« "It smells like... victory" | Main | The wages of toxic masculinity »

October 02, 2020

Comments

It will never stop until it is stopped:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/10/13/1986120/-Unable-to-land-a-punch-on-Joe-Biden-Trump-escalates-his-racist-sexist-attacks-on-Kamala-Harris

Fine, no peace, then.

EVER:

https://digbysblog.net/2020/10/a-banana-republic-for-which-it-stands/

I never thought America would die at the hands of a person named "Amy".

So much for the wages of toxic masculinity.

We have no government:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/10/13/it-is-the-official-policy-of-the-united-states-that-what-the-current-president-says-is-not-the-official-policy-of-the-united-states/

Of course, at the risk of confirming my native hypocrisy, maybe Barrett will turn out to be a harmless hippie chick:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-might-surprise-everyone/616697/

In which case, I can then enjoy the sight of Erick Erickson rending his garments as he rummages for his wife's weapon and resurrects the goat that Judge Souter had relations with.

But, I doubt it.

I hope Puerto Rico invites the Russian and Chinese Navies in for some R&R:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/10/13/1986081/-Paper-towels-needed-in-Aisle-1-to-mop-up-Trump-s-stupid-remarks-aimed-at-Puerto-Ricans

Well, at least he found one place to ENCOURAGE voting.

I wonder if he has somehow contrived to have his name placed on the ballot in Puerto Rico and will adjudicate to count those illegal votes.

our new Justice either doesn't know simple facts of the law or is afraid to tell us she knows them.

but yes, liberals exist.

I guess she would consider it a trick question, if asked whether the constitution as a whole or in part is unconstitutional [there is a school of thought on the Right considering at least several amendments to be exactly that and going back to the Federalist Papers the whole idea of a Bill of Rights was not to the liking of some of the Founders].

did anyone hear that?
it sounded like a giant whiff.

The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

This is it for me today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAtGpU_xY8

Keep trying! (from cleek's WaPo link):

The end of Bash’s case is similar to that of a review conducted by John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, who was asked in November 2017 by Sessions to look into concerns raised by Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state. The Post reported in January that the inquiry had effectively ended with no tangible results. In the months that followed, Trump bemoaned the state of the inquiry on Twitter, asserting that Huber “did absolutely NOTHING.”

Or found absolutely NOTHING. Because it was all bullsh*t to begin with. How much did they spend on this stuff, since that was the big concern about the impeachment hearings? Also, too - Benghazi!

What a bunch of tools...

The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

but Obama was a tyrant

Out of curiosity, I googled for information on the Durham investigation into the FBI's Russia probe and found this:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/fbi-russia-barr-trump/index.html

...Even more disappointing to Barr and Trump, current and former Justice officials say the Durham probe has yet to find evidence to bring any major indictments against the people Trump considers his political enemies, CNN has reported, although Durham is still investigating.

One telltale sign indictments aren't in the offing is that intelligence documents provided to Durham by the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe are now being declassified and turned over to Congress by Ratcliffe.

If those documents were going to be used in prosecutions, the Justice Department wouldn't allow them to be released now, officials say.

Imagine that.

I, for one, hope that Trump gets so very angry that he shoots Barr in the middle of 5th Avenue. A "Second Amendment Firing", one might call it.

He won't lose any votes, so he might as well.

Even more disappointing to Barr and Trump, current and former Justice officials say the Durham probe has yet to find evidence to bring any major indictments against the people Trump considers his political enemies,

And AG Barr, low as he has sunk, hasn't quite reached the point of going to trial with flat out manufactured evidence. Yet. Although Trump's comments on the subject suggest there may be plans for after the election . . . if he wins.

Happily, every day so far this month, 538's forecast either ups Biden's chances by 1 (out of 100), or drops Trump's by one, or both. I expect that to thrttle back soon, as there just aren't enough Trump Chances left to last until Election Day.

