks some people don’t realize they are pregnant.” People, not women! It is Orwellian corruption of language in service of political views, and awkward to boot.
More streaming stuff-
Price increases for cord cutters are rampant. You can still lock in this year’s rates [on some streaming sites] by switching from monthly to annual billing.
We have Hulu and ESPN+ in a bundle with Disney+ [because three together are cheaper than any two stand-alone]. All three go up next month. So we are in reevaluation mode. If you are interested, next year’s prices for all three and combos:
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1700189711707328899?s=20
It really looks to me like social psychology has been taken over by activists blatantly.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320/full
It’s really something. It’s not clear to me why anybody who does not subscribe to the philosophical foundations should accept any of this junk as valid. Experts, my ass.
MikeM,
Of course if I though Lia was a women, I would refer to them as her.
mark bofill,
One problem bodies of work on “gender”, “feminism”, “race” etc theory is that there is some true stuff mixed in with some tenuous stuff, some false and some mumbo jumbo. But it does contain some true stuff.
.
I mean, I think Andrew Tate is a horrible person– narcissist, lives off people blah, blah. But on some clips and tapes he says things that are true. “Men and women are different”. Well… that’s the Bailey. If you listen to other things, there is a ginormous Motte near that Bailey.
Lucia,
Yes. True. I mention this because Brandon seems fond of pointing out that psychologists and psychiatrists think ‘X’ about gender. Well OK, activists have been hitting the field hard for the past 20-30 years. Expert opinion is a little tainted at this point as far as I am concerned.
But you’re correct. There is some value mixed in with the crap.
mark… well…tainted… yeah. Snipped from your quote
So they should be “creating trouble” rather than, oh… building understanding? Or searching for truth? Learning more about the depth and breadth of the true human condition? Yeah. That snip sounds tainted.
lucia,
Really, the problem I have with it is that philosophers like Butler are not psychiatrists and not psychologists. She’s a philosopher. So, in what world does it make any sense to base mental health research on some gender activist philosopher’s work. Not in mine.
[Edit: I don’t know, maybe I am kidding myself. I would like to believe there is some actual science involved in psychiatry at least.]
I don’t think a philosopher’s arguments about performativity ought to have any impact on whether or not we accept neuropsychological research. I think [that using] a scientific methodology is how we ought to evaluate whether or not to accept neurophysical research, regardless of whether or not it essentializes sexual orientation.
So on. This is not the language science speaks. This is the language social justice activists speak. They might accidentally speak some truth, broken clocks are right twice a day. It’s still junk.
There. I think that covers what I was trying to say. Sorry it took me a couple two three comments to get there.
After reading more and more of lucia’s comments, I’ve come to realize I may have been… assuming some things due to being unreasonably charitable. She makes things explicitly clear here:
.
The American Medical Association says being trans does not mean you are mentally ill. The American Psychological Association says being trans does not mean you are mentally ill. The World Health Organization says being trans does not mean you are mentally ill. Being trans does not mean you are mentally ill. I naively assumed people here recognized that. I get experts can be wrong, but to deny widely accepted medical standards could only be rational if one could provide an overwhelming case they know better. No such thing exists. Nobody even claims to provide one.
Similarly, I see lucia is claiming gender isn’t a thing you can be or possess, it’s only a matter of how you present. That is so wildly out of line with how the word is used in society at large I struggle to wrap my head around it. Gender is what one identifies as. One’s gender is not determined in any way by how one presents. This is trivially easy to verify given we have phrases like “gender presentation” to explicitly distinguish gender from how one presents.
These are not matters of opinion. They are basic, factual issues. And you guys are wrong on them. I don’t expect you to believe me though. That’s fine. Don’t worry, I won’t try to convince you any further. You are free to rant and rave about a world that grows more and more distant from you with every passing day. And yes, you are welcome to believe I am crazy, dishonest and whatever else.
All of this disagreement fundamentally stems from a basic, factual dispute. You guys think being trans means a person is mentally ill. I say that is factually false and cannot be supported save by things like ignorance or bigotry. Time will determine who is correct. I’ll offer a guess on what it will find. I think ~30 years from now the trans people of the world will live happier and healthier lives than they ever have before and society will look upon things like you guys say the same way it now looks at things said about gay people decades prior.
With that, I’ll leave you all be. If any of you are alive 30 years from now, feel free to look me up and mock me if I’m proven wrong. Or acknowledge I was right if you were.
Brandon,
I don’t care if you are charitable or not. You didn’t ask if the AMA thinks trans is a disorder. You asked if we do. When you ask us, you are not asking for a clinical definition, you are asking for a lay perception. In that case, we use ordinary dictionary meanings.
Trans definitely affects thoughts, emotions and behavior. It is atypical and generally distresses some people. (Not necessarily the person who has the problem. Neither to some other things like Narcissistic personality disorder.)
It is a failire to have your thoughts about your body align with the reality of your body.
Brandon
It is precisely in line with the definition you gave.
And yet, we have the Butler quotes above.
This phrase does not mean gender is not presentation. It means it is.
Usage here
“Gender expression, or gender presentation, is a person’s behavior, mannerisms, interests, and appearance that are socially associated with gender, namely femininity or masculinity.[1] Gender expression can also be defined as the external manifestation of one’s gender identity through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics.[2][3] Typically, people think about a person’s gender expression in terms of masculinity and femininity, but there are many more ways to express gender than just those two options. A person’s gender expression may or may not match their assigned sex at birth. This includes gender roles, and accordingly relies on cultural stereotypes about gender. It is distinct from gender identity.[4] ”
.
The are explicitly describing gender as a form of expression or presentation.
And note: what it is distinct from “Gender identity” is still not “what you are or have”. It is “Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with a person’s assigned sex or can differ from it. In most individuals,”. It is a “sense”– which is a “feeling” or “what you think”. That is not “what you are or have”.
.
Well perhaps not. But since you’ve just given an example that shows Wikipedia discussions describe gender as presentation or expressions rather than being or having, that would appear to be points in favor of my position and not yours.
.
Not sure what you think could prove you right or wrong.
Thanks Brandon.
Brandon,
I have no idea what world you live in, but the world I live in is the one where many/most teenagers have hormones raging, lack impulse control, have very poor long term planning skills, have little relative life experience, and are essentially mentally ill for a period of at least 4 years.
.
No, they do not get to make their own decisions.
Tom,
But I bet the AMA disagrees with you on that. 🙂
It might be interesting to see what all these prestigious organizations thought about these issues 10, 20, 40 years ago. I’m guessing things have evolved recently.
.
The social sciences are a dumpster fire. They have allowed themselves to be completely captured by a political party and activists. I don’t have the slightest clue how to separate the good from the bad so I mainly just ignore this area of alleged expertise.
Shockingly enough, the 5th circuit affirms that the Biden administration may not pressure private companies to block speech protected by the first amendment. The only surprise for me it that it took so long to issue the decision.
.
Will the Biden administration appeal to the SC? Not clear. They are no doubt torn: don’t appeal and try to circumvent the decision, and keep censoring where they can in other jurisdictions, or risk having the SC say “No, you absolutely can’t do that ever anywhere.” I think they will take the dishonest, utter scumbag path and try to keep censoring to the maximum possible in districts the 5th circuit does not control. These people are in fact dishonest, and should be thrown out of office.
.
The court’s injunction is stayed 10 days to allow the Biden Administration to appeal to the SC. I really doubt they will. Don’t lean into a left hook.
Tom Scharf
Well… the recent evolution is for countries (EU, UK) to start discouraging, restrict or not pay for transition “care” for minors.
.
The US is more bi-modal. The US being bimodal is likely because its so politicized so evidence is not what is guiding policy or law.
.
There is limited evidence (which is inevitable for something new). But in Europe, the admit both lack of evidence, flaw in evidence that and also note the direction that evidence which exists points.
I follow a monthly rudimentary accounting from @War_Mapper of the area taken by Ukrainians or lost to the Russians. Basically, it reports a stalemate lasting nine months. One sign of hope is that Ukraine had its most productive months in the last twelve from September through November. The link is to the overall graphic and a further link to other graphics.
“Russia currently occupies a total of 17.49% of Ukraine. This first chart illustrates in which direction control has shifted each month of the war.”
https://twitter.com/rklier21/status/1700353816175030544?s=20
And the stupid state overreaches continue!
Screw the second amendment, this is an emergency!
At least, the police chief says he won’t enforce it.
What states did all the libertarians head to again? Maybe I ought to think about moving there.
New Hampshire. Might be worth looking into.
I mean how can I go wrong with this listed as in the ‘cons’ column:
Like Alabama, only nobody will ask me where I go to church. Doesn’t sound so bad..
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum (Boston) cancels evening hours to avoid Extinction Rebellion’s planned protest there. XR says they’re wrong to do so, saying no member “intended to put art in the empty frames … nor did we ever announce a plan to do so.”
This after in March, Extinction Rebellion said participants were ready to mark the 33-year anniversary [of the famous art theft] by hanging original art in the empty frames, “after researching how to accomplish this action with no damage to museum property.” The museum closed at that time to avoid any problems.
Interpreting XR, “This time we didn’t publicly post precisely what vandalism we were planning. The museum is wrong for assuming we’d do something destructive, as XR has done so many times in the past, all over the globe.”
Such chutzpah.
“Dire New Western Reports Call to Ditch NATO Tactics”
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/dire-new-western-reports-call-to?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=136807259&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=182d3m&utm_medium=email
.
.
A long but very informative article on Ukraine that focuses on NATO training and the artillery war. Very much worth the time if you are at all interested in the Ukraine war.
.
Some very nice linked vid on the technical aspects of changing artillery barrels. Changing out 11 ton cannon barrels in the field is a very interesting ( for me anyway ) process.
“… it’s not Alabama … seems more focused on hate, fear, and lies than love”
.
Ha ha. Throw an entire state under the bus followed by how they are directed by “love”. Maybe Alabama needs more progressive love, but then again probably not. I do enjoy the displays of open prejudice directly followed by self professed moral preening.
“While not all politician are yet there, the military and intelligence specialists, who are part of the western propaganda squads, have made their conclusions. From their mouth the truth is dripping to the media. While the headlines below may not express it the content of those pieces, especially in the first four, is finally admitting the obvious. It didn’t work and the counter-offensive is done”
.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/
.
The above article has a long list of linked western media articles on this subject
Tom,
I’ve always found that extremely entertaining as well. But such speech is convenient and informative at times. In a way, I feel like I can trust this more, if that makes sense, than the advertisement of somebody who shares my values.
Funny how these things work sometimes.
What is a “nationalist movement”? If one is not a “nationalist”, what does that mean? What do they want to happen? Does the change in stance of NYC to immigrants make them “nationalists”? If Biden says he loves the USA, is that “nationalism”? I get tired of these terms being thrown around and having no idea what they’re supposed to mean.
Dave,
They mean fascist. [Edit: By which, they mean to call you a Nazi.]
My best guess is nationalist vs globalist. I think it is really just that particular class of people trying to signal to their global/in country peers that they dismiss the less favored citizens of their own country. They don’t try very hard to hide that part. It’s all part of their love.
I guess I know that’s the only point *sigh*. I think NYC would seem to be a prime example of what “anti-nationalism” might stand for. Preening moralizing. Happy to take the credit for demanding others shoulder the burdens of their good deeds, but who suspiciously raise the same concerns they decry in others when the burden comes knocking at their doors. Selfish, contemptible, hypocrites.
mark bofill (Comment #224068): “And the stupid state overreaches continue!”
.
I had no need to go to the link to know which state you referred to. 🙁
—–
And New Hampshire does sound good.
My guess is a nationalist movement believes in a controlled border (i.e. people cannot get in without permission), and the opposite would be open borders. I myself believe in a good strong border, so that only people and goods cross with permission. I guess that makes me a nationalist. And I am white. I guess that makes me a white nationalist. I don’t feel particularly supreme though.
Tom Scharf,
“It’s all part of their love.”
.
Or as my ex-wife (many years ago) said: “Love and hate are very, very close to each other.” It was the main reason I divorced her.
.
Not so simple to eliminate the problem with most of the Democrat party thinking their ‘love’ (actually hate) of the bitter clingers, AKA deplorables, is perfectly justified.
And I was so close to offering you a position in my organization too. Only supremes will do I’m afraid.
NEXT!!
Reminds me of Dennis Miller before they canned OReilly. ‘Theres a lot of people walking around right now with love in their hearts who’d just as soon see you dead.. ‘ paraphrasing..
Nah, this was the quote:
SteveF
Hmmm….. They are not close. What is true is they are both intense. It’s also true you aren’t likely to end up hating someone you barely know and have been indifferent to. Also: if someone you love betrays you badly, you might eventually hate them. Maybe.
But that doesn’t mean love and hate are close to each other.
Lucia,
“But that doesn’t mean love and hate are close to each other.”
.
I can assure you at least some people think otherwise. My suggestion: avoid them.
SteveF,
I’m heard people say it. Just…. no. You are totally right.
I also think IF love turns into hate, it’s not going to turn into love again. And if someone thinks they alternate between love and hate…. they don’t love you. They may also be unstable.
.
Anger is also not hate. You can be angry at someone you love. But that’s not hate.
Finally!
https://justthenews.com/government/local/new-mexico-state-reps-call-impeachment-governor-over-firearms-suspension
Been waiting all day to read that.
.
[Edit: I understand that the state legislature will do no such thing in New Mexico of course, but still.]
Impeaching Lujan Grisham is just talk. The New Mexico legislature might vote to overturn her executive order, but she will just veto that. After the pandemic excesses, a legislative effort was made to reign in the governor’s emergency powers, but the Dems blocked it.
.
The order is unconstitutional of course. But here is why it will be counterproductive:
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/legal-fight-mounts-local-leaders-weigh-in-after-lujan-grisham-suspends-the-right-to-carry/article_529ed876-70b3-52c3-b8f5-e3bef44271df.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block
Yup. Lieutenant colonel Samuel Colt did more to make all people equal than every activist who has lived since his time, in my opinion.
It’s a political stunt for sure. Any competent lawyer would tell her it’s unconstitutional and the fact she is abusing “emergency” powers to do it just reinforces the need to reign in executive authority. There is no standard when this is deemed a “public health emergency”. The legacy media is in just the facts mode saying “critics say it might be unconstitutional”. What a laugher.
.
She is just begging for a counter move to occur which would be an open protest with lots of people carrying firearms. Then what is she going to do?
Governor Lujan Grisham: “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute,” she retorted. Grisham cited restrictions on free speech as an example of how rights can be curtailed in emergency situations.
https://twitter.com/beauhightowerdn/status/1700288222734020921
.
Any politician with this attitude needs to go. Realistically this is recall territory. Her logic here is pretty bizarre.
.
“We can’t arrest everybody!”
.
Do you expect criminals to comply? “No, but I’m sending a message”. To whom I wonder.
Tom,
Yeah, but the good people of NM elected her, six points above her competition. This is one of the great jokes of our time that none of the progressives seem to understand; tyranny isn’t going to be imposed on them by an uprising of white nationalists under Trump’s leadership. No, instead all of these right minded progressive people are going to freely and willingly enslave themselves, by the efforts of their own hands. At least that’s my opinion.
.
Good and hard. The people of New Mexico know what they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard. We’re all going to get it good and hard in the years to come.
It is stupendously stupid, kind of a world record I think. Do the progressive do-gooders want to hand their allegedly “danger to democracy” opposition party those kind of interpretive emergency powers? The reaction to this is also telling. The legacy media, who has a rolodex of academic lawyers a mile high, chooses not to ask for their usual very angry opinion.
.
It’s also pretty cynical, the City of Albuquerque police refuse to enforce it, so she says the state police will, and she increased the state police budget in the emergency order.
.
Even from a non-activist perspective I wouldn’t want my tax dollars wasted on virtue signaling legal costs. The media should be shredding her for this and AFAICT they are failing, pathetic. One can only imagine how they would handle Donald Trump saying “the constitution is what I say it is”.
Tom Scharf (Comment #224099);
Thanks for that link. Lujan Grisham is truly astonishing. She knows that what she is doing is illegal. She knows it will have no effect on the criminals. She knows that only the law abiding will be impacted. But she is doing it anyway.
.
People rightly went nuts when Trump made a clumsy statement, not backed by any action, about the Constitution not being absolute. But Lujan Grisham actually means it.
mark bofill (Comment #224102): “Good and hard. The people of New Mexico know what they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard.”
.
Of course, the people hit hardest will likely be the people who did not vote for Lujan Grisham.
——-
mark bofill: “We’re all going to get it good and hard in the years to come.”
.
Indeed. Which is why I will vote for any Republican (even a squishy one) over any Democrat (even a “moderate” one). Even if it means voting for Trump again, although I hope it won’t come to that.
Mike,
You make a persuasive point. Maybe I have this one wrong.
I don’t know. Take Alabama’s overreach. Is that better somehow just by virtue of being conservative? I’m not sure I see it. Whether you strike the Constitution in the face with a right hook or a left hook, you’re still striking the Constitution in the face, no? I sort of think so.
I want government to be boring and non-activist. The current system tends to elevate people who promise to “reshape Americans’ lives in fundamental ways”. It probably doesn’t happen very often as the system itself limits their ability to do that (the NM governor will fail). It’s a bit tiring to monitor the circus though.
I know it’s not going to stand, this time, in New Mexico. We can continue to be complacent, sure. The system itself will continue to protect us. Since nothing has gone wrong yet nothing ever will I suppose.
Or not.
I believe the governor of NM is tantamount to an idiot, and a federal judge will block her emergency order very soon.
.
But her mindset does not surprise me. The left simply does not care about individual rights the Constitution guarantees, and indeed, actively works to undermine the Constitution whenever those enumerated rights impede their desired policies. They are completely dishonest and intellectually corrupt.
.
Only voters can stop this crap. In places like NM, it is very doubtful that will happen any time in the foreseeable future.
.
The governor swears an oath of office to defend the Constitution, then ignores that oath and issues an order she knows is unconstitutional. Wow.
SteveF (Comment #224111): “Only voters can stop this crap. In places like NM, it is very doubtful that will happen any time in the foreseeable future.”
.
I am not so sure. NM has tended to alternate D & R governors. The state seems to have gone much bluer lately, but that could change if the Hispanic vote starts to shift to Republican.
.
Lujan Grisham is part of a powerful political family in NM. Running as an incumbent against a former TV weatherman who has never held office, she only managed to win by 6 points. That is compared to a 14 point victory 4 years before.
Mike,
Salute to the good gun owners in your state. Civil disobedience the way it should be done.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/09/10/watch-armed-nm-gun-owners-rally-in-defiance-of-illegal-order-lujan-grisham-and-ted-lieu-spar-n2163654
Nobody arrested, nothing destroyed, as far as I’ve been able to determine so far.
Mike M,
I hope you are right. She is the kind of politician who does real damage to the country’s social fabric.
mark bofill,
Let’s hope the NM state police continue to not enforce the governor’s order. If they don’t enforce it then the crazy governor will surely back down.
SteveF (Comment #224114): “I hope you are right. She is the kind of politician who does real damage to the country’s social fabric.”
.
We should be rid of Lujan Grisham in 28 months. She can’t run for another term and both senators are Dems and quite a bit younger (and one is her cousin). But of course, there is a seemingly endless supply of such useless idiots.
mark bofill (Comment #224113): “Nobody arrested, nothing destroyed, as far as I’ve been able to determine so far.”
.
And a counter-protestor was allowed to speak.