I expect that to thrttle back soon, as there just aren't enough Trump Chances left to last until Election Day.

As I understand it, part of their calculation involves the possibility for something to change the course of the election in Trump's favor, which becomes increasingly less likely as election day approaches. So, even if nothing changes but the passage of time, Trump's chances continue to diminish. I guess you could call it an uncertainty fudge in favor of the less likely winner that becomes less significant as that uncertainty decreases along with the time left until the election. (If that makes any sense, verbally or conceptually.)

hsh -- have they forgotten 2016, and Comey? Wasn't that less than a week before the election?

Although I have no idea what the prognosticators were saying at the time, either before or after his little surprise.

they're still working on FUBARing the whole process so it will end up in the courts.

hsh -- have they forgotten 2016, and Comey? Wasn't that less than a week before the election?

You'd have to ask them. But there is the big bombshell about Hunter Biden's emails being recovered from a damaged computer left at a Delaware repair shop. So maybe Rudy Giuliani will play the role of Comey this time around, revealing that Hunter introduced Joe to a Burisma oligarch. I can't imagine this one will fall apart under further examination (at least not for Trump's hard core base, including some people in congress, who seem to love them some Russian propaganda).

have they forgotten 2016, and Comey? Wasn't that less than a week before the election?

They definitely haven't forgotten. And they've made changes to try to address the problem.

On the other hand, the race then was a lot closer. The actual 2016 results were well within the published margin of error. If the results differ by the same amount, and in the same direction (the thing about error ranges is that you are equally likely to be off in either direction), then Biden still wins easily.

At this point, Trump would need
1) the polls to be off the same way,
2) but by even more,
3) to draw another inside straight with the Electoral College,
4) AND to have the courts decide a bunch of law suits all in his favor.

Even with a one in a million shot, there is still that one chance. But it's not the smart maney bet.

So maybe Rudy Giuliani will play the role of Comey this time around,

seems to me like Rudy's playing the same role - spread as much bullshit as possible and hope Biden slips in it.

This one will turn out to be as important as the one about the $3.5M payment to Hunter Biden that wasn't a payment to Hunter Biden.

as an aside, the Senate Judiciary Committee needs a better AV squad.

1. Not that it matters, but I was being sarcastic.

2. This tale of a broken laptop and more suspicious emails...

First of all, they've been trying to damage Biden with accusations about his son and Ukraine for a long time, and all that has happened is that Biden has polled better and better (not saying the Ukraine stories are causing that, just that they don't seem to be accomplishing their goal of turning people against him, at least not in enough numbers to matter).

Secondly, Biden isn't Hillary. For better and worse, but in this case what I mean is that I think there were a lot of people who wanted to believe Hillary was nefarious. I just don't think it sticks, with Biden. Plus it is, in fact, 2020 and not 2016.

Thirdly, no fiction writer would invent such an uncreative bunch of villains. Emails, again?

Giuliani and Clickbait are quite a pair. I saw a clip that probably went around everywhere last night of Clickbait dancing...why isn't he in protective (from himself) custody at this point?

At this point, Trump would need

What Trump needs is to squeak out a win in a couple of swing states.

It's not out of the question.

The (D)'s need to GOTV. Everywhere. If you're so inclined, it's not too late to send postcards and/or phone bank.

Polls don't elect the POTUS. Voters don't even elect the POTUS. The electors do, and that is highly game-able scenario.

No rest until Nov 3. Or, really, until January 20.

One of the tragic losees of our time is that it has gotten so hard to be sure when sarcasm was intended. Even from those one knows fairly well.

Still, I should have picked up on that. Sorry.

wj -- absolutely nothing to be sorry about. I just wanted to clarify.

And yes, it's hard to tell these days.

Did early in-person voting yesterday; from getting in line to walking out the door, 22 minutes. Fortunately my county seems better prepared than some of the other populous metro Atlanta counties, where there have been reports since early voting started on Monday of multiple hour waits (as much as 8 and even 12 hours). Fulton County has been using State Farm Arena (where the NBA franchise plays) as an early voting location, which is working mostly well, but not every county has a similarly-sized space; Fulton is also geographically expansive, stretching far into the northern suburbs, where folks are not very inclined to brave the urban hellhole.

Fulton is also geographically expansive, stretching far into the northern suburbs, where folks are not very inclined to brave the urban hellhole.

I'm guessing more sarcasm, or at least a related form of poking fun. Parody, perhaps, aimed at provincial suburbanites.

Also, too, my wife and I used our local drop box for our mail-in ballots. She did the actual dropping, which required her to sign the outside of the envelope as the person other than the voter performing the delivery. Not sure how they would have known the difference, but we played by the rules.

My ballot's status is "received" when I log on to the elections website. It only took a couple of days for the status to be updated. I just have to wait for it to change to "accepted," which is what's shown for my primary ballot sent through the mail.

Since setting up the login, I can access my entire voting history going back to 1996, when I registered in my current municipality.

Trump, before inauguration, did call the 5th district "falling apart" and "crime infested", which is what I was thinking of, but I guess I borrowed Duncan Black's frequent usage.

... and going back to the Federalist Papers the whole idea of a Bill of Rights was not to the liking of some of the Founders].

Some were concerned that the government would feel free to abuse any rights left unenumerated.

russell's not wrong. From a piece in today's NYT called Biden is Not Out of the Woods:

One way to measure voter enthusiasm is to compare voter registration trends for each party. A Democratic strategist who closely follows the data on a day-to-day basis wrote in a privately circulated newsletter:

Since last week, the share of white non-college over 30 registrations in the battleground states has increased by 10 points compared to September 2016, and the Democratic margin dropped 10 points to just 6 points. And there are serious signs of political engagement by white non-college voters who had not cast ballots in previous elections.

David Wasserman, House editor for The Cook Political Report. wrote on Oct. 1 that voter registration patterns over a longer period in key battleground states show that “Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016.”

Barrett was asked if she believes a president should unequivocally commit to a peaceful transfer of power

"To the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge I want to stay out of it, and I don't want to express a view," she says.

OK, that's clear. The proposed Supreme Court Justice thinks that the ability of the President to act directly contrary to the law isn't a matter of law.

Which means, essentially, that everything is a political question, and there are no laws. Just what you have the power to get away with. Glad we cleared that up.

everyone who thought the GOP would nominate someone who isn't a thoroughly doctrinaire wingnut, please raise your hand. now hit yourself with it.

everyone who thought the GOP would nominate someone who isn't a thoroughly doctrinaire wingnut, please raise your hand

Of course they would. But that didn't necessarily mean they would nominate a completely out-of-the-closet wingnut. Yet they have.

but why wouldn't they? the outcome is guaranteed, and norms are passé. why try to please anyone who isn't part of the team?

If she's seated, Coney Barrett will be the third sitting SCOTUS justice to have worked the (R) side in Bush v Gore.

If she's seated, Coney Barrett will be the third sitting SCOTUS justice to have worked the (R) side in Bush v Gore.

Even she seemed surprised at that! Not.

I am incredibly pessimistic today. Sorry folks. Will come back if I have some good tidings to bring.

Barrett looks like she'll be close to a Scalia 2.0. Or a 3.0 if you count Gorsuch. Justices often don't rule on cases the way the people who nominate and vote for them hope they will.

The not-the-worst-president-we've-had gave his dupe child AND the dupe military attache who carries around the nuclear "football" the Covid-19 virus.

At least William Henry Harrison had the good grace to fucking DIE BEFORE his inauguration as he held you in armchair so you could feel his disease.

More guns.

Less healthcare.

Fewer subhumans.

Justices often don't rule on cases the way the people who nominate and vote for them hope they will.