.
There is hope.
Mike M,
I didn’t know she was term limited; so nothing she does now will have any political consequences. Which just means she thinks ignoring her sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution is ‘the right thing to do’. Good grief!
She will force her party to try to defend her actions, not helpful except for activists.
From here
Amazing. I suspect that since the NM legislature is dominated by her party (approx. 2-to-1 majority), she won’t be impeached, but this action is so over the top that (IMO) she should be kicked out. Don’t know if the lieutenant governor would be much different, but there should be consequences for such a blatant attempt to violate citizens’ rights.
Poland: “We are building the most powerful army in Europe”
Along those lines, two recent headlines:
“American defence giants Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have reached an agreement that would see Poland become the first country outside the US to manufacture Javelin anti-tank missile systems.”
and:
“Poland will sign a deal tomorrow to buy 486 HIMARS systems.“
Already in the works is a deal with South Korea for Poland to produce 800 K2 Black Panther tanks and 672 K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers.Images:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1701247077823463439?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
“Gazprom will increase the discount on gas for China to 50%”
Of all the damage done to Russia, cutting off their gas sales to Europe may turn out to be the most painful. This discount applies for years into the future.
Does extensive voter fraud exist? In October 2020 an alert clerk in Muskegon County, Michigan caught a woman trying to submit as many as 10,000 fraudulent voter registration forms. A report by the Michigan State Police indicates that she was part of a larger operation. Details here:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/now-we-have-proof-tgp-exclusive-massive-2020/
There is that emergency excuse for more government again. Get the voting population excited about an “emergency” and government has and will suspend individuals rights and increase executive action for what can be a non specific time period.
The pandemic was a recent example of an emergency and a trial run on what government can get away with in an “emergency”. Wars are another emergency governments can use to gain powers and tat are not necessarily relinquished when the emergency is finally declared over and often, at least, partially retained.
If the public does not submit voluntarily to acting upon the “existential” crisis being associated with climate change by politicians and their supporters, it is more than likely that an emergency will be declared.
It is not a matter of whether individual rights can be abrogated in an emergency but rather how well the public can be worked up over a particular issue and the justice system in the hands off mode.
Mike M.
A woman walks into a bar with 10,000 voter registration forms – presumably filled in. How could it be anything but an attempt at fraud?
.
Newsweek’s tepid analysis of the gatewaypundit report while mentioning gatewaypundit’s versatility with other reporting, was not able to blow this report away.
.
But 10,000 forms? That’s a lot. A better response by Newsweek might have been to enquire as to whether 10,000 legitmate forms had ever nefore been tendered in a single visit?
.
She wasn’t prosecuted. I wonder why, don’t you?
Kenneth,
For sure it is critically important that Congress set strict limits on
1) the allowed causes for a declared emergency,
2) the allowed duration (unless renewed by Congressional approval at very short intervals) and
3) the specific “emergency” actions which are allowed, and which are prohibited.
.
It is not going to happen unless Republicans control both houses and the presidency at the same time, so I am not holding my breath.
.
Short of congressional action, the only alternative is civil disobedience when a phony “emergency” is declared, like gun owners in NM. I do fear the Biden administration will declare a “climate emergency”, and suspend the rule of law, especially if the demented-in-chief is re-elected in 2024 (and then heaven help us all).
john ferguson (Comment #224126): “She wasn’t prosecuted. I wonder why, don’t you?”
.
Rhetorical question? 🙂
.
I have no idea. But I think I can guess which party the prosecutor belongs to.
john ferguson,
“A woman walks into a bar with 10,000 voter registration forms…”
.
I actually thought it was the opening line for a joke!
.
I don’t know the legalities of voter registration everywhere, but IIRC in Florida, you can request only one for yourself. Maybe there are rules for family members, etc, but I can’t say for sure.
https://www.kanw.com/new-mexico-news/2023-09-11/sheriff-in-new-mexicos-most-populous-county-rejects-governors-gun-ban-calling-it-unconstitutional
.
The city police have been joined by the county sheriff, the county DA, the mayor, and a Democratic party leader saying they will also not enforce this order. Even the ACLU has chimed in against it, ha ha. When a Democratic governor loses the ACLU, she is truly lost in the weeds.
.
“Top Democratic legislators in the state Senate had no immediate comment Monday on the temporary gun restrictions or prospects for impeachment proceedings.”
.
The silence is deafening.
Tom Scharf (Comment #224131): “have been joined by the county sheriff, the county DA, the mayor, and a Democratic party leader saying they will also not enforce this order.”
.
All Democrats.
.
Maybe impeachment of Lujan Grisham has a chance.
Tom Scharf,
But as I understand it, it is the NM state police that are under the control of the governor, not the locals. I have not heard anything about the position of the State Police. The State Police now have plenty of political cover, so they could well refuse to enforce the Governor’s ’emergency’ rules, effectively ending them. Mike M could enlighten us I guess.
.
She has to be the stupidest governor in the country.
This is what the line will be eventually. When they come for the guns and people resist, they will call it political violence by gun extremists. Hopefully still a decade or more down the road.
In yet another case the Biden administration lost at the 5th circuit court of appeals: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/22-40399
the 5th circuit tells the Biden administration that they have no constitutional authority to punish national guardsmen in Texas who refused to get the covid vaccination (even after the mandate was lifted!), because the laws the dept of defense used to justify that punishment are unconstitutional. National guardsmen are commanded and controlled by state governors unless Federalized to “suppress insurrection or repel invasion”. When not Federalized, Biden can’t command National guardsmen. (Ruling, June 12, 2023).
.
The case seems a critical state/federal power question, and a district judge rejected a similar case in a different state, allowing the Biden administration to enforce the vaccine mandate and to punish guardsmen who refused the vaccine (including courts marshal and expulsion). The Biden administration can’t decide if they want to appeal the 5th circuit ruling to the SC; in late August they requested an extension until October 10 to file an appeal.
.
As in several other cases Biden lost at the appellate level, they are torn: appeal and risk losing nation-wide with a SC concurrence or a refusal to hear the case, or appeal in the hope of effectively taking complete control of the National guard from governors (something they clearly want to do). My guess; the sniveling cowards won’t appeal, allowing other circuits (eg the 9th) to give them essentially free rein over at least some states’ National guards, even when not federalized.
“Ukraine used 3% of US defense budget to destroy half of Russian army — Lindsey Graham”
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-used-3-us-defense-203500822.html#:~:text=At the press conference, Graham,half of the Russian army.”
The “Silent Swarm”…. New concept from the US Navy. Use a fleet of drones to get into the middle of an enemy formation and cause electronic chaos. Have them shooting at threats that aren’t there and blind to real threats.
Or in Navy Speak:
“Distributed delivery of electromagnetic energy [includes] high power microwave to deny, degrade, disrupt and deceive an adversary’s capabilities via high-mobility platforms,”
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/09/silent-swarm-us-navy-seeking-electromagnetic-spectrum-tech-crossed-with-unmanned/
SteveF
Oooohhh… Know they gonna lose.
Jesus. I’ve become completely paranoid.
It almost sounds as if these people are staging a show for us. Stop being squeamish, seriously, she seriously said that. I know people can be dumber than I can possibly imagine, but. Grisham is really that dumb, huh.
If not, I think she needs to get better writers. It’s a little over the top.
[Oh, forgot. link here]
mark bofill,
The NM Governor: “I’m not going to stop fighting for public safety until everyone is safe. Period.”
.
Which is bizarre on multiple levels. The shootings she is so upset about had nothing to do with open carry and concealed carry laws: the shooters in virtually every instance are known felons who are, of course, never allowed to own guns. That her “emergency” declaration will do nothing to actually reduce the shootings she is so distressed about seems completely lost on her. She just wants to revoke the 2nd amendment. Imbecile or moron? Hard to say, but one or the other for sure.
.
A Federal judge needs to issue a stay blocking the Governor’s order so that her order is ignored by the rest of her administration and by all NM police departments.
Steve,
Yup. This (or actually this) may or may not be solid, but a claim is advanced in these links that gun owners (/ carriers concealed and open) are several times more law abiding than police officers on average. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was actually the case.
Bottom line, it’s not the legal gun owners you have to worry about if you care about crime.
Lucia,
“Know they gonna lose.”
.
I think it is more like “afraid they are going to lose”. They are looking at public statements by the justices and trying to count votes, for sure.
.
They can probably depend on mealy-mouth Roberts to support the Biden administration on Federal government power, as he usually does. So, along with the three progressives, there are almost certainly four votes to get the appeal heard by the court. But it could take until Biden is out of office, and a Republican president would likely ask the SC to find for Texas.
.
But even assuming the appeal could be heard next spring, the five conservatives could stick together. Could the DOJ count on getting a vote from Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett? Maybe, but it seems to me a pretty good chance they wouldn’t. Hence the reluctance to proceed. Their argument before the 5th circuit that the case is moot because the vaccine mandates have been dropped was, IMO, really stupid, not just because it was obviously factually wrong (they were and are still trying to punish individual Guardsmen for refusing the vaccines years ago!), but because it is the kind of dishonest tactic that is always going to piss off the 5 conservatives and stiffen their resolve to punish the Biden administration for overstepping its authority. Something like: “If the government honestly believes the case is moot, then why are you appealing the 5th circuit decision?” is inevitable. Like the governor of NM: dumb, truly dumb.
mark bofill,
“Bottom line, it’s not the legal gun owners you have to worry about if you care about crime.”
.
Of course not. Save for the rare case where a mentally deranged person with no criminal history decides to shoot people and so can buy guns legally, there is essentially no crime by lawful gun owners. Nearly all gun murders (not suicides!) are by criminals who acquired their guns illegally. This is not even a difficult public issue based on facts. The real issue is that a significant portion of the voting population wants to simply ban gun ownership…. and they always will.