That's absolutely true, and I'm hoping for that, of course.

That's absolutely true, and I'm hoping for that, of course.

Except that such a variation can go two ways. And the fact that we can't imagine her rulings being worse than we expect just means we have a failure of imagination.

(Sorry, I'm sleep deprived this week, and next. Makes me even grumpier than usual.)

Makes me even grumpier than usual.

Happy to love you, misery!

I'm sleep deprived this week

The trouble with virtual conferences with a world-wide audience is that somebody is going to be up at terrible hours. For me, this week and next are a conference running on Central European Time (Hamburg, Germany). Which is, in California, graveyard shift. It's been a while since I could do that without batting an eye.

Dropped off my ballot at a dropbox on Saturday. Received and confirmed by the board of elections on Tuesday. My vote is safely in.

Go Katie Porter.

Some were concerned that the government would feel free to abuse any rights left unenumerated.

Details are for wussies and commies.

This guy sounds reliable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/man-who-reportedly-gave-hunters-laptop-to-rudy-speaks-out-in-bizarre-interview

Throughout the interview, Mac Isaac switched back and forth from saying he reached out to law enforcement after viewing the files in the laptop to saying that it was actually the Federal Bureau of Investigation that contacted him. At one point, Mac Isaac claimed that he was emailing someone from the FBI about the laptop. At another point he claimed a special agent from the Baltimore office had contacted him after he alerted the FBI to the device’s existence. At another point, he said the FBI reached out to him for “help accessing his drive.”

Mac Isaac referenced the infamous Seth Rich conspiracy theory—which holds that a DNC staffer who police say was murdered in a botched robbery was actually killed off by Clinton allies because he leaked committee emails—as reason for his paranoia. He said he made a copy of the hard drive for the purposes of personal protection.

“They probably knew I had a copy because I was pretty vocal about not wanting to get murdered,” he said, “so I’m going to have a copy.”

I'm not sure why I'm paying any attention to this. It's probably some perverse fascination with how far gone so many people seem to be these days.

early voting in NC started today.

took me two hours to get through the line.

signs were up along the line for every candidate, except Trump himself.

I'm not sure why I'm paying any attention to this.

It's the perverse appeal of train wrecks.

On a positive note...

(Politico's Tim Alberta, from Arizona)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/15/letter-to-washington-from-phoenix-429433
...When I called the Maricopa County elections office, a spokesperson told me that 180 people cast ballots at McDowell Square that day. I spoke with about 15 of them. There was a great deal of diversity—age, background, socioeconomic status—but they all had two things in common.

First, they were Hispanic, which was intentional for the reporting of this piece.

The second thing was not intentional: Nobody had voted for Trump. I stayed until the polls closed, speaking to every person I could, hoping to find a single supporter of the president. For the first time in this series, every citizen I encountered was voting for the same candidate.

I know, I know—it’s a microscopic sample size. Still, if I were working to reelect the president, it would scare the hell out of me. Trump might be able to weather a bludgeoning from upscale white suburbanites or a groundswell of Hispanic voter intensity. In Phoenix, there is mounting evidence of both...

"It's the perverse appeal of train wrecks."

Well, there is a perverse appeal when watching from a distance. And repeating the viewing in slo-mo.

Jeez, lookidat!

But trains wrecks are absolutely riveting when we are passengers on the train hurtling down the track, not a brake to be heard engaged, and you hear the engineer cackling maniacally over the train's intercom, and then a conductor screams that the train has been diverted to a siding marked "1000-foot cliff straight ahead" and then the latter throws his ticket-puncher into the air and dives headfirst out the nearest window.

The Hispanic vote is far from monolithic. But if anything like what he found in Arizona should be happening in Texas....

One might raise a tentative finger and inquire to no one in particular whether the bar in the lounge car is still open.

No, Trump has not been ‘tough’ on Russia.