The Federal District Judge assigned to hear the four lawsuits against the NM governor’s order is a Biden appointee. After scheduling an initial hearing for today, he immediately canceled that hearing and has not yet scheduled another.
.
My guess: he will slow walk the case until the 30 day period expires, then declare the four filed lawsuits moot. Result: no immediately declaration that the governor’s order is unconstitutional…. any appeal to the 10th circuit (and maybe the SC) will take years and cost a fortune. The same utterly dishonest tactic frequently used by progressives when they think they will lose any important case.
It sounds like the NM governor already got a bunch of gun control legislation, and it didn’t prevent all the violence. Now she has lost her mind.
.
This is a surprisingly decent interview for CNN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQLONWVhHmM
.
“It’s a suspension, it’s not a ban”. “That narrow reading of the constitution…” “Those laws haven’t been tested again…” “Republicans governors would not be allowed to ban abortion with executive authority” Ha ha. What a clown show.
.
If you want to get rid of guns then do the hard work to overturn the 2nd amendment. This is lazy and offensive.
No word yet on whether the NM State Police will attempt to enforce the gun ban. The head of the State Police is appointed by the governor. So maybe he is onboard with her or maybe he is keeping his head down.
.
Lujan Grisham has the support of the bishop of Santa Fe. The ACLU is concerned about her order. Not with the unconstitutional power grab (they are OK with that), but with the fact that the order provides additional funding for police.
Conservatives are idiots on the gun control issue.
The Democrats have punked them on gun control for half a century and they still haven’t learned.
Democrats don’t want to enact gun control. This issue first came to the forefront after the Texas Bell Tower shooting in the 1960s. Since then, the Democrats have held both houses of Congress and the White House nine times. Nine! During the Kennedy and Johnson years, they also had the Supreme Court.
Not once in all that time did they even try to pass legislation. They aren’t interested in actually controlling guns. They just want to keep bringing it up to watch the Conservatives overreact and look like knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Neanderthals.
https://library.austintexas.gov/ahc/looking-back-current-exhibit
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/house-and-senate-concurrence-with-presidents
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2016/12/01/fact-check-one-party-three-branches-federal-government/94636286/
I would think the way to proceed in court would be to seek a preliminary injunction to block Lujan Grisham’s order. If I am not mistaken, such a request must be heard promptly and can be appealed. So even if the district court judge is unfriendly, it might be possible to get a quick ruling from the 10th circuit.
.
One factor in getting a preliminary injunction is whether the suit it likely to succeed on its merits. So although a ruling granting such an injunction would not be final as regards the constitutionality of the order, it would have weight.
I’m good with that. So long as I can be a well armed mouth-breathing Neanderthal I don’t mind.
Tom Scharf,
“This is lazy and offensive.”
.
You may have developed a very good working definition of progressive policies.
Mike M,
“So even if the district court judge is unfriendly, it might be possible to get a quick ruling from the 10th circuit.”
.
The ruling might be quick, but there is a good chance an appeal would be heard by two Obama appointees…. who would not be inclined to issue a quick ruling. More likely: long delay and refusal to issue a definitive ruling of the order being unconstitutional (“Seems the case is moot anyway, right?”), forcing a final appeal to the SC and multiple years of effort.
.
Do I sound jaded about progressive judges? If so, that is because I am. If you can’t bring yourself to honestly say what a woman is, you should be disqualified from the Federal bench. If you can’t bring yourself to say an obviously unconstitutional executive order is unconstitutional, you should be disqualified from the Federal bench.
Mark
“I’m good with that. So long as I can be a well armed mouth-breathing Neanderthal I don’t mind.”
Yes, some people are comfortable with that role.
Aside… I personally do have a significant Neanderthal
genetic connection.
My 23andMe Neanderthal readout:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1701631068128849998?s=20
Russell,
Neat! Well, I don’t know what my component is, but I’m willing to assume it’s significant, so. From one knuckle dragger to another I guess:
‘grunt’
🙂
I doubt even progressive judges are going to let this one get through. The more likely scenario is the Governor will not renew this order and they will hope the court finds the case moot before it gets a precedent setting SC slap down.
I have 275 Neanderthal variants, I am winning!
Crub (may I call you Crub?),
This claim is demonstrably false. Just saying. For example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act
This was Biden’s famous assault weapons ban he is always carrying on about.
[Edit: Oh heck, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
rather than me aggregating them all myself.
ugh.]
Tom wrote: “The more likely scenario is the Governor will not renew this order and they will hope the court finds the case moot before it gets a precedent setting SC slap down.”
.
And if someone gets shot and killed in the meantime, either police, gun owner, or both, because police try to enforce an obviously illegal order? This is a very dangerous game with very dangerous consequences.
Tom Scharf,
“The more likely scenario is the Governor will not renew this order and they will hope the court finds the case moot before it gets a precedent setting SC slap down.”
.
Of course. My bet is that the Biden-appointed district judge will refuse to make any determination until the case is moot because the order expires. Such is the dishonesty of progressives.
.
But when even a CNN ditto-head is giving the governor trouble about constitutionality, she probably realizes progressive judges can’t protect her for very long. Still, her cynical willingness to flout the Constitution, and the cynical willingness of progressive judges to delay the obvious need for a stay of her unconstitutional order, are both very discouraging.
.
We live in discouraging times.
Tom Scharf (Comment #224154): “I doubt even progressive judges are going to let this one get through. The more likely scenario is the Governor will not renew this order and they will hope the court finds the case moot before it gets a precedent setting SC slap down.”
.
Sure. There may never be a final ruling. But there could be a preliminary injunction, issued either by the district court or the circuit court. If the law then becomes moot, that injunction would be the starting point if a governor in the ruling court’s jurisdiction (either NM or the 10th Circuit) tries the same stunt again.
I have 192 Neanderthal variants. I am 100% northern European and have a bone in the back of my head that protrudes that at one time I associated with Neanderthals. I thought for sure that I would have more Neanderthal variants.
I am currently looking for alternative explanations of some of my behavior and instincts.
I would guess that some on the left might be more turned off by the governor’s lack of getting a better emotional appeal for her “emergency” order than the fact of the order.
I hear cries from those on the left for making lots of government actions to be undertaken as emergency orders.
I wonder how many judges in our justice system would be willing to allow a trampling of individual rights in an emergency. I think it is more than we would like to believe. We already pass judgement on laws based on government’s compelling interests (to carry out the intent of laws and regulations) where individual rights can be trampled.
It is almost a natural reaction for those interested in a bigger and more intrusive government to have to, as the bigness progresses, increasingly infringe on individual rights.
Ken Fritsch,
Maybe the norther Europeans are not so high in Neanderthal genes and drag their knuckles less. 😉
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fxw8fsuk7l2c11.png
Ken,
“I wonder how many judges in our justice system would be willing to allow a trampling of individual rights in an emergency.”
.
Way, way too many.
.
My guesses – Biden judges: ~100%. Obama judges: >95%. Clinton Judges >80%. GHW Bush judges: ~50%, GW Bush Judges: ~50%. Trump judges <10%.
.
Most of the judges from before GHW Bush are long gone.
Yah. On the FRT thing there are courts that are ruling almost in direct opposition to each other. From a federal court in northern Texas, Judge O’Conner says this:
But in New York, U.S. District Judge Nina Morrison says this:
which rest on the idea that the FRTs are illegal.
Crazy.
mark bofill,
The issue is that Federal judges, nominated by different presidents over decades, reflect the divergent views of voters. There is an enormous divide between people who support the Constitution as it exists and people who reject the restraints the Constitution places on public policy. Those opposing positions are held by individual voters as well as by Federal judges. For the next few years, the conservative dominated SC will be philosophically opposed to the views of most lower court judges (and that divide grows with each Biden nomination of a lefty crazy!), so we can expect ever more of the judicial/legal contortions we see from both many lower courts and from the Biden administration.
.
If I have learned anything about politics over the last 50 years, it is this: The left never compromises and never stops trying to take away personal liberties, by any means available. They will lie, cheat, deceive, and commit most any crime to gain power over the individual. It is not just in the USA, it is everywhere.
Biden says global warming topping 1.5 degrees in the next 10-20 years is scarier than nuclear war…
.
I seem to remember we used to be worried about 3 degrees… and didn’t we already have around 1.2 deg, 20 years ago?
We’re just a bunch of dog faced pony soldiers. Me and you and you, but especially you right there, yes, you sir.
Where were we?
Evidence.
–
“McCarthy cited bank records that show more than $20 million flowed from China, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia and Ukraine to the Biden family and its associates”
–
What goes around, comes around.
–
Part of the great plan, smear and ditch Biden,
Smear and Trump.
De Santos and Haley parachute in along with Newsome and M Obama.
–
Like watching the flood waters come up a few months ago to our doorstep.
Inevitable.
Lots of collateral damage.
Steve F still on the money about Trump being perhaps unelectable if he survives trial despite his huge Republican only base
angech,
I may turn out right about Trump, but That doesn’t make me happy. I thought there could never be two less popular candidates than The Donald v Hillary. I was wrong. Trump and Biden are both more unpopular than either Trump or Hillary were in 2016. Horrible choice for the voters.
Do any of you guys know if an impeachment inquiry will enable the House to get info they could not get otherwise? Biden’s bank records? Witnesses who might claim executive privilege?
.
In other words, is an impeachment inquiry just theater or might it make a substantial difference?
The NM Attorney General, a Democrat, says that he will not defend Lujan Grisham’s gun ban in court since it violates bot the federal and state constitutions. The ABQ Journal, known to endorse both Republicans and Democrats, has an editorial condemning the order.
.
Still no word on the State Police.
“Do any of you guys know if an impeachment inquiry will enable the House to get info they could not get otherwise? Biden’s bank records? Witnesses who might claim executive privilege?”
As far as I can tell, a House Committee (or possibly more than one) has already issued subpoenas for bank records & such. I don’t think an impeachment inquiry confers any additional privileges upon Congress.
Or to answer your other question, I think it’s just theater. Guaranteed so, if they hold a prime-time televised session. Much like the two Trump impeachments. The difference is that impeachment will require almost all the Republicans to vote for it, and there are likely a few who will not. [Democrats had larger majorities for the two Trump impeachments.]
Don’t get me wrong — I think there clearly was influence peddling. As far as I can tell, there are no bank records tied to President Biden himself, though.
I do find it amusing that some people claim to be upset that Congress is wasting its time on this, when there are other important issues to deal with. None of those people expressed the same concern when it was Trump. [Politics as usual, I guess — no fixed principles, but view things entirely from the perspective of whether it benefits or hurts one’s party.]
Mike M. (Comment #224171)
“”Do any of you guys know if an impeachment inquiry will enable the House to get info they could not get otherwise? Biden’s bank records? Witnesses who might claim executive privilege?
–
The republicans may be stuck with the same sort of inquiry as the Democrats did with Jan 6th.
–
Breitbart article said
“The problem: Republicans argued during the first impeachment of President Donald Trump that Democrats could not use Congress to subpoena the White House until the House had voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry. In fact, that argument was a major part of President Trump’s defense against the charge that he obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with subpoenas issued before an inquiry had been formally authorized by a House vote.
There is ample precedent for the idea that Congress has limited subpoena powers against the White House when it is performing a legislative function, but sweeping subpoena powers in an impeachment — once it is authorized.”
–
Still very powerful against ancillary people like Hunter and could call in China Pelosi and McConnell which would be fun but unlikely.
–
Steve Bannon got caught by this system I think.
–
RINO’s like McCarthy and McConnell still refusing to help Trump as they want him gone.
Russian Navy base at Sevastopol was attacked overnight:
“Russia says Ukraine has launched 10 missiles and three unmanned boats in an attack on the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea.
The attack caused a large fire at a Sevastopol shipyard which left 24 people injured, Russia said.”
According to Russian media sources the Ropucha Class Landing Ship “Minsk” and the “Rostov-on-Don”, a Kilo Class submarine, were damaged. They were undergoing repairs in the shipyards of Sevastopol.
I found it on the NASA FIRMS satellite fire map and it confirms three areas on fire at the base.
Screenshot of the satellite photo:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1701888882508263514?s=20
Social media has videos and still shots claiming to show the attack:
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1701818716533522866?s=20
BBC report:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66793900
Mark , Crub here.
Those US laws you cite are not gun control laws. They chip away at the margins but are just BS. They prove my point. The Democrats are not serious about enacting gun control.
Here’s gun control:
Gun ownership in the U.K. is limited to sporting rifles and shotguns. Anyone who wants to own a gun will need to obtain a license and register the gun with the authorities. You need a valid reason such as hunting or sport. Home protection is not a valid reason.
Applicants need to fill out a form stating exactly what kind of gun they wish to buy, and the ammunition they will be using. You will need to prove that you have somewhere safe to store the gun as well. You will also need to find two people who can act as a reference on your behalf. Assuming everything goes well, the police will contact your GP. The GP will be asked about your mental health and whether they believe you can be trusted to own a gun.
According to Wiki, the only guns allowed are:
Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in . 22 rimfire calibre. Concealed or open carry of any weapon is generally prohibited.
Now that is gun control.
How the Supreme court would act WRT subpoenas is key in any impeachment effort. If the national archives refuses (almost a certainty) to turn over Biden’s emails from pen-named email accounts, and the IRS refuses (almost a certainty) to turn over tax returns for Joe Biden’s personal S-corps (his and and his wife’s), Biden family members, and the many Biden family associated LLC shell companies, then these refusals would likely end up before the SC.
.
If the SC directs Federal agencies to produce those records and they refuse to comply, then the House would immediately impeach Biden, and demand the records again. Biden would then be (I think) finished, if not legally, then at least politically.
.
If the SC refuses to become involved with the subpoenas, then Biden will likely stay in office, with the MSM and tech companies continuing to carry his water. The comical “Absolutely no proof of Joe Biden being corrupt!” statements will continue indefinitely. Clearly, everyone strongly suspects he is corrupt and personally benefited from Hunter’s influence pedaling. But even corrupt, he is far more acceptable to the MSM and tech company owners than is Trump.
Russell,
The laws I listed are gun control laws, obviously. I think Democrats are quite serious about gun control. That we do not have more restrictive gun control laws merely demonstrates that they haven’t been able get very far around the second amendment as yet, not that they are unserious. Certainly there are more restrictive gun control laws in countries where the citizens are not protected by a Bill of Rights. I don’t think this observation proves anything about how serious anybody is though.
Mark,
“That we do not have more restrictive gun control laws merely demonstrates that they haven’t been able get very far around the second amendment as yet, not that they are unserious.”
You keep making my point. If Democrats were serious about gun control, they would fix the Second Amendment problem, or at least try. During the 1960s they controlled all three branches of government.
By the way, I don’t agree with your liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. The actual words: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A narrow, originalist view is that the Second Amendment means “People who serve in a well-regulated State Militia have the right to keep and bear a musket and a saber.”
Russell,
I don’t think anyone would be entertained by my ripping you a new asshole, so, hah. That was really entertaining. What would we do without you.
Ciao.
Reference to Matini action rifles reminds me of the years I spent in late ’50s and ’60s shooting weekly at the Naval Air Station’s range in Glenview, Il. Russell, if I understand what you’ve written, the only repeating rifles which can be owned in the UK are 22 caliber or “Revolver Rifles” All other long guns must be single shot.
Is that right? And do you have any idea why revolver rifles which must surely be repeaters get a pass?
There must be additional restrictions. I had thought at one time that guns were required to be stored at a remote gun-club, not kept at home.
??
Mark,
Stay classy.
john,
I simply copied from the Wiki reference. I don’t have any idea what those guns are.
I can pretty much guarantee that if the Republicans chose to have prime time hearings the TV media would refuse to broadcast it. The Trump impeachments were political theater, and so is this unless some direct evidence of Biden’s involvement shows up. I think plenty of people suggested Biden would get impeached over a drop of a hat after Trump, so here it is.
Russell,
The Supreme Court has ruled on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment recently and they don’t agree with you, so it is their interpretation that matters. There are plenty of people who would vote for a handgun ban but you need to do the real work to get the 2nd amendment overturned, not do so by clever legal maneuvers which will create chaos.
are there no other shooters here? SteveF?
I shoot regularly John but I don’t know the answer to your question. [I’ve never been to the UK and don’t know the details of the reasons behind their regulations]
Tom,
“The Supreme Court has ruled on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment recently and they don’t agree with you, so it is their interpretation that matters.”
The Supreme Court ruled on the right to abortion in 1973. I believed they were wrong and held that belief for nearly fifty years. Turns out, I was right.
Abortion rights are not enumerated in the constitution, gun rights are.
.
One possible compromise is giving the right to ban firearms to the states. An outright federal ban on firearms is a big ask.
Tom,
In general I do advocate strongly for the rights of States to have their own laws. I would like to believe however that there are core liberties that ought to be universally protected. For example, I wouldn’t be OK with disenfranchising women in Alabama, even if the rest of Alabama thought that was a fantastic idea. Maybe I am imposing my own tyrannical views, but I would prefer to think that it’s not actually productive to look at this as relative. There are fundamental rights we need to respect if we intend to operate as one nation, in my view. We need a common set. Free speech is definitely one of them, I’d think. [Is the right to bear arms another? You know where I stand..]
mark
Yes. That some rights are fundamental and apply in all states has been a long standing principle. Also, that all states have a republican form of government is a long standing principle.
.
Freedom of speech, religion etc. are fundamental. And travel has been a long standing one. And states certain shouldn’t get to have “tricks” to infringe these– by for example making it illegal to “conspire to travel”. or “conspire to help someone to travel”.
Thanks Lucia.
Great examples. I agree.
john ferguson,
No, I don’t own any guns. Lots of relatives and associates do own guns. A former business partner (now 6 years dead) once owned a gunsmith business and had probably 100 rifles and pistols of his own.
.
I talked with a good-ol-boy from Louisiana years ago (55 YO, a very successful businessman, and avid hunter) about the possibility of restrictive gun laws and his response was: “If those SOBs from ATF come for my guns, I’ll shoot ’em dead without opening the front door.”
.
Guns are not going to be taken from private individuals any time soon, if ever.
Tom Scharf,
“One possible compromise is giving the right to ban firearms to the states. An outright federal ban on firearms is a big ask.”
.
Some states ban guns but not others? I don’t see how that ever works. There would never be enough individual states to pass that amendment.
Russell Klier (Comment #224179): “A narrow, originalist view is that the Second Amendment means ‘People who serve in a well-regulated State Militia have the right to keep and bear a musket and a saber’.”
.
I think that a narrow, originalist view of the Second Amendment is that the federal government has no right to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons. Of course, SCOTUS disagrees with both our views and, unlike us, they have a say.
.
I guess I need to give at least a brief justification of my extreme interpretation. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of states to maintain armed forces so as to able to defend themselves against military action by other states, foreign countries, and the federal government. If Washington can regulate arms, then it could use that power to disarm the states.
.
I would add that IMO the Second Amendment in no way limits the right of states to regulate private ownership of arms. The SCOTUS rulings regarding state laws are properly justified by the Ninth Amendment, extended by the 14th Amendment.
Tom,
“There are plenty of people who would vote for a handgun ban but you need to do the real work to get the 2nd amendment overturned, not do so by clever legal maneuvers which will create chaos.”
Yes, with the current SC interpretation, I concur wholeheartedly.
My main point with Mark is that Democrats are not serious about gun control legislation because they haven’t taken on the Second Amendment issue. Everything the Ds have done is nothing but chipping away at the margins.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th-amendment/
It’s not for lack of trying. They don’t have the necessary support to accomplish the objective.