Trump’s policy on Russia sanctions has been an elaborate ruse, designed to project toughness while actually doing little to follow through. The reality is that Trump, far from taking a tough line, has proactively undermined sanctions from Day One of his term in the White House.

The results are clear. As Trump’s own FBI director recently emphasized, Russia is continuing to interfere in our politics today. That’s not because the sanctions have failed to achieve their purpose. It’s because Trump never intended them to work in the first place.

"Since setting up the login, I can access my entire voting history going back to 1996, when I registered in my current municipality."

I find this terrifying. So your secret ballot is not only not secret, it is a permanent record.

I could be wrong, but I think the only thing being tracked is the fact that you submitted a ballot. I.e., that you voted.

That's pretty much been in the public record for quite a while now.

So your secret ballot is not only not secret, it is a permanent record.

Is there not an important difference between "a history of which elections you voted in" and "a record of how you voted in past elections"?

Knowledge of the latter would indeed compromise the secret ballot. But I am hard pressed to see how the former would be a problem.

My entire voting history sounded different to me. If its just that you voted not so much.

But knowing your voting history is tracked would, I suspect, make many people uncomfortable.

I've been a poll worker for several elections now. One of our duties was, every hour per state law, to post outside the polling place a list of who had voted so far. (This being used primarily by partisans seeking to make sure all of their supporters turned out.)

It amounted to a pretty darned public record of whether you had voted. So merely having it available online as well doesn't seem much of an innovation.

i was surprised when i first saw that voting history is all on-line in NC, too. but, now i find it a lot less worrying than having my property values and county tax records available to anyone who wants to look.

just checked my own .. in MA, doesn't look like they have the whole history, just where your current ballot is in the process. and it looks like it's just for mailed ballots.

almost everything about the voting process is regulated and managed by the states, according to their own rules.

Not to put too sharp a point on this, if you get antsy about someone knowing you cast a ballot (but not knowing who you voted for), you really can't complain about how voter fraud is a huge problem in elections.

I say it's time to bring back old-school voter fraud. Do like George Washington did - buy those votes with booze!!

Alcohol is slurred speech protected by the First Amendment.

And, let's DO make a very sharp point about this. If complete historical records are being kept of the number of times a citizen, by name, cast a ballot in each election (not WHO or WHAT we voted for) and it is available to all, then what the Hell is this entire "voter fraud" hysteria on the Right about? .... he asked with an innocent face.

The only reason to be terrified about the practice is if an individual voted more than once and/or in the wrong jurisdiction.

It has been stated here not awfully long ago by someone named Marty without followup identity verification that voting is a privilege that should be limited by some vague and suspicious regulatory measures.

Yes, one vote per person, not one vote per drink.

The secret to cheating is to get drunk and vote often using a different alias each time.

They who can hold their liquor .. WIN!

A candidate who doesn't know any alcoholics will not get far in an American election.

Seven states, I think, still bar alcohol sales on election day.

That's why Republicans stock up for weeks beforehand in those states.

Selling VOTES is still permitted 365 days a year.

Some careful law enforcement investigation should get to the bottom of the scandal:

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

The President of the United States proudly admits ordering the cold-blooded murder of an American citizen by the government without resort to a trial by jury or even a fucking arrest:

https://twitter.com/Acyn

I'll buy the next round.

Fucking subhumans.

Times change.
Early 19th century ballot boxes were often made of GLASS, so that the ballots could be seen inside.

The concern, at the time, was ballot box "stuffing", in which there would be ballots in the box before any voter had a chance to put their own in.

And if you don't have the courage of your convictions, to let your neighbors know how you voted? Tough shit, wimp.

I fully expect Trump to use the result that there are precincts that record ZERO votes for Trump as "evidence" of fraud. Rather than evidence of multiple-digit-IQ.

Citizens Inebriated has always been the norm.

Since setting up the login, I can access my entire voting history going back to 1996, when I registered in my current municipality.