Mike,
“ a narrow, originalist view of the Second Amendment is that the federal government has no right to ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons.”
I doubt the Founding Fathers were trying to guarantee the right to weapons of mass destruction.
I also doubt that they were trying to guarantee every redneck the right to go down the street with a Kalashnikov hanging in the back window of his pickup truck and a Glock stuffed into his waistband.
Mike,
You could certainly make that case. President Madison signed a Letter of Marque in 1812 authorizing a private Brig to essentially do war on the British. I think it could be argued that this is evidence that back in the day private actors had the right to carry and use military weapons of war.
But as you say, what matters is what the SC has decided.
I asked (Comment #224171): “Do any of you guys know if an impeachment inquiry will enable the House to get info they could not get otherwise? Biden’s bank records? Witnesses who might claim executive privilege? In other words, is an impeachment inquiry just theater or might it make a substantial difference?”
——-
HaroldW (Comment #224173): “As far as I can tell, a House Committee (or possibly more than one) has already issued subpoenas for bank records & such. I don’t think an impeachment inquiry confers any additional privileges upon Congress.”
.
They have at least some of Hunter’s bank records. They definitely have not received Joe or Jill’s records. Or Joe’s emails. So there is an issue.
——–
angech (Comment #224174): “Breitbart article said …”
.
I guess he means this article:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/12/mccarthy-stops-short-of-calling-for-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry/
That adds some useful info. But it is not clear that the House must approve an inquiry.
.
This article is more informative:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/09/supreme-court-7-2-house-cannot-force-trump-to-provide-tax-returns/
.
The article starts by stating, incorrectly:
But it seems that the court actually said that conditions must be met to demand such documents:
Also:
And Jonathan Turley has some useful comments:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/05/jonathan-turley-impeachment-inquiry-would-force-disclosure-bidens-alias-emails/
I think that what this amounts to is that an impeachment inquiry, even without a formal House vote, would go a long way toward meeting the conditions described by Roberts. If Biden stonewalls, that would provide a cause to have the House approve a formal inquiry, which would clearly have the power to demand such documents.
.
So an impeachment inquiry, even without a House vote, is more than just theater.
Russell Klier (Comment #224198): “I doubt the Founding Fathers were trying to guarantee the right…”.
.
They weren’t. They were reserving such powers to the states.
MikeM,
“I would add that IMO the Second Amendment in no way limits the right of states to regulate private ownership of arms.”
.
I suspect there six members of the SC who completely disagree with you. Oh, and probably 100 million+ gun owners who disagree with you.
Mike M,
Biden will never agree to giving the House the documents it requests, impeachment inquiry or not, for pretty obvious reasons (they will show he is in fact corrupt, and changed official US policies in for personal gain). If the SC directs Federal agencies to produce the requested documents, then I think Biden is toast. But I doubt the SC will ever do that prior to the 2024 election, and maybe not after the election. Roberts is an automatic vote against forcing disclosure, so along with the three progressives, one other vote ensures the information remains hidden indefinitely.
SteveF (Comment #224203): “Biden will never agree to giving the House the documents it requests, impeachment inquiry or not, for pretty obvious reasons (they will show he is in fact corrupt, and changed official US policies in for personal gain).”
.
I think that is the point. If Biden has nothing to hide, he will negotiate in good faith. If he stonewalls, the House will formally vote to start an official impeachment inquiry.
.
SteveF: “Roberts is an automatic vote against forcing disclosure”.
.
Why? As I quoted above (Comment #224200), he set four conditions. An impeachment inquiry, at least a formal one, clearly satisfies all four.
Mike M,
“If he stonewalls”
.
Ummm… that is already happening. Biden will never disclose the requested information.
.
“he set four conditions.”
.
Mr. Mealy-mouth Chief Justice can, and does, change his mind at any moment, especially when he feels pressured by the MSM about a “controversial” ruling.
.
His handling of the Alito draft disclosure (with zero consequences for anyone) tells me everything I need to know about his lack of courage. I wouldn’t count on him voting to save his own mother from a drone attack if that vote was socially unpopular. The guy is useless when it matters.
SteveF (Comment #224144): “The Federal District Judge assigned to hear the four lawsuits against the NM governor’s order is a Biden appointee. … My guess: he will slow walk the case until the 30 day period expires, then declare the four filed lawsuits moot.”
.
I just heard that the judge has issued an injunction blocking Lujan Grisham’s order.
——
AP has the story here: https://apnews.com/article/guns-open-carry-albuquerque-new-mexico-governor-b2f400c1e43ed6e3fcc8f4d6f1403d12
Mike M,
So there is some hope for a rational judiciary.
.
We will see what happens.
So, the unconstitutional decree from the Governor of nm can now be ignored. But the greater question is why New Mexicans would ever elect such a lunatic. Talk about wasting tine and money.
SteveF (Comment #224209): “But the greater question is why New Mexicans would ever elect such a lunatic.”
.
Connections and party politics. A bigger question is why Pennsylvanians elected Fetterman to the Senate or why Americans elected Joe Biden.
I didn’t think the judges were going to have a hard time deciding that case. The governor looks like an idiot. I was reading a book today which repeated the axiom “never give an order you know will not be obeyed”.
Tom Scharf (Comment #224211): “The governor looks like an idiot.”
.
I think it is arrogance. Lujan Grisham has gotten her way on everything since getting elected. Crazy spending. Abortion to the moment of birth. Arbitrary pandemic orders. Changing the state constitution to give her more power. No real consequences for scandals. On and on. So she figured she could get away with pretty much anything with only the flimsiest excuse.
.
In other words, power corrupts. In this case, it corrupted her brain.
Covid update:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
2/3 of children 6-11 months old have already had a covid * infection *. Wow.
Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and critical illness is pretty poor now after 2-4 months. About 20% to 40%. Ugh. Good thing the absolute numbers are pretty low.
.
There is almost no data on the effectiveness of the new covid shot, or they aren’t sharing. I can’t find it. What little has been said is that it “works”. I suggest if it was a lot better they would be over-sharing that info.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-receive-us-fda-approval-2023-2024-covid
.
New Nature study: Natural immunity gives better protection for transmission upon reinfection. As per SOP, the media is framing this study as “natural immunity and vaccines work”. A close reading shows the same thing we have been seeing for a while.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41109-9
“In this study of >50,000 index cases and >110,000 declared contacts, spanning four different SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating over almost 2 years, we observe that the immunity conferred by vaccine or infection lowers both the infectiousness and the susceptibility to infection, and that a previous infection contributes more to the reduction of the virus propagation. The main immune factor lowering the secondary attack rate was natural infection, while vaccination had a more limited impact, even when recent enough.”
“The other variables affecting the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were the age of the contact person, the presence of symptoms – especially cough”
“Vaccination, even when performed less than 6 months before, did not add any protection to contacts during the omicron wave”
“Previous infection also showed a strong protective effect against being infected for the contacts”
“This protection against infection was higher than vaccination for all variants (up to 7 times higher for Omicron, in agreement with recent estimate of Gazit and co-authors17). This higher and longer lasting protection of the infection when compared to vaccine-induced immunity may find its root in a more global immune response and may be due to specific IgA response.”
.
That last part is something I have been wondering about, natural immunity may be more broad based protection and the vaccine may have been essentially over-fitted to the original strain’s spike.
The media just cannot give up on the preferred narrative when they say anything, but for the most part they have just gone radio silent and don’t want to talk about the details.
Tom Scharf,
“…but for the most part they have just gone radio silent and don’t want to talk about the details.”
.
It would be funny were it not so damaging. The “believers in science” are not believers when their preferred narrative is scientifically refuted. They are just motivated lefties who can’t bring themselves to admit knuckle dragging deplorables (like the MDs and PhDs behind the Great Barrington Declaration) were right about anything.
.
The part I find most troubling is, like the Bourbons, the MSM learns nothing and forgets nothing…. and does their best to make sure the public learns nothing as well. The next pandemic (whether in 10 years or a hundred) ought to be handled without all the destructive, panic driven policies of 2020 to 2022, but the MSM is trying to bury the data and so ensure the same terrible policies happen again. The real knuckle draggers work in the MSM.
Pfizer stock continues to fall in price. What they expected to be a forever bonanza of worldwide immunizations has simply disappeared. If 2/3 of 6 to 11 month old babies already had covid, there is no need for vaccinating children…. and no need for endless vaccination of adults, since most people already caught the virus and have better immunity (and spread the virus less). I think Pfizer is toast.
.
Interesting idea: If having an infection drastically reduces the likelihood of spread upon re-infection, then perhaps the pandemic died out not at all because of the vaccines, but because most of the population already had the illness and became less effective spreaders. The vaccines saved plenty of mostly elderly lives, but probably didn’t contribute to ending the pandemic.
Mike M,
“A bigger question is why Pennsylvanians elected Fetterman to the Senate or why Americans elected Joe Biden.”
.
They are both mentally incompetent placeholders. But they will always support policies the left wants, without exception. That is why they were their party’s candidates.
.
As to why they were elected over the alternative: The Republicans offered a candidate who wasn’t even a resident of Pennsylvania until he wanted to run for the Senate. Big mistake. The alternative to Biden was Trump, the most offensive and obnoxious person I can imagine, but even more important, the democrats spent many $billions to “get out the vote” (often by dubious means) in 5 critical swing states, and Biden won each by a whisker.
.
If it is Trump V Biden next year, I expect a repeat of the 2020 results, followed in early 2025 by (good grief!!!) President Kamala. Very depressing.
SteveF: “Trump, the most offensive and obnoxious person I can imagine”
Surely that’s an exaggeration.
But not by much. 😉
Do I dare dream? I am seeing this concept a lot lately:
“The Ukraine War Could Mean Russia ‘Breaks Into Pieces”
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/08/the-ukraine-war-could-mean-russia-breaks-into-pieces/
“The Ukraine War might really break up the Russian Federation”
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4149633-what-if-russia-literally-splits-apart/
“Preparing for the Dissolution of the Russian Federation”
https://www.hudson.org/events/preparing-dissolution-russian-federation
Here’s why I remain hopeful:
“The state is currently made up of 21 independent republics. Each republic has its own constitution, national anthem, and opinion on the Russian Federation.”
Many of these republics are unique ethnic populations who were conquered by imperial Russia and have lived under Russian oppression for decades.
Russell,
I think we need to hear Ed Forbes spin on this first…
Mike M, Fetterman and Biden have afflictions that can effectively keep personal weaknesses from actions and speaking off the table and thus they get elected because they are Democrats. Your governor apparently does not have these affliction advantages and thus we must dig deeper to how and why she was elected.
I wonder if Republicans are taking notes.
Ken Fritsch,
New Mexico has three Democrat representatives in the US House (no Republicans), two Democrat US Senators, a Democrat Governor, and a state legislature dominated in both houses (2/3) by Democrats. Over the past 22 years, Republicans only controlled the state House of Representatives for 2 years (2015-2016), and never controlled the Senate. Voter registration: 44%D, 31%R, 22%I, 1% Libertarian. NM looks to me like a Democrats-running-wild playground, with almost no upper bound for bad policies.
.
I suspect any remotely plausible candidate with a (D) after their name on the ballot would win any state-wide election in New Mexico. I see no need for deeper analysis.
Ken,
BTW, most of the Democrat advantage is due to a very large and overwhelmingly Democrat block of Hispanic voters.
I’m pretty sure Ed will say NATO is about to break up… ha ha. Right after the Russians destroy the Ukraine army in detail next week.
Lucia, Tom
Ed will need to get guidance from the Kremlin before responding. That may take a while, since they are probably equally divided for and against.
Ken wrote: “I wonder if Republicans are taking notes.”
.
What is there to learn? Her decision was not a display of weakness. It was a gambit that didn’t pay off in full, but this is how “progress” is made. Someone has to go first. I suspect we will have quite a few op eds explaining how right her decision was in the very near future.
Russell,
The breakup of the RF has been a wet dream of the internationalist elite for decades now. The main reason the war was pushed so hard in the first place was to further this goal. Looting the RF after a breakup would be worth trillions.
.
A breakup of the RF has to first imagine the RF losing the war and follow with a post WWI economic breakdown similar to Germany after WWI.
Good luck with that
Came across an article ( no link) the other day that said the US was no longer going to continue upgrading the current version of the Abrams tank due to lessons learned in Ukraine. Interesting, if true.
.
The plan was to go smaller and lighter. Somewhat more on the current T70 medium tank configuration than the current Abrams heavy tank configuration.
.
The Russians are also said to be rethinking their infantry fighting vehicles. Their current new production, the BMP-3, is considerably larger than their BMP 1 & 2 versions, similar to the Bradly.
Larger and heavier is not necessarily a good thing on the modern battlefield.
Thanks Ed. I knew the West were the ‘Evil Doers’ all along and this could never, ever, ever, happen.
That’s all me and my friends ever talk about privately. Invading Russia and looting the country for all their cool stuff. Just think, a Lada for every home. That is of course only after we do the same to North Korea.
Tom,
Lada is overtaking Tesla in the self-driving car department.
SteveF (Comment #224221)
September 14th, 2023 at 9:50 am
Well, I guess New Mexico is Illinois light where I know the Democrats could get a door knob elected. It started in IL in the bigger cities but is currently coming to suburban towns.
My IL House district has an Hispanic representative because Democrat redistricting aimed at having 2 majority Hispanic districts and they were able to extend a Hispanic dominated area in Chicago out 30 plus miles to the western suburbs. My representative makes absolutely no effort to communicate with me and my former Democrat representative is so unaware that he does not realize that I am no longer in his district. When I let him know this fact the reply was that I could not communicate by replying to his email. He was all rah rah town meetings, but when I emailed him a question it took a year to reply and then it was only apologies about taking so long to reply and no answer to my question.
It is all Civics 101 until you test the system or take a hard look at how the system actually works.
DaveJR (Comment #224225)
September 14th, 2023 at 10:10 am
I was making the same point here as you did in your post. I would also like to see some polling numbers on how the voting public stands in New Mexico on the gun and Constitutional issue. Generally polling on disguised Constitutional issues show a great ignorance of the Constitution and disregard for the Constitutional limits on government.
Ken,
“Generally polling on disguised Constitutional issues show a great ignorance of the Constitution and disregard for the Constitutional limits on government.”
.
Which is, IMHO, a direct result of poor (and left-biased!) public school education WRT the history of the USA and the Constitution in particular. I doubt 1 in 4 people graduating high school understands that the Constitution was designed to 1) severely limit what the Federal government is allowed to do, 2) divide power so that the Federal government is rarely very strong, and 3) guarantee certain personal liberties which no majority can take away by passing laws.
Ken,
One other thought on the Constitution: the era of Woodrow Wilson and the Depression era of Franklin Roosevelt did tremendous damage to the Constitution via SC justices who could not care less about preserving and defending the constitution as written.
.
The corruption of the Commerce Clause to mean the Federal Government can do just about anything it wants anywhere in the USA was the most glaring failure of these times, and we still suffer the consequences of that failure.
.
When someone is not allowed to grow wheat on their own land for their own consumption, the Federal Government is obviously way out of control. It has only gotten worse since then.
How do you know you’ve been gerrymandered?
.
We were redistricted when we lived in Miami in early ’90s. I cannot remember what the disposition of the new disrtict was, but the symptom was that we no longer received campaign literature or phone calls from anyone.
.
If you think about it, it doesn’t matter whether the district had become predominantly Republican or Democratic, its vote was a foregone conclusion so it wa s pointless to campaign in it.
.
Probably office-holders were not being primaried because the party subdivisions were not yet sufficiently virulent.
“First we’re gonna blind him, then we’re gonna kill him.” General Schwarzkoph on attacking the Iranian Army.
The Ukrainians did the same thing yesterday to Russian S-400 air defenses on Crimea. They sent in $500 drones to take out the radars then $1,000,000 cruise missiles to take out the missiles. This is the second S-400 installation they destroyed in two weeks. ISW says Russia now has a systematic air defense problem in Crimea.
Confirming sat photo:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1702645432260678089?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Wait, the above link is the before photo.
Here’s the after
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1702649542569611294?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Destroyed naval vessel “Minsk” in dry dock at Sevastopol:
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/1702372956733673523?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
ORYX have proof of damage to the sub ‘Rostov-na-Donu’:
https://x.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1702278002795549036?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Speculation is the dry docks will be out of commission for a long time, hampering naval operations in the Black Sea.
Another sign the woke apocalypse may be ending:
“Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed Senate Bill 447 into law, ending the seven-year-old travel ban that prohibited state money from being used to pay for travel to (26) states with anti-LGBTQ laws.”
“The repeal also means that UCLA can now join the Big Ten athletic conference and play in states with a diversity of social policies without having to pretend that paid athletic staff are appearing at games as volunteers.”
Tom Scharf,
Must be frustrating/embarrassing for a social justice warrior (AKA idiot) like Newsom to have to sign that bill.
.
I love it.
OSINTtechnical posts sat photo showing that surface ship hit in dry dock at Sevastopol is in bad shape:
“Imagery from today via @MT_Anderson indicates that the Russian Ropucha Class Pr.775 LST ‘Minsk’ is still burning over two days after being hit by a Ukrainian cruise missile.”
And sat photos confirmed extensive damage to the submarine:
“Rostov on Don appears to have a large hole forward of the sail & green tarp covers the back half”
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1702755014081495260?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
ISW claims Ukraine has caused a systematic failure of air defense on Crimea….. there may be more stories like this to come.
One of Putin’s mercenary groups has gone rogue in the Irkutsk region of Russia’s frozen interior. Irkutst has a population of 2,300,000. It is 5,200 kilometers from Moscow.
“Several dozen representatives of private security companies in camouflage seized the territory of the Dulisima oil company in the Irkutsk region of russia.“
Link and video:
https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1702944381722833220?s=61&t=q3_InP1nXWdPIXqj8656mQ
Russel… I guess we’ll see what that means in a few days….
But interesting times.
Yes, probably nothing will come of it….but Russia is a far different place than it was a year ago.
The Hunter Biden affair media pressure campaign has started from the WH.
.
Ties Between Joe Biden and Merrick Garland Deteriorate From Distant to Frigid
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/ties-between-joe-biden-and-merrick-garland-deteriorate-from-distant-to-frigid-e2b81f5d?st=0ximrq9bqu93o0g&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
.
Anonymous WH sources complaining about Garland.
Russian channels are reporting Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has died. He was a staunch Putin ally and warlord. Chechnya could descend into chaos. He personally led the Chechen forces in Ukraine.
There is even more intrigue than is usual for a Russian honcho in his death:
“Days before ruthless Chechnyan warlord and Putin ally Ramzan Kadyrov was reportedly hospitalized in a coma, he was accused of burying his personal doctor alive in retaliation for trying to poison him.”
https://nypost.com/2023/09/16/chechen-warlord-said-to-bury-his-doctor-alive-before-coma/
Tom Scharf (Comment #224245)
September 16th, 2023 at 5:41 pm
I really do not know why the White House would be upset with Garland. After all he appointed, in an unorthodox manner, for special counsel, David Weiss, who obviously was stonewalling the prosecution of Hunter Biden and offering a sweet heart deal until the whistleblowers testified and a judge questioned the plea deal. Biden could still get a plea deal on any charges and Weiss could continue stonewalling on the tax deals, foreign agent issue and god forbid involving Joe Biden in his investigation.
Could the White House be feigning their reaction to give the false impression that Garland and Weiss are seriously attempting to investigate and bring charges? It would not surprise me if the answer to my question was: yes.
ken
“Weiss could continue stonewalling on the tax deals, foreign agent issue and god forbid involving Joe Biden in his investigation.”
.
Of course. The Bidens have been handled by the DOJ with the softest of kid gloves. That is not going to change. I believe (as I am sure you do) that the assignment of a conflicted special prosecutor was nothing but a ploy to block congressional testimony about an “ongoing investigation”.
.
Whether on not Hunter, Joe, and the rest get away with everything, remaining effectively protected by the DOJ, depends, IMO, on how the Supreme Court rules WRT the validity of House subpoenas of Joe’s and Hunter’s bank records and the Joe Biden pseudonym emails. If the SC refuses to enforce the House subpoenas (I’d guess it is a 50:50 chance), then the Bidens are home free and never going to face any consequences for their obvious, blatant corruption.
.
The huge pay-for-play scheme the Clintons got away with, because they were a lot smarter than Joe Biden, makes the Biden corruption look like ‘small potatoes’, but still, it is clear we live in times where political corruption of elected officials is tacitly accepted by a large fraction of the voting public. A sad commentary on the moral character of the country, I think.
Possible evidence for phytoplankton or similar life. Dimethyl sulfide may have been detected by the Webb telescope on a planet about 120 light years away, although the evidence is not certain. Dimethyl sulfide on Earth anyway is only produced by living organisms. Link here.
I think this is probably just Joe Biden commenting on the Hunter investigation “without commenting on the Hunter investigation”. There is >= 100.0% chance all these comments from WH aides are pre-authorized from the top, but the intent is a bit mysterious. The media does this stenography as a trade for inside access and pretends they aren’t being played. I would not be surprised to see the exact same story from anonymous sources being replayed in other media outlets soon.
Why would Biden and the White House gang be unhappy with Garland? I’m astonished that no-one told the WSJ. Maybe it would have seemed like whining.
.
Garland wasted a year in moving in on the January 6 endeavors at the Trump level. Biden and company no doubt hoped that the actions and inactions of Trump and his colleagues would be pounced upon starting January 7 so that a proper prosecution if warranted could be developed and the apparent miscreants hauled into court, adjudicated, and the results established well befoire the primaries.
.
Had this been done, Biden would not now, he thought, be confronting an opponent who even if he is found innocent will not pop out of the judicial system much before the election- so untidy.
.
Having Trump in the midst of his judicial struggles while trying to run the best campaign he is capable of isn’t helpful either. Whatever is happening to Trump is a whole lot more interesting than anything Joe could ever come up with — short of starting WW2 as the Donald has recently suggested.
.
And this is without getting into the inconvenience and poor timing of the Hunter Biden follies.
Mark Bofill,
“Possible evidence for phytoplankton or similar life.”
.
I would not hold my breath waiting for confirmation. 😉
.
But even if an indication of life, it is nothing close to proven. And besides….. 120 light years? Hey you intelligent life… want to get together for some discussions? 240 years waiting a reply. The stupid, it burns.
.
Assuming there is a wonderful (non-aggressive) civilization 120 light years away, it takes a minimum of 100,000 years to arrive there, under the best of assumptions. It is like a joke. There are thousands of solar systems closer; forget about the ones more than 20,000 years travel time.
Steve F
“Whether on not Hunter, Joe, and the rest get away with everything, remaining effectively protected by the DOJ, depends, IMO, on how the Supreme Court rules WRT the validity of House subpoenas of Joe’s and Hunter’s bank records and the Joe Biden pseudonym emails.”
–
Take a breath, step back and look at the big picture.
No one wants the two putative front runners to win.
Joe, with all his baggage, was the only non crazy electable that the Democrats could put up at the time.
Hilary and Michelle still waiting in the wings, Newsome towering large.
–
So big Joe is now in the way, excess baggage, only not jettisoned because he knows where all the skeletons are buried and has some viability if Trump survives the kitchen sink.
–
How to get rid of someone who does not want to go?
If I was a swamp creature like Garland and Weiss the answer is simple.
DOJ indicts Hunter on the other laptop charges and say sorry Joe we did not mean it but… these witnesses came up and…
–
The swamp eats its own when it wants to and Biden is in the way if a lot of bigger, hungrier critters.
angech,
I think Democrats are dishonest, but rational.
.
The only objective is making sure Trump does not win. Getting rid of Biden at a late date (that is, now or in the future), and especially if they get rid of him because he is blatantly corrupt, makes Trump’s election more likely, not less. They just won’t do that. Choosing Biden in 2020 was motivated by the need to have a candidate with a good chance of defeating Trump; all other candidates on the Dem side were obviously unelectable lunatics. Bernie Sanders? No! Elizabeth Warren? Nooo!!! The current situation is much the same: Lunatic Gavin Newsom? No. The lunatic governor of Michigan? No. Lunatic governor of New Mexico? Colorado? No and no. There are no plausible Democrats to substitute for Biden.
.
The Democrats are stuck with Biden (and word-salad VP Kamala Airhead). It is uncertain (eg 50:50) if they will win with that pair, but short of Biden having “a major health crisis”, those are the Democrat candidates for 2024.
.
Trump’s question for the electorate is simple: were you better off in 2019 than in 2023? The answer is obvious: 2019. But Trump is so obnoxious and so offensive (and such an asshole!) that in spite of Biden’s catastrophic policies, Biden has at least a 50% chance of winning again.
Steve,
I wasn’t suggesting intelligent life, or a conversation, or anything of the sort really. I just thought it was neat. I don’t think it’s an uncommon view to suspect that there ought to be life elsewhere in the universe at least if not our galaxy, but it’s an open question. So – I think it’s interesting, that’s all.
mark bofill,
I agree there is very likely life on other planets (circling other stars). But the frequency could be quite low. What is almost certainly very low in frequency is life that develops technology. I mean, technology is going to depend on modifying materials (smelting iron and the like). The first steps in developing technology can’t be done under water…. so you need dry land. But life almost certainly needs water to develop; both land and water required. The conditions for technological life to develop seem to me demanding. Even under favorable conditions (like Earth’s), we have only one instance of technology development… there was no dinosaur technology, in spite of them being around for 200 million years, nor any technology for 60+ million after the dinosaurs.
.
I’m all for trying to discern life on distant planets. But it is just interesting, not of practical consequence.
I looked all around and it’s not on our property:
“US military asks the public for help finding its missing F-35 fighter jet after its pilot had to eject”
The nature of naval warfare has changed. To date, Ukraine, a country without a navy, has sunk or severely damaged 16 warships of the Russian Black Sea fleet. This includes capital surface ships and a submarine. It also destroyed a commercial oil tanker far from its shore. Russia has retired most of its remaining Black Sea Fleet to hide in the Sea of Azov. The port at Sevastopol has been rendered useless.
If little ‘ol Ukraine can do all this from shore using drones, imagine what China could do to a US Carrier battle group without putting its ships in harm’s way.
Russian naval losses list:
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/list-of-naval-losses-during-2022.html
Destroyed sub pics:
https://x.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1703728356208881975?s=20
Russell Klier (Comment #224258): “If little ‘ol Ukraine can do all this from shore using drones, imagine what China could do to a US Carrier battle group”.
.
But a carrier battle group can stand off at a much greater distance than that between Ukraine and Crimea.
.
More relevant might be what Taiwan could do against a Chinese invasion force or a naval blockade.
.
Have most of the Russian ships been hit in port?
Mike M.
“More relevant might be what Taiwan could do against a Chinese invasion force or a naval blockade.”
Yes, better comparison. Taiwan could inflict a world of hurt on an invading force.
“But a carrier battle group can stand off at a much greater distance than that between Ukraine and Crimea.”
But Ukraine cobbled together its air and water drones in garages and warehouses with little previous robot and rocket experience. China is in a whole ‘nother league.
“Have most of the Russian ships been hit in port?”
Some in port, some at sea, I haven’t seen an accounting.
The navy has a complicated layered defense system. It can likely be overwhelmed by numbers. It’s not clear how vulnerable they are but I would be a bit nervous standing on a carrier deck on day 1 of a conflict with China. Hypersonic missiles are this week’s problem, as are last week’s nuclear tipped cruise missiles that don’t need a direct hit. I have a feeling we wouldn’t want to get within 100 miles of China. The Taiwan strait may not be survivable for anyone.
Tom Scharf,
“The Taiwan strait may not be survivable for anyone.”
.
Yes, probably true. The depth is almost nowhere more than 100 meters, and most of the strait is in the range of 20 to 70 meters. This is not a good place for large warships nor for submarines.
.
I would guess any attack from china would be by missiles, combined with an ultimatum: “Surrender or we will destroy all of your industries” (including TSMC, of course). A land assault would be very difficult and costly, so less likely I think.
Mark “… there was no dinosaur technology, in spite of them being around for 200 million years, nor any technology for 60+ million after the dinosaurs.”
.
Big statement possibly true but ask yourself what signs would you expect to survive after 200 million years of oxidation, volcanic heat sea level rise and erosion?
Not to mention Dinosaur war and weapons.
Perhaps they were faced with Dinosaur induced CO2 levels going up and they decided to turn off their technology to save the future world for their children.
–
A lot of rubbish I know, but the fact that they had our cells and our brains (caveat) and our body structure hips, lungs, spine arms (some) and legs plus an additional 60 million years of evolution suggests that it was more likely than not that some species achieved meaningful technological intelligence.
–
Where are they now?
And if they are not there, why?
angech,
That wasn’t me you’ve quoted, that was Steve. This said,
I don’t know to who or what your ‘they’ refer[s] to.
Please – I’m not looking to pick a fight with you. I have no idea what you’re talking about, I don’t really want to know. Sorry.
Mea culpa, Sorry. Everything is fine.