I understand that North Carolina provides this information (though in the form of a multi-gig data file) on all their voters, to anyone.

it's searchable, too.

https://vt.ncsbe.gov/RegLkup/VoterInfo/

it will tell you when a person voted, how (in person, absentee, etc), in which county, and which ballot they requested.

they have me going back to 2000.

we moved here in 1997.

the web site also tells you:

County: CHATHAM
Status: ACTIVE
Voter Reg Num: xxxxxx
NCID: xxx
Party: DEM
Race: WHITE
Ethnicity: NOT HISPANIC or NOT LATINO
Gender: MALE
Registration Date: 08/05/2016
NCDMV Customer: Yes

Any paranoid RWNJs that dislike having their state collect voter information on them are invited to sit out this November election, and all future elections as well.

Easy peasy!

Erasing the information already collected? That's harder, but they can do it. All they have to do is say "Trump Jesus" three times while sucking on a bullet.

I understand that North Carolina provides this information (though in the form of a multi-gig data file) on all their voters, to anyone.

I haven't checked lately but the complete driver license database use to be available for a fee from many states.

The Republican Party is beyond redemption.

The GOP starts forging a new alliance with QAnon
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/15/qanon-trump-maga-movement-429739

Ibram X. Kendi takes heat on these pages for his alleged Marxist approach to racism in America:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/threat-voter-subtraction/616746/

Increasingly blatant evidence shows restricting voting rights by hook and crook in America is a plank in the anti-Marxist conservative right wing platform for stealing elections, and that position is more patently Stalinist than it is Eisenhower.

I'm more Groucho, Chico, and Harpo than Karl or Zeppo, but Kendi nails it on this issue, though Margaret Dumont may pop a monocle and tut-tut.

Also, I'm glad Trump finally came around to my view that cannibalistic pedophilia is a bad, bad thing.

So, I guess I deserve a Nobel Prize for beating him to the punch, even though I still order anchovies on pizza from joints that may have a basement.

Meanwhile, the White House murderous vermin have denied all emergency funding to California for the catastrophic fires and their aftermaths, though Kellyanne Conway's first task when she returns from infecting her family with the pandemic virus is to fly out there and blow David Nunes, though I hear Stephen Miller is eager to monopolize that job too.

I hope Biden doesn't follow suit and deny emergency funding for Texas and Florida and everything red in between the next time they are submerged.

Just make sure none of the monies go to registered republicans in those states.

In fact, bill THEM to rebuild infrastructure and property and compensate their liberal and Democratic neighbors' lives who are lost.

It's a game.

Two can play.

To his credit, Biden won't.

I've voted for him anyway.


From Nigel's link:

A Pew Research survey last month found that 41 percent of Republicans believed that QAnon was “somewhat” or “very good” for the country.

That's f**king insane.

the GOP is a cult dedicated to opposing teh libz and Q gives them a rich new mythology to justify their opposition.

the only sane thing to do is vote third party to make sure nothing about the GOP changes and the libz don't win, amirite?

Also, cancel culture and Marxism are still worse problems in today's US of A. Tyranny abounds.

"somewhat" good for the country?

Does that mean they are against pedophilia but feel that eating children can be tolerated, as long as the latter practice is consensual?

Again, our intelligence services need to find Q or the many Q's and deep six them via deep state action.

I grow more conservative as I age regarding terminating the terrorist enemies of my country.

Another bit from Nigel's link:

At a NBC News town hall on Thursday night, Trump himself refused to denounce QAnon when asked about the movement. “I know nothing about QAnon. I know very little,” the president said. “I do know they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard.”

On the other hand:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/qanons-obsession-with-savethechildren-is-making-it-harder-to-save-kids-from-traffickers/

“It’s extraordinarily frustrating,” said Lisa Goldblatt Grace, co-founder and executive director of My Life My Choice, an anti-trafficking nonprofit. “We’ve worked so hard for the last 18 years to shift the narrative and have people understand this is happening in our communities. QAnon instead gives folks this incredibly sensationalized ‘other’ to fear and be angry about.”

In reality, child trafficking in the U.S. doesn’t look like a bunch of Hollywood and D.C. elites performing satanic rituals on children they stole from suburban playgrounds. Instead, kids who are sexually exploited are often poor, children of color, immigrants, or some combination of the three, and they’ve often been in the child welfare system or run away from home. In 2018, 1 in 7 kids who were reported as runaways to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were likely victims of child sex trafficking, according to UNICEF.

“We see minors who are in a vulnerable position — maybe they’ve run away from home, maybe they’ve been kicked out of their home — and then engage in sex acts for money in order to have food to eat and a place to stay,” said Jean Bruggeman, executive director of Freedom Network USA, an anti-trafficking group. “Almost never is there any kind of abduction or solely a use of physical force or locking people away. It’s generally much more subtle coercion.”

They fight it very hard, but they're so divorced from reality that their fight is counterproductive to the cause of stopping child sex trafficking. How Trumpian.

On racial bias, Booker had a great question for Barrett:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-hearing-cory-booker-called-bluff-about-racism.html
...“I understand that you weren’t aware of specific studies I cited, which are central to the important work of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which advises federal judges or provides recommendations to federal judges,” he continued. “So I just want to give you an opportunity today to share what studies, articles, books, law review articles, or commentary you have read regarding racial disparities present in our criminal justice system.”...

Which she was unable to answer.

Which she was unable to answer.

She doesn't strike me as someone who has read widely.

She doesn't strike me as someone who has read widely.

Understatement of the year.

Not that it matters. Is there a label for this charade that would be equivalent to "show trial"? Maybe just "charade" is enough.

She doesn't strike me as someone who has read widely.

Whaddya mean? She's read all 73 books multiple times (and Esther is her absolute fave - Esther/Ahasuarus = OTP).

No one needs any other books.

She doesn't strike me as someone who has read widely.

Including not having read widely about stuff that you'd expect any Federal judge to be aware of. (But perhaps she merely wasn't paying attention when her law school class went over the Bill of Rights. Cram enough to pass the exam, then forget it immediately. That sort of approach seems plausible.)

Cram enough to pass the exam, then forget it immediately. That sort of approach seems plausible.

Hey! That's what got me through school! Everyone's a critic these days....

Hey! That's what got me through school! Everyone's a critic these days....

I got thru some classes that way, too. But not on subjects critical to my career. In those, I paid attention. And, if I was using the information, the knowledge stayed reasonably fresh.

I generally paid attention if I liked the class. But I liked a good number of them, so I guess it worked out well enough. (No one's looked at my transcripts for decades, anyway.)

Being able to provide significant help to my son when he was taking AP physics last year might be the crowning achievement of my own education. ;^)

Is there such a word as megansplaining ?

https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1316770240475398145

McArdle: "We have long lines for voting for the same reason we have long lines for major concerts: it's a rare event for which demand occurs all at once."

And yet, lots of other states have elections equally infrequently. And we don't see those long lines there. Why might that be?

She's so very taken with her own cleverness.

Dunning-Kruger: see McArdle, Megan.

she sees everything through Econ 101-colored lenses.

she sees everything through Econ 101-colored lenses.

That seems to be a common problem. Things like basic supply-and-demand curves, highly abstracted to illustrate concepts, are taken as being equivalent to laws of nature that apply universally. I guess viewing the world in such a simplified way provides a convincing illusion of clarity.

That is to assume she is arguing in good faith.
I used to think that, a decade back.

But knowing your voting history is tracked would, I suspect, make many people uncomfortable.

At least for federal elections, states that do registration are required to maintain their voter registration lists. Eg, remove dead people or people who move away. Or in many states, who have not voted for long enough. Such information is considered public so that the states' work can be checked by anyone.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad