What Me Due Process?
I tried to get people to stand up against the TSA -- futilely.
I could foresee this sort of thing happening: Government-driven calls to ban certain passengers from airlines without a trial.
Now, I'm, to say the least, against violent mobs storming government buildings, and I'm absolutely horrified and disgusted about what was done to cops trying to guard the building.
The people responsible should get their day in court.
What shouldn't happen is for government officials to call for punishment without due process, without a trial, which is what's happening.
At Travel & Leisure, Alison Fox writes:
Pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol should be added to the federal no-fly list, the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security said on Thursday.The call to ban those who breached the Capitol building from flying came as airlines began to step up security for flights in and out of the nation's capital, and American Airlines ceased serving alcohol on area flights. It also followed reports of passengers demonstrating "politically motivated aggression" on flights to Washington D.C. prior to the riot.
"Given the heinous domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol yesterday, I am urging the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use their authorities to add the names of all identified individuals involved in the attack to the federal No-Fly List and keep them off planes," Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a democrat from Mississippi and the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement. "This should include all individuals identified as having entered the Capitol building--an intrusion which threatened the safety of Members of Congress and staff and served as an attack on our Nation."
From Freedom To Travel:
First, to be clear, putting any American on a so-called "No Fly" list is unconstitutional as we have maintained from our earliest days. The ACLU has successfully sued and won a case in Oregon to support this.The No-Fly List penalizes freedom to travel, is done in secret (like any autocratic government), and has no legal basis.
We do not generally associate "travel restrictions for citizens" with democratic society. There are criminal laws in place today to address those convicted of crimes in our country, and there is no post-conviction penalty to restrict travel of citizens (I am not counting restraining orders against violent spouses or others, or restraining orders on where you can protest against abortion clinics for example).
An airline itself banning individuals for cause, well, that's a different story and fine by me. Your house (with wings), your rules.
While it was not immediately clear if these rioters would be placed on the no-fly list, at least one airline was debating banning them: Alaska Airlines said more than a dozen passengers could be barred from flying with the carrier in the future after they refused to wear masks, were rowdy and argumentative, and harassed the crew on a flight from Dulles International Airport to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Thursday night, KIRO 7 reported.
Stealing this joke (under yellow highlighter).
Crid at January 12, 2021 2:17 AM
Stealing this joke
*insert snickering.gif*
I R A Darth Aggie at January 12, 2021 6:09 AM
I wonder if members of BLM and Antifa have ever had a problem flying home from the riots?
Bet not.
Isab at January 12, 2021 8:09 AM
"Pro-Trump rioters".
Who? Identify them, please. Anyone can wear a hat.
Radwaste at January 12, 2021 8:15 AM
"While it was not immediately clear if these rioters would be placed on the no-fly list, at least one airline was debating banning them: Alaska Airlines said more than a dozen passengers could be barred from flying with the carrier in the future after they refused to wear masks, were rowdy and argumentative, and harassed the crew on a flight from Dulles International Airport to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport on Thursday night, KIRO 7 reported."
And so KIRO 7 craps on itself by citing a completely different group. So much for investigative rigor: THOSE passengers were identified.
(If they'd participated in "mostly peaceful protest", the airliner would have been burned.)
Radwaste at January 12, 2021 8:18 AM
How are they going to differentiate between those who were led in by the police vs those who forced their way in? - there's plenty of footage showing the former.
There was also plenty of warning that elements associated with QANON were going to attempt to seize the building. Their planning was even covered by the media and brought to the awareness of authorities. Yet requests by DC capitol police for supplementary forces were repeatedly denied.
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC3h-7qQ6L8
This whole episode is turning out to have a bit too convenient
brok at January 12, 2021 8:31 AM
The difference between the government making the rule and the airline making the rule is mostly an illusion. The reason TSA persists -- and the reason for ID-check requirements before 9/11 -- is that the airlines want those rules there as cover for regimentation they want to impose on you anyway. The ID-check requirement destroyed our ability to resell tickets to a friend. TSA rules give them federal law enforcement help when they want to throw someone off a flight for arguing with some petty order that a petty staff member gives.
The people who committed violence, of course, were not even Trump supporters but Antifa infiltrators.
Now, if ordinary businesses want to refuse to trade with people who disagree with them, I'm fine with that. But they should be required to state their rule when you first try to buy a ticket, not throw you off at flight time for having a conversation about supporting Trump. And in any case air travel is too overregulated an industry (and thus too hard to enter) for companies in it to have this right. They need to be required to serve everyone.
jdgalt1 at January 12, 2021 9:10 AM
> Anyone can wear a hat.
It sounds like you're ready to turn your back on fellow Trump enthusiasts… Perhaps only some of them. For now.
Crid at January 12, 2021 9:41 AM
jdgalt1 Says:
"The people who committed violence, of course, were not even Trump supporters but Antifa infiltrators."
If that is the case then Republican members of Congress and the President should not be fear there will be right-wing violence associated with impeachment proceedings... and yet that is all they are arguing... they are insisting that the right-wing will explode with violence if they don't get their way.
They aren't the least bit worried that left-wing groups will be sending them death threats or stalking their homes if they fail to take action.
That alone tells you what they really believe.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 11:48 AM
Isab,
When there were protests in Lafayette Square over the summer no one infiltrated federal buildings or tried to overthrow the government.
That being said, I am quite confident that the peaceful protestors and journalists shot with rubber bullets and teargassed in advance of curfew so Trump could get his picture taken in front of a church he doesn't attend didn't have easy travel.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 12:04 PM
Remember CHAZ Arty? I'm sure Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Ben at January 12, 2021 12:26 PM
Ben,
Why would any of those folks be trying to get on a plane?... they live there.
That is why this discussion is weird.
Isab is asking why protestors from the left wing don't typically run into travel issues on flights.
The reason is that they don't generally travel across the country to cause problems... the issues in Seattle were locally sourced.
In 2016 when Trump was elected all the left did was march in DC after they knitted a bunch of pink hats.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 12:44 PM
“The people who committed violence, of course, were not even Trump supporters but Antifa infiltrators.”
And many people on the left were claiming that the violence done during BLM/antifa protests/riots was actually done by right-wing extremists.
Looks like many people on both sides can’t own it when their side goes on a rampage. It’s like a little kid who stabs the cat with a fork and then tells Mom & Dad his little brother did it.
JD at January 12, 2021 1:08 PM
I wonder if members of BLM and Antifa have ever had a problem flying home from the riots?
Bet not.
I bet not too. Probably because, unlike members of Cult 45, they don’t have an arsenal of weapons in their carry-ons.
JD at January 12, 2021 1:40 PM
Ha ha! You don't remember Arty? They were from all over the nation.
Ben at January 12, 2021 1:47 PM
David Dorn might disagree with you about how un-armed those BLM and Antifa protestors are - if he hadn't been shot and killed while trying to protect a friend's business from being looted during a "protest."
On the same night that Dorn was shot, Shay Mikalonis, an LVMPD police officer, was shot in Las Vegas trying to disburse protestors gathered in front of Circus Circus. He's on a ventilator in a rehab center for spinal injuries, paralyzed from the neck down - spent his 30th birthday there.
In all, it was a deadly night to be a police officer as four officers were shot in St. Louis during those "mostly peaceful" BLM and Antifa protests.
And it ain't all local. According to ABC News: "Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, New York, identified one of three protesters arrested on suspicion of tossing Molotov cocktails at NYPD vehicles as someone known to police across the county as a "professional agitator." Prosecutors, according to court records, say Samantha Shader has previously been arrested 11 times in 11 different states since 2011 for allegedly committing acts of violence and resisting arrest." [All emphases mine]
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 2:15 PM
Ben,
You don't seem to have the slighted clue what you are talking about.
The whole thing with CHAZ was that Seattle residents protested and created a so-called "police free community".
Those folks didn't storm a federal building and then try to fly home the next day.
Those people stuck around and weren't flying anywhere.
Your argument is illogical... of course we didn't hear about people crying in airport terminals that they couldn't get on a plane to fly home... they were still living in their "police free community".
Artemis at January 12, 2021 2:18 PM
Conan Says:
"David Dorn might disagree with you about how un-armed those BLM and Antifa protestors are - if he hadn't been shot and killed while trying to protect a friend's business from being looted during a "protest.""
We've been through this already Conan.
Stephan Cannon is the accused shooter in this case and he is already in police custody and charged with murder.
He's not flying anywhere.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 2:20 PM
It is amazing how on the one hand people seem pissed that the folks who mounted an insurrection against the United States of America are having their travel restricted in the days after their terrorist assault on the Capitol... and claiming that BLM protestors seem to be getting away with something... and on the other hand they cite evidence of people who are arrested, in police custody, and charged with crimes.
I've got news for you... those people aren't getting on planes so easily... the law kind of frowns on criminals in police custody boarding planes.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 2:24 PM
Conan, I thought my “arsenal of weapons” was a fairly good clue that I was basically** joking but, for you, I guess it wasn’t.
** I say basically because I would bet if you were to look at the politics of people who have guns confiscated by the TSA, more of them would likely be Trump supporters (or conservatives) than Biden supporters (or liberals.)
JD at January 12, 2021 2:57 PM
That dot way up over your head, Artie, is the point I was making. It was in response to JD's assertion that BLM and Antifa agitators "don’t have an arsenal of weapons in their carry-ons."
It was not that Stephan Cannon will soon be flying off to Rio. It's that he was not a "peaceful" protestor - nor were a large swath of the left-wing protestors in BLM / Antifa riots across the country this summer.
Right-wing protestors / rioters are not the only ones committing violent acts or packing "an arsenal of weapons in their carry-ons."
Quite frankly, Artie, JD's usually shown better sense than this. He's starting to sound an awful lot like you. And that's not to his credit.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 3:51 PM
Perhaps I've spent too long with Artie's over-the-top rhetoric, JD. I did not recognize it as a joke. Sorry.
Got a cite for that? Cause the local news recently ran a story on gun confiscations at the airport. NC is a shall-issue state so there are a large number of concealed carry folks in this county and the outlying counties who use the Charlotte airport who forget they have a gun in a bag and take off for the airport in hurry with a gun in their bag. It was a felony, but is now a misdemeanor here as attorneys and other people of influence got caught. No mention was made of political affiliations.
People of all political persuasions are getting concealed carry licenses. Gun stores are selling out of bullets and experiencing a run on gun purchases - and that ain't all Trump supporters.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 4:01 PM
Good show on the hypocrisy Arty. No, the people at the CHAZ were not all Seattle residents. You are right they didn't try to jump on a plane and fly off the next day. Instead they engaged in sedition (among other crimes) for quite some time. I don't recall you complaining about that. Nor about the murders and rapes.
As for "Those folks didn't storm a federal building ..." they did that part. Does it make it better if you don't try and get on a plane afterwards? Rapes and theft make it all better? Or was it the open racism with the 'whites only' drinking places that made it all OK for you?
Glad to see you only care about violence when you think it helps you politically.
JD, nope you can't walk it back like that. Yes there was a joke in there. Not much of one but yes it was there. But Conan responded to the point you were making. You can't pretend you didn't say it.
Ben at January 12, 2021 4:28 PM
No cite, Conan, just a hunch.
Aside from the issue of carrying guns on planes, if we took all the all the people who voted for Biden & Trump, or Hillary & Trump, do you think the level of gun ownership would be equal — or even close to equal — in the two groups?
JD at January 12, 2021 4:32 PM
I think the geography would play a role. For example, Vermont is a pretty liberal state with a high gun ownership level. Bernie had to distance himself from the anti-gun sector of the Democratic Party in the primary debates.
As for carrying, that would probably depend upon the local crime rate as well as other factors.
I work with a real estate office in which many people you'd never think of as concealed carriers proudly announce in meetings and safety discussions that they have a concealed carry permit and every intention of using it should it become necessary. These are folks I can safely assume are Biden voters based on conversations about housing, crime, and public safety.
This job can be dangerous - especially for petite women. I've carried myself a few times on showings in sketchy neighborhoods.
I attended an active shooter class a few years ago in which a large chunk of the class - including elderly folks and single women - told the police officer teaching the class about their concealed carry permits. I'd bet a big chunk of them were Trump voters.
At a police meet-and-greet, an officer with whom I was chatting advocated that people get a concealed carry permit and not just buy a gun.
NC requires a background check, 8 hours of approved classroom instruction, and a shooting test before an applicant can get a concealed carry permit, so anyone with one has had some training in firearms as opposed to just buying a gun and pretending to be Wyatt Earp.
Moving to NC after living for 15+ years in the SF Bay Area, the level of gun acceptance here required a bit of an adjustment, despite the fact that I'm from the South originally and grew up around gun owners.
JD, if you live in a mostly urban area, guns may be foreign to you and a sign of redneck-ery or gang life, but in other areas, even heavily Democratic ones, they're a fact of life, and not a sign of political affiliation.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 5:53 PM
Arrrgh! That should have been not Trump voters.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 6:03 PM
Ben, there are people on the left who get all butt-hurt if someone pokes fun — by, for example, using an an obvious exaggeration— at something important to them.
You’re just like them, even if you differ politically.
JD at January 12, 2021 6:03 PM
“...but in other areas, even heavily Democratic ones, [guns are] a fact of life, and not a sign of political affiliation.”
From a Pew Research Center website I just found on the demographics of gun ownership:
JD: USS Nimitz / Conan: the Titanic
JD at January 12, 2021 6:20 PM
Conan Says:
"That dot way up over your head, Artie, is the point I was making. It was in response to JD's assertion that BLM and Antifa agitators "don’t have an arsenal of weapons in their carry-ons.""
It's amazing that JD's comment whooshed right over your head (as he already explained)... and I responded to you by presuming that you at least had the ability to stay on topic instead of meandering off into the woods... and you then accuse me of not getting your point.
We've been talking about travel restrictions Conan.
That is the topic of this discussion.
JD was making reference in humor that maybe it was related to right-wing militias showing up in flak jackets, guns, ropes, plastic cuffs, etc...
To this you responded that well some dude was shot while trying to prevent a robbery amidst a left-wing protest.
Simply put... you don't think straight.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 7:02 PM
Conan Says:
"Quite frankly, Artie, JD's usually shown better sense than this. He's starting to sound an awful lot like you. And that's not to his credit."
So now JD isn't an independent thinker either?... and what's more he apparently is taking his thinking orders from me.
But I thought I wasn't an independent thinker and I was taking my thinking orders from the media?
Why isn't JD taking his orders from the media too?
Or maybe... just maybe... there are millions and millions of people out there who don't agree with you and they have drawn their conclusions by looking at the evidence before them.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 7:07 PM
Orion—
Have you ever been on:
Crid at January 12, 2021 7:11 PM
Ben Says:
"Good show on the hypocrisy Arty. No, the people at the CHAZ were not all Seattle residents. You are right they didn't try to jump on a plane and fly off the next day."
I don't pretend that each and every person who showed up at the CHAZ was local... I don't operate on absolutes.
People who only think in terms of all or none are not sophisticated thinkers.
The overwhelming majority of folks who showed up to storm the Capitol last week were not from the DC area.
This is distinct from what happened in the CHAZ where it was predominantly a local phenomenon.
Was there at least 1 person from out of the Seattle area... probably... but that isn't how good thinkers make comparisons.
If you want to pretend that the geographical distributions of the populations that showed up to protest in DC versus the geographical distributions of the populations that showed up in Seattle in terms of distance from the protest site from their place of origin were even remotely comparable you are not living in reality.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 7:13 PM
Crid,
In the US we usually just call them airplanes in casual conversation.
Where exactly are you from that you are calling them "airliners"?
Artemis at January 12, 2021 7:17 PM
JD,
Conan has to know that the demographics of gun ownership lean heavily right-wing.
The demographics of multiple gun ownership leans even more heavily right-wing.
He's now having conversations about how there might be some left leaning pocket somewhere in the United States where gun ownership is higher than in other locations.
Don't let him get you lost in the minutia. He has a strategy where when he is clearly wrong about the general case he will try to identify some exception somewhere and then accuse you of being wrong because you were not specific enough.
If however you defend yourself from that nonsense by adding in qualifiers... that pisses him off too.
He knows he is off base... but he cannot cede the ground that the simple reality is that more right-wing folks own firearms and more right-wing folks own multiple firearms.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 7:22 PM
Where do you live?
Crid at January 12, 2021 7:31 PM
Don't go Artie on me, JD. This blog doesn't need any more of his brand of egotism and hostile partisanship.
And, JD, geography does play a role in gun ownership rates. From the same Pew study:
Be careful, JD, you may just find that what you think is the Nimitz is actually the Admiral Kuznetsov.
Whether geography or political affiliation plays a greater role in the choice to own a gun can be debated but both do play a role.
A different Pew study reveals that urban voters are twice as likely to identify as Democrats while suburban voters are split and rural voters increasingly identify as Republican.
Still, I wouldn't bet on an BLM / Antifa crowd being unarmed.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 7:52 PM
Artie, the day you prove me wrong, actually prove me wrong, I'll cede ground to you. Meanwhile, it's safe for me to build a castle on that ground, because you won't be taking possession anytime soon.
I never argued that right-wing folks don't own guns in higher numbers than left-leaning folks. I did argue that there are left-leaning folks who own guns. I also pointed out that other factors also play a role and political affiliation may not be a causation factor in gun ownership. In fact, it may be the other way round.
JD and I were having something called a discussion. You should look that word up because one day, you might have one, and you'll want to be prepared. Well, as much as a person like you can be prepared to interact with other human beings.
Discussions are fluid, Artie. And that means one that starts with travel bans could move to violence in protests and factors influencing gun ownership as ideas and comments are thrown in.
Conan the Grammarian at January 12, 2021 8:07 PM
Conan,
The problem has always been that you are so far to the right in your political thinking that you view anyone remotely near the center as some left-wing ideologue.
FYI... all of the top military brass have signed a letter indicating that in their view what occurred at the Capitol fits neatly into the description of sedition and insurrection.
You characterized those folks as just a bunch of people out "on a lark".
You have no sense of perspective here.
The generals and the prosecutors are all talking about this event in exactly the same way I have been.
Are they are bunch of partisans too?
Or maybe... just maybe... you are so partisan that you simply cannot see straight.
This is why you almost always get things wrong.
You have never demonstrated an ability to look at a set of facts and then draw a conclusion.
You have your conclusion first and then see how you can massage, ignore, or amplify the information before you to justify what you already believe.
This does not make you a sophisticated or clever thinker... it just makes you an intellectual zombie.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 8:54 PM
Crid Says:
"Where do you live?"
I'm not interested in having someone like you bash the door in and smear their feces on my wall while ranting that you've arrived to "stop the steal".
You should just stay where you are on your sweat stained couch with one hand down your pants and the other firmly stuffed into a bag of cheesy poofs.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 8:59 PM
Conan Says:
"Artie, the day you prove me wrong, actually prove me wrong, I'll cede ground to you. Meanwhile, it's safe for me to build a castle on that ground, because you won't be taking possession anytime soon."
Nonsense Conan.
You very clearly indicated that Trump had this election in the bag while I indicated that wouldn't be the case.
Since then you haven't once even really acknowledged how very wrong you were.
Instead you've called me a "gas bag" and insist that I am pretending to be akin to the Trojan priestess Cassandra.
I was right... you were wrong... at the time you called me blind even.
Why it is that in your view I am always blind, but when push comes to shove I'm always correct and you always have things backwards?
I get why you are a fan of Trump... he drew circles on a weather map when he was clearly wrong, which is essentially what you are always busy doing.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 9:04 PM
JD: USS Nimitz / Conan: the Titanic
Don't go Artie on me, JD
Good Lord, Conan. Could you not tell that was said in jest?
JD at January 12, 2021 9:49 PM
Conan: Whether geography or political affiliation plays a greater role in the choice to own a gun can be debated but both do play a role.
I never said that geography played no role. But I'm sure that even if you looked only at urban areas or looked only at rural areas, you would find that, within each area, a higher percentage of Republican/conservatives than Democrats/liberals own guns.
JD at January 12, 2021 10:02 PM
JD,
You are getting a quick tutorial in why Conan and I do not get along.
Conan doesn't understand humor or sarcasm... he doesn't understand logic or reason.
All he knows is that he has to protect conservatism and his own ego at all costs.
He had a feud with Patrick for years because Patrick once referred to him as Conehead.
As you can see, Conan almost never refers to me as Artemis... but always uses a manner of speaking in which you add an "ie" or a "y" to the end of someone's name to patronize them.
Conan likes to dish it out but his skin is so transparently thin that he loses his mind when you tweak him just a little bit.
Artemis at January 12, 2021 10:39 PM
Plus, I would think that conservatives would be proud that there’s a higher level of gun ownership among conservatives than liberals. After all, aren’t men who own guns more manly and women who own guns more badass (and perhaps more manly too)?
JD at January 12, 2021 10:45 PM
“I get why you are a fan of Trump... he drew circles on a weather map when he was clearly wrong,
SharpieGate!
JD at January 12, 2021 11:00 PM
Artemis, I’m sure Conan has a sense of humor in real life. But, in a space like this, where he’s always going on at great length to make a point or explain something, I think his seriousness tends to dominate so he interprets things others say as serious (unless it’s screamingly obvious someone is joking.)
That’s interesting about the “Conehead” thing. If he really did get that butt-hurt about it, then it seems pretty hypocritical for him to turn around and refer to you — most of the time, in my observation — as “Artie.”
JD at January 12, 2021 11:29 PM
JD,
If you want an entertaining read you can check out some of their feud here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/learn-the-truth.html
"Actually, Cone-head is something I started calling you years ago, and it was meant to be a term of endearment, not an insult. But since you take it as an insult, I'll stop using it." - Patrick at June 3, 2014 8:42 PM
Conan continued to hold a grudge against Patrick for this up until I pointed out that I wasn't the only one Conan couldn't get along with on this board.
Since then he's tried to make nice so that he could focus his thin skinned animosity on me.
To be honest, he's probably only on good behavior with you because to target you would demonstrate my point that he cannot hold civil conversations with people who disagree with him.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 1:17 AM
JD,
If you want an entertaining read you can check out some of their cone-head feud here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/learn-the-truth.html
"Dear Patrick,
On behalf of luj, Flynne, Isab (the rigor-mortis-brained pretend female lawyer), and all the ignorant morons on this blog, I would like to thank you.
Thanks to your insults and name-calling, I see that none of us has the breadth and depth of your life experience.
None of us can comprehend the nuances in your ever-changing positions because we're "ignorant" and "morons" and still smarting from your stinging rebukes.
We can never know the facts of the case (any case) as well as you do. You're well-informed and we're "morons" and "ignorant." We skim instead of read. As a result, your points fly over our "overtaxed heads."
We shouldn't quote you or use your arguments against you because, even if we accurately quote your posts, because of your nuanced positions, we'll be misquoting you or putting words in your mouth (that last one seems to happen to you a lot).
We can only hope that once we learn to call people who disagree with us names or insult them and once we learn to deflect arguments by accusing our opponents of putting words in our mouths or misquoting us, we'll be judged by you to be worthy of having a debate.
Period.
Signed, Cone-head" - Conan the Grammarian at June 3, 2014 1:24 PM
Conan continued to hold a grudge against Patrick for this up until I pointed out that I wasn't the only one Conan couldn't seem to get along with on this board.
Since then he's tried to make nice so that he could focus his thin skinned animosity on me.
To be honest, he's probably only on good behavior with you because to target you would demonstrate my point that he cannot hold civil conversations with people who disagree with him.
At the end of the day for Conan things like jokes and insults are a one way street.
He demands respect for himself and gives none to any who disagree with him and approach the discussion with facts and/or logic.
As a matter of fact, the presumption that someone might know anything that he does not is something he regards as condescending.
He'll get mad at me now for outing him with evidence... that's not something he tolerates either.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 1:26 AM
Double post after the site ate my first one... you get the point.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 1:27 AM
Thanks for the clarification Arty. Even now you cannot condemn the violence and criminality that happened. Rape? Murder? Arson? No problem for Arty! Just as long as they are leftwing crimes.
If it wasn't for double standards you'd have no standards at all.
Ben at January 13, 2021 5:44 AM
Plus, I would think that conservatives would be proud that there’s a higher level of gun ownership among conservatives than liberals. After all, aren’t men who own guns more manly and women who own guns more badass (and perhaps more manly too)?
JD at January 12, 2021 10:45 PM
___________________________________
Sorry to go onto a tangent, but it's too tempting.
It reminds me of how certain fundamentalists, such as Don Feder (Jewish) and Albert Mohler (Baptist), have written apoplectic columns in the last eight years about the low birth rate. (Mohler said that childfree people aren't "human" and that they were in "a moral rebellion against God.")
I mean, on the assumption that on average, openly religious couples have SLIGHTLY larger families anyway, shouldn't fundamentalists be GLAD that the birth rate has fallen among liberals?
Besides, as I've mentioned, what's stopping the conservatives who agree with Feder and Mohler from having extra babies to bring up the birth rate? Oh...they don't want to give up what little extra time, money and crime-free environment they have? Well, neither do other people. Plenty of couples without children live on the brink of poverty already. Just because even homeless couples get pregnant sometimes doesn't mean they should.
lenona at January 13, 2021 6:49 AM
Oh, yes, forgot to mention this. It looks as though the US birth rate will drop even more this year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/us-may-see-underpopulation-not-overpopulation-due-falling-birth-rate.html
Does anyone really blame any couple for not wanting to have a baby during a pandemic?
There were jokes last spring about how staying at home would result in a baby boom, but at least one wag said quickly that if there WERE such a boom, it would consist entirely of first-born children.
It WILL be interesting to see how that works out...someone needs to do a study of couples whose babies are due this spring or later.
lenona at January 13, 2021 6:57 AM
Just to clarify...even when we leave aside those singles and couples who OFFICIALLY live on the brink of poverty, a lot of people without children only manage to live in relatively safe neighborhoods by working 50 or more hours a week, so I wouldn't blame those people for FEELING poor, at least. (I know at least two well-educated, single men like that - both in their 50s.)
lenona at January 13, 2021 9:30 AM
You might be (and probably are) right about that. Gun control has long been a part of the Democratic Party platform, so people are inclined to own guns might shy away from a party with that stance.
The Democratic Party also seems to attract more people interested in a government solution whereas Republicans like to paint themselves as "rugged individualists" who don't rely on the government. The truth is both parties have a mix of communal solutions and individual solutions to ongoing problems. Both are infected with politicians.
==========
Ignore Artie, JD. He's just mad because I won't kiss his ass.
Even when we partially agree, he has to go nuclear with the insults and derogatory remarks. He's too dense to understand that brittleness why Crid constantly needles him.
The only people he gets along with are ones that agree with him or kiss his ass (i.e., Jacquelope, whom I still believe was him posting under an assumed name to make it appear that he is supported by someone).
Artie, constantly brings up an age-old feud between Patrick and me and then uses that to impute blog-wide contempt for me - as in saying that I was "regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on this blog." When asked to present evidence of that implied widespread regard, he could only supply one comment by Patrick, during a time when he and I were at odds. We've since resolved that dispute or come to a truce - none of it having anything to do with Artie.
I, on the other hand, presented Artie with several comments illustrating the general disdain with which he is regarded on this blog, including one by our esteemed hostess.
Artie used to post here under the name Orion, but changed it without notice when he figured out people on this blog generally regarded Orion as an idiot, especially after his comments about airline passengers restraining with duct tape a violent drunk after he tried to open the cabin door at 35,000 feet and later spit on the passengers who restrained him.
The topic was Amy's sarcastic remark that we don't need air marshalls, that passengers can deal with emergencies that arise on flights with an accompanying link to an article where passengers did just that.
Air Marshalls, had there been any on the plane, would have had handcuffs or zip ties and, presumably, would have used something to deal with the drunk's spitting. How the passengers found duct tape is a mystery to me, but lucky for them that they did.
The accompanying article said the passengers watched the restrained drunk throughout the rest of the flight for any emergencies or issues - i.e., vomiting. People have dealt with drunks before.
You can see from the date stamp that we've been dealing with Artie's nonsense for a long time.
Conan the Grammarian at January 13, 2021 11:08 AM
Thanks for the links, Artemis. That was sure some entertaining reading.
And, while I typically don't like ad hominen attacks, I have to confess to almost having a man-crush on Conan for his wonderful pejorative: "the rigor-mortis-brained pretend female lawyer"
JD at January 13, 2021 11:12 AM
shouldn't fundamentalists be GLAD that the birth rate has fallen among liberals?
Yes, you'd certainly think so, Lenona.
It reminds me of how certain fundamentalists, such as Don Feder (Jewish)...
I don't care for his fundamentalism but I love his guitar-playing on "Hotel California."
JD at January 13, 2021 11:16 AM
Amusing, but I don't quite get the joke - I, for one, have never confused the name Feder with Henley. Even though, at this point, I barely remember what either man looks like. The only thing they have in common is age; Feder is about one year older.
lenona at January 13, 2021 12:32 PM
Ben Says:
"Thanks for the clarification Arty. Even now you cannot condemn the violence and criminality that happened. Rape? Murder? Arson? No problem for Arty! Just as long as they are leftwing crimes."
What are you smoking Ben?
Of course I condemn all of those things.
At the same time I cannot allow that to become the current focus of the discussion when we are dealing with an ongoing threat from the political right on the very foundations of our government.
We were talking about travel restrictions Ben... what'd this nonsense about even not not being able to condemn things like rape, murder, and arson.
I don't support any of those things and you are an asshole for thinking I would.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 12:36 PM
JD,
Conan can certainly put together some clever little phrases from time to time.
My point remains that he liked to dish it out, but he absolutely cannot take it.
Hence why none of your jokes landed. They implied you won and he lost and that isn't something he will stand for.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 12:39 PM
Conan Says:
"Artie used to post here under the name Orion"
That is something that you keep saying... just like you once insisted that I posted as JD.
You've insisted that I've posted as a hand full of other folks as well.
Everything for you is just conspiracy theories and baseless assertions.
Perhaps we need an independent audit put together by Congress.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 12:44 PM
Conan,
As a matter of fact... here is me posting back in 2006:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/01/not-worried-abo.html
I don't own a time machine Conan to have created that thread after the fact.
You just don't care about facts or evidence.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 12:47 PM
Not mine, guys. That was Patrick's. He turns a pretty phrase and has an extensive vocabulary of Victorian and Edwardian insults - quite an admirable one.
Your vocabulary, Artie - for a guy who tells us his communication is praised by "everyone" he works with - is quite pedestrian.
In fact, Artie likes Patrick's phrasing so much he borrowed "gish gallop" from him. Now, Artie will insist on a cite that Patrick used it first on this blog and I have not been able to find the exact thread. Nor am I going to look for it.
As for ad hominem attacks, Artie is our resident pro on those. Like him, they're not clever or humorous, but he's sure likes to use 'em.
==========
Not true, Artie.
I never said you posted as JD. Crid questioned whether you were JD because you always seem to post together and team up. I answered I didn't think JD was you because JD was not a paranoid little fuckwit.
I do say you were Jacquelope, who showed up once and then only to sing your praises - never to be heard from again.
And yes, you were Orion. The rhetoric, the outlook, the phrasing, the black-and-white thinking; it's all there.
==========
Oh my God! You're right. After all, Amy's security is so tight no one could ever post using two names. Well, thank God you cleared that up, Artie.
Cohen the Barbarian (shh It's Conan) at January 13, 2021 3:12 PM
Conan,
So let's get this straight... I'm not the Artemis who posted back in 2006 despite me saying it was me... but I am Jacquelope despite me saying it wasn't me.
And we're to believe that you function on the basis of facts or evidence?
Like always... you are wrong but you simply cannot admit it.
You live in your own fantasy world where you cannot tell the difference between what you believe is true and what actually is true.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 4:03 PM
For what it is worth, I do enjoy the Disc World reference... you still don't know what you are talking about when it comes to facts or logic, but that was a good book series.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 4:07 PM
Try reading for comprehension just once, Artie. I never said you weren't the Artemis posting in 2006. I said you were the Orion posting back then. You can be both; in the same thread, too.
Conan the Grammarian at January 13, 2021 4:21 PM
Conan,
And I'm asking you what basis you have to accuse me of being anyone other than myself?
I write as Artemis.
It clearly doesn't matter to you when I tell you that you are wrong... you continue to believe anyway.
Yet you insist that despite ~60 lost court cases, multiple state vote recounts, state-level investigations, election certifications by elected Republican officials... that if only you could get a little evidence to alleviate your doubts you would see the light.
You don't care about facts or evidence Conan... you have your beliefs and that is enough.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 4:35 PM
Conan Says:
"In fact, Artie likes Patrick's phrasing so much he borrowed "gish gallop" from him."
This was another funny event.
First of all... I cannot borrow the term "Gish Gallop" from Patrick because it wasn't his to begin with.
Secondly... the only searchable use of that term on this blog is from me. So your memory is off (or you are lying).
You are just upset because you had no idea what I was talking about, accused me of using "archaic" language, despite the fact that the term was coined in the late 1990's.
What really bothered you was that you had no idea what I was talking about, made yourself look stupid... and instead of just admitting you were unfamiliar with the term you accused me of not knowing what it was either and that I got it from someone else.
Once again... borrowing from Trumps handbook by drawing circles on a weather map instead of simply admitting you were mistaken and didn't know something.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 4:46 PM
You can borrow a phrase from someone else who uses it, even if they didn't invent it.
And, yes, Patrick used it first. You've been perusing Patrick's old posts looking for ways he insulted me and trying to use them against me. I'm sure you came across it somewhere while you were doing that. As for it being unsearchable, that was what frustrated me the first time we had this exchange.
As for calling it "archaic," it's 2020. 1990 was 30 years ago and I can call something that old archaic if I want to. Merriam-Webster, your go-to dictionary defines it as follows: "surviving from an earlier period"
Your vocabulary usage does not typically run to phrases like "gish gallop." Your usage is more straight-ahead language with few obscure or literary references. Now, if you're trying to expand your vocabulary, more power to you. Otherwise, you borrowed it from another user.
Conan the Grammarian at January 13, 2021 5:28 PM
You should read books.
Crid at January 13, 2021 5:32 PM
As I've made clear before, Artie. This isn't about what you can prove in court. It's about public perception. And when half your voting public believes the election is rigged, your democracy is in danger.
That half, Artie, includes a significant portion of Democrats (17% in one poll and 30% in another).
The 2016 election was followed by allegations that it was "stolen" and Congress launched a $30+ million investigation that showed it wasn't. Yet, the allegations continue. Voters are getting frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of the system - Republicans and Democrats. Either Congress takes bipartisan steps to ensure the integrity of the elections or the anger and frustration will continue to escalate.
I'm not arguing the Trump won - and I never was. I'm arguing that the appearance of irregularities and widespread acceptance of the allegations is dangerous to the body politic.
Conan the Grammarian at January 13, 2021 5:42 PM
Conan Says:
"And, yes, Patrick used it first."
You've made a claim... prove it.
Demonstrate that you care about facts and evidence.
I'm saying you are wrong.
If you cannot prove it, you should concede this point.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 5:49 PM
Conan Says:
"As for calling it "archaic," it's 2020. 1990 was 30 years ago and I can call something that old archaic if I want to. Merriam-Webster, your go-to dictionary defines it as follows: "surviving from an earlier period""
Dear god you are stupid.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaic
You selected definition #4 are your defense here???
"4: surviving from an earlier period
specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage"
Did you happen to miss the part about this definition typically referring to a previously dominant evolutionary state?
You are using the biological case Conan.
So exactly what dominant evolutionary state in the 1990's are you referring to here?
You sound like a complete moron when you call language coined circa 1995 "archaic".
Let's face it, you weren't actually familiar with the term so you presumed it was something ancient.
Your argument sounds even less intelligent when you consider your actual quote:
""Gish Gallop." You've been reading Patrick's 10-year-old posts, haven't you? He always had a flair for archaic snark, one that you lack, so I don't think you came up with that one yourself." - Conan the Grammarian at April 23, 2020 3:06 PM
So let's put this all together... you believe that Patrick had a flair for "archaic snark" from 10 years ago... and the archaic terminology he used back in 2010 was from ~1995.
So for you it is fair game to call any word selection from more than ~15 years prior "archaic".
Well... by that logic everything I wring is archaic. Pretty much all of the words I use have origins older than ~15 years.
Just admit you didn't recognize the term and it bothered you that apparently I knew something you were completely unfamiliar with.
Because otherwise you sound even less intelligent with this whole "archaic" schtick.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 6:02 PM
Conan Says:
"As I've made clear before, Artie. This isn't about what you can prove in court. It's about public perception. And when half your voting public believes the election is rigged, your democracy is in danger."
I agree with all of this... but the solution here is to put a stopper in the fountain of disinformation.
You cannot combat propaganda with bogus investigations.
Just like you aren't going to convince a flat earther than the earth is a globe by showing them images from NASA satellites.
The issue you are talking about does need to be dealt with, but your approach will not work.
Conspiracy theorists are notorious for rejecting any and all evidence that runs contrary to their evidence-free beliefs.
You are even demonstrating it in this conversation.
You keep insisting you are correct about things you have no evidence for just because you believe.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 6:08 PM
Amusing, but I don't quite get the joke - I, for one, have never confused the name Feder with Henley.
Lenona, Don Henley was the drummer for the Eagles. Don Felder was the guitarist I was referring to. Felder was the one who came up with the opening riff to “Hotel California.” Hotel California was his last album with the band.
JD at January 13, 2021 7:00 PM
Isab, for the record, I'm a fan.
Spiderfall at January 13, 2021 7:30 PM
Under the Conan Principle, Spiderfall is Isab!
JD at January 13, 2021 8:04 PM
So, censorship is your solution? How very totalitarian of you.
I’m proposing fighting lies with truth and you’re proposing censorship. You really are an idiot.
No, JD. Spiderfall is Spiderfall. And you’re becoming as tedious as Artie.
Conan the Grammarian at January 13, 2021 8:57 PM
Conan Says:
"So, censorship is your solution? How very totalitarian of you.
I’m proposing fighting lies with truth and you’re proposing censorship. You really are an idiot."
No Conan, you are not trying to fight lies with truth.
We literally just went through an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election with credible findings detailed in a publicly accessible report.
The people you are talking about convincing didn't even read the report, and summarily dismissed it because Trump told them it was "fake news".
What we are dealing with at the moment are people stuck in a cult like mindset... you cannot breach that wall in the manner you suggest.
They are resistant to facts and evidence. It is no different than your resistance to certain scientific findings that have hundreds and hundreds of published peer reviewed articles that you've never read.
We once had a conversation about climate change where you adamantly insisted that scientists claimed that the hole in the ozone layer was responsible for the melting of the ice caps.
I linked you directly to the initial scientific publication that demonstrated that it never said that anywhere.
It didn't matter because you told me that is what you were told and nothing I could say or show you would change your mind.
If facts and evidence do not work on you why do you suppose it would work on people in furry hats that invade the Capitol building?
I agree we have a major problem, but the problem is deeper than you suggest.
We have a problem in this country with people who are essentially intellectual zombies. The issue is that many folks have extremely poor critical thinking skills... but despite this reality most people think their critical thinking skills are top notch.
I'm open to trying to fix this, but your proposal doesn't address the core problem.
I would feel more confident about your suggestion is even once in all the years we have been chatting I saw you look at a set of facts and shift your position even one inch.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 10:05 PM
Farhad Manjoo in the NYT:
JD at January 13, 2021 10:39 PM
Tedious Kaczynski = the Yawnabomber.
JD at January 13, 2021 10:47 PM
Conan,
Also... let's put a nail in the coffin of this whole "archaic" thing when it comes to the Gish Gallop fallacy.
The Oxford English dictionary explains the proper usage here:
https://www.lexico.com/explore/archaic-words
"These words are no longer in everyday use or have lost a particular meaning in current usage but are sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavour to historical novels, for example, or in standard conversation or writing just for a humorous effect. Some, such as bedlam, reveal the origin of their current meaning, while others reveal the origin of a different modern word, as with gentle, the sense of which is preserved in gentleman. Some, such as learn and let, now mean the opposite of their former use."
The key feature is that archaic words were once in common use but have fallen out over favor over the centuries.
Some examples include "fishwife", "grimalkin", and "scullion".
The Gish Gallop was never a term in popular usage... it was always something used in very specific cases most notably associated with debates with evolution deniers.
So just fess up already, you didn't recognize the term, it looked old and unusual so you erroneously described it as "archaic".
Better to just admit you didn't know something than to look so very foolish in describing a term coined in the 1990's as "archaic" and akin to a word like "thenceforth".
Of course this would imply also admitting that you were doing something analogous to drawing a circle on a weather map... but at least be honest for once.
Otherwise you look even more foolish because you apparently don't understand how the word "archaic" is used, which should be more embarrassing for you.
Artemis at January 13, 2021 10:49 PM
Relevant quote from Carl Sagan:
JD at January 13, 2021 11:29 PM
Don Henley was the drummer for the Eagles. Don Felder was the guitarist I was referring to. Felder was the one who came up with the opening riff to “Hotel California.” Hotel California was his last album with the band.
____________________________________
OK. Somehow, I never heard of Felder. Also, yesterday, when I looked up the Eagles on Wikipedia, I didn't see Felder's name under the photo, and I was in a hurry. (But it does appear in the second paragraph on the left - and dozens of times after that.)
On top of that, in the separate entry for Don Henley, the photo shows him with a guitar.
I DO know the names Glenn Frey, Joe Walsh and even Randy Meisner, though.
lenona at January 14, 2021 6:29 AM
Artie, you proposed censorship. "Put[ting] a stopper in the fountains of disinformation" is censorship. Not letting someone publish, speak, or otherwise disseminate information, opinion, vitriol, etc. is censorship. Investigating claims and refuting them with information is not. That you went immediately and emphatically to "put[ting] a stopper in the fountains of disinformation" is telling. Your totalitarian instincts are showing - yet again.
And, Artie, if I choose to use "archaic" to describe "gish gallop," it's no big deal. It describes a word that has fallen out of any sort of common usage and lends an "old fashioned" flair to the conversation, so "archaic" describes it nicely and in a manner that conveys my meaning.
As for which climate panics I've lived through and you haven't, you weren't there. You didn't listen to environmentalists telling us that we were all gonna die.
It's true that I was very young then and may have mis-remembered a few exact details about the panic, but I remember the panic, the presentations in the schools, the calls for action and government regulation, the looming threat of horrible death if we didn't "act now" and "save the planet."
The reason so many of us remain skeptical about claims of only "12 years to save the planet" is that we've seen this before, several times. We've lived through the hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, global warming, global climate change. And we've always had only short time in which to "act now" and "save the planet." Most of us have become older and are still waiting on those looming disasters.
We've become a bit jaded to looming existential threats that always seem to require drastic action and immediate massive government control. What is it about you lefties, that you always shout about an existential disaster that requires "immediate" action to avert a cataclysm?
Conan the Grammarian at January 14, 2021 7:12 AM
Conan Says:
"Artie, you proposed censorship. "Put[ting] a stopper in the fountains of disinformation" is censorship."
No Conan... this is you just playing games with straw man arguments again.
I said absolutely nothing about not letting anyone publish, or speak, or any such thing.
That is you generating a position for me by telling me what my position is and then objecting to it.
How about you try something new for a change.
Try asking me to expand on precisely what I mean... then sit back and listen and try to understand.
You might learn something or you might find you agree with me, or at the very least you would be able to try and argue against my actual position instead of one you've made up.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 9:20 AM
Conan Says:
"And, Artie, if I choose to use "archaic" to describe "gish gallop," it's no big deal. It describes a word that has fallen out of any sort of common usage and lends an "old fashioned" flair to the conversation, so "archaic" describes it nicely and in a manner that conveys my meaning."
No Conan... it was never in common use.
What exactly were you doing back in the 90's where you were going around using the phrase "Gish Gallop" on the regular?
I now have this comical image of you hanging out with a bunch of steam punk cos play folks called the "Gish Gallop Gang"... it's within that bizarre subculture where you first met your archaic lady... you eventually wifed up that decrepit dame... and even to this day you whisper sweet nothings into her ear letting her know that she is older than dirt.
Stop being ridiculous Conan.
You made a mistake and that is okay. What's not okay is your constant dodging to simply avoid admitting that you weren't familiar with something.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 9:28 AM
Lenona, there's a photo at this website of Felder with the original four Eagles (Henley, Frey, Meisner & Leadon.)
Felder was only with them for their 3rd through 5th albums: On The Border, One of These Nights & Hotel California.
Henley may have played guitar here and there -- possibly more when he went solo -- but drums were his primary instrument in the Eagles.
Here's a clip of Felder on Howard Stern's show. He's amazingly youthful-looking and has always struck me as a genuinely nice guy.
JD at January 14, 2021 9:43 AM
Conan,
Lastly... there is no dearth of published scientific information on the subject of climate change.
That alone demonstrates that just putting factual reports out there is sufficient to change the minds of conspiracy theorists and science denialists.
You call yourself a "skeptic" but you simply do not know enough about the topic to be skeptical of anything.
That you thought the hole in the ozone layer was in some sense directly related to arctic ice melt due to rising temperatures should have demonstrated to you that your understanding of this subject is weak.
That is the fundamental problem overall. People with weak comprehension of the relevant subject material also have strong opinions.
The strength of your opinion should be directly related to your level of knowledge on any particular topic.
That isn't what we see though.
In fact, what we see is the more ignorant folks are the more confident they tend to be about their uninformed opinions.
You for example should be asking questions about climate change research, you should be trying to access and read the published literature, you should be reading text books on the subject.
If you really sat down and thought about it Conan I think you would quickly realize how little you understand about the climate. Just start with simple questions... the kinds a child in kindergarten might ask and see if you know the answers off the top of your head.
Most people don't have the foggiest clue why the sky is blue for example.
People have a distorted sense of understanding of common things simply because they experience them every day and hence they start to ignore the fact they those experiences are in fact a mystery to them.
Really think about it and be honest with yourself... most of the common place atmospheric phenomena you deal with are things you could not explain in detail to anyone.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 9:50 AM
*is not sufficient
Artemis at January 14, 2021 9:55 AM
Conan, you don't think climate change is happening, or you accept that it's happening but don't believe it's because caused, or greatly accelerated, by humans?
JD at January 14, 2021 10:07 AM
JD, I believe the climate is changing - and always has been. Welcome to life on Earth.
That mankind has been a less than conscientious resident of the planet, I think, is pretty obvious, too. Whether mankind's impact accelerated, or in any way affected, climate change can be debated; and whether actions by people now today will have any impact is also debatable.
The solutions proposed by the environmentalists today, like the Paris Accords, insist advanced nations cut emissions, but give a pass to emerging and newly-industrializing nations - e.g., China and India - the sources of a large amount of global emissions and other pollutants.
The US has already significantly cut its emissions over time and will continue to do so. Even without mandates, Americans are buying electric cars and hybrids, solar panels and windmills, etc. Market forces are driving people to desire smog-less cities.
By giving a pass to nations like China, polluting industries will simply relocate there and any damage they may actually be doing will continue unabated.
The Montreal Protocols, which helped eliminate ozone-damaging CFCs were across the board, not targeted on rich nations for the benefit of poorer ones.
It makes one wonder if the efforts at combating climate change are truly aimed at combating climate change or combating the world economic system as it is today.
We actually did a carbon footprint test at work one time and I scored much lower than a coworker who was a die-hard environmentalist. I try to do my part, but I also don't drink the Kool-Aid.
And Artie, I do know why the sky is blue. I also know enough about the subject to be a skeptic on claims of 12 years left to save the planet. So, bite me.
Conan the Grammarian at January 14, 2021 11:44 AM
Conan Says:
"Whether mankind's impact accelerated, or in any way affected, climate change can be debated; and whether actions by people now today will have any impact is also debatable."
It is only "debatable" in the most ludicrous sense of the word Conan.
In much the same way one might have a debate on whether or not the earth is flat.
As a matter of objective scientific observations and study this issue has been settled.
You have demonstrated my point though... despite thousands of pages being published on the topic... despite many many many investigations and studies over decades pointing toward the same conclusions you are completely unmoved because your position is set in stone.
And yet you insist that if we just did one audit... in addition to the ~60 court cases that have already taken place, and the numerous recounts, and the reports from election officials... if only we just collected one more piece of data the "election skeptics" would be satisfied.
Nonsense... that have their unsubstantiated conclusion and nothing will change that.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 12:20 PM
Conan,
Also... when you say something like this:
"I also know enough about the subject to be a skeptic on claims of 12 years left to save the planet."
This alone tells me that you don't really understand the subject at all.
Scientists are not concerned that the planet itself is at risk.
The concern is that human civilization will greatly suffer if we continue on the present trajectory we are on.
The earth itself is completely agnostic to the existence of our civilization or our species. It will keep on spinning for billions of years whether we are here or not.
To be honest, this pandemic is a good short term analogue. I told you nearly a year ago that if we did not take action things were going to get bad... you insisted the cure shouldn't be worse than the problem (a remarkably dumb talking point you regurgitated from Trump).
The US is now set to have had one of the worst global responses to the pandemic because we couldn't even manage to get folks to socially distance or wear masks in accordance with CDC guidelines.
Many of those "pandemic skeptics" simply thought they knew better than the experts.
We are now having ~4,000 deaths per day, have a total death count approaching ~400,000, and are nowhere near getting people back to normalcy.
Countries like New Zealand on the other hand followed expert medical advice, did a real shut down, followed masking and social distancing guidelines, set up robust contact tracing systems... and they are pretty much already back to normal.
They did all of this even before the vaccine was pushed through emergency use authorization.
That is the difference between what happens when you listen to the experts and you ignore them because you think you know better.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 12:41 PM
I believe the climate is changing - and always has been. Welcome to life on Earth.
Climate change “deniers” basically fall into two camps:
(1) those who accept that the climate is changing — specifically warming — but don’t believe humans are driving, or accelerating, that change.
(2) those who don’t even think the climate is changing.
I was just wanted to see which camp you were in.
That mankind has been a less than conscientious resident of the planet, I think, is pretty obvious, too. Whether mankind's impact accelerated, or in any way affected, climate change can be debated; and whether actions by people now today will have any impact is also debatable.
Well, anything is “debatable.” There are people who contend the Holocaust never happened. There are people who contend the Moon landings were faked. There are people who contend that 9/11 was an inside job. The people behind the NYT 1619 Project contend that The American Revolution was all about protecting slavery. There are people who still contend that Obama wasn’t born in the US. There are Christians who contend that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There are hundreds of other examples.
The question is: is something reasonably debatable.
My understanding is that human-induced/accelerated climate change is not reasonably debatable, that the evidence in support of it is extremely strong, if not overwhelming.
JD at January 14, 2021 12:42 PM
JD Says:
"My understanding is that human-induced/accelerated climate change is not reasonably debatable, that the evidence in support of it is extremely strong, if not overwhelming."
Your understanding is correct.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 1:01 PM
In news that shouldn't actually surprise anyone living in reality:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appointed-prosecutor-georgia-dismisses-election-fraud-cases-2021-1?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=sf-insider-news&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR05QnqiMm1US5poTLzKniqhaGI7u8E-Z8jdMF5W6ha9xCEycC07N8_yXls
"The newly appointed acting federal prosecutor in Atlanta said in a conference call with staffers on Monday that he was surprised to find the office didn't have any legitimate election-fraud cases.
"Quite frankly, just watching television you would assume that you got election cases stacked from the floor to the ceiling," US Attorney Bobby Christine said in the call, a recording of which was obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I am so happy to find out that's not the case, but I didn't know coming in.""
Artemis at January 14, 2021 1:04 PM
"Quite frankly, just watching television you would assume that you got election cases stacked from the floor to the ceiling,"
From watching television...or reading most of the comments on this blog.
I haven’t seen enough of Kevin‘s posts to know exactly where he stands but he strikes me as a fairly reasonable person. I think that he and you and I may be the only people on here — and perhaps Amy as well — who don’t believe the election was “stolen.”
JD at January 14, 2021 1:20 PM
JD,
The most amazing thing about all of this too me is that Trump is a massively polarizing figure... and only more polarizing in 2020 than he was back in 2016.
He lost the popular vote in 2016 by ~3 million votes.
His approval rating as a president has always been extremely low except amongst his Republican base.
Leading up to the 2020 election all of the polling indicated that Biden was in the lead.
And yet many of these folks were utterly convinced he had no chance of losing... that he had the whole thing in the bag... that Biden essentially had no shot at all.
I suspect that is really the reason they believe the election was "stolen"... because they cannot bring themselves to admit they were so very wrong for so very long.
They didn't even think it was going to be close. Hence when he lost by ~7 million popular votes and took the EC the just reject reality because it doesn't come close to matching what they believe to be true in their hearts.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 1:29 PM
JD,
Also... I think Amy knows he lost legitimately. I also don't believe she is the least bit surprised by the result. That being said, she also knows she has to be careful about how political she gets because these folks will cancel her instantly.
Just look at what happened to Fox News when the so-called "anti-cancel culture" folks weren't getting extreme enough conspiracy news... they all ran to OANN and Newsmax.
They gravitate toward any news that gives them good feelings... this means they often migrate away from facts and truth.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 1:36 PM
That being said, she also knows she has to be careful about how political she gets because these folks will cancel her instantly.
Artemis, I have to disagree with you on that. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone here attack Amy for her political views. Perhaps you have, but I haven’t.
Disagree yes, but not attack.
JD at January 14, 2021 1:58 PM
You'd have evidence to point to, taking the wind out of their sails. Yes, the die-hard conspiracy nuts will cling to their claim, but the rest won't.
Not everyone contending that the election had irregularities is a right-wing nut job insisting Trump won.
And, Artie, your earlier suggestion of censorship is the totalitarian way to go about addressing the issue, the very thing you decry Trump for being. Hmmm.
==========
No, JD, the Holocaust is not "debatable. It's a historic fact. Nor are any of the other things you facetiously presented as examples of anything being "debatable." Those conspiracy theories, not scientific theories. No one with any sense is advocating those theories.
==========
Amy has been openly anti-Trump from the beginning, as has Crid and others. No one gets canceled here for political views. Mocked sometimes, but not canceled. Not even you, Artie.
==========
The only person I've seen really go at Amy on this blog has been Artie. Not for politics, but for her stance on what a Ph.D. means and why she won't be pursuing one. I believe that was the exchange in which she called him an asshole.
I think BOTU might have attacked Amy, but he was a troll who attacked everyone. I think he's the last poster here who was blocked and that was years ago. Amy lets everybody have their say here, unless they abuse the privilege.
==========
Yes, Artie, I know that. I've even phrased is as "human existence on the planet" in exchanges with people who were more willing than you to have a civil exchange of ideas.
"Save the planet" was a facetious way of mocking the hyperbolic twits who say we only have 12 years left to save human existence on the planet. And you. It was a way of mocking you, too.
By the way, Artie, there are loads of environmentalists and greenies out there with "Save the Planet" t-shirts and bumper stickers. Please go and let each and every one them know that they "don't really understand the subject at all." I'm sure they'll be thrilled to have a self-proclaimed expert tell them how stupid they are. Let us know how it goes.
Conan the Grammarian at January 14, 2021 2:41 PM
This I gotta hear.
How exactly do you propose to "put a stopper in the fountain of disinformation" without preventing anyone from promulgating said disinformation?
By the way, my suggestion was not to conduct "bogus investigations," but actual ones, bipartisan ones so no party can claim it was a cover-up. Perhaps independent audits by firms that specialize in such things. Provide the truth to counter the lies.
Conan the Grammarian at January 14, 2021 2:54 PM
You'd have evidence to point to, taking the wind out of their sails. Yes, the die-hard conspiracy nuts will cling to their claim, but the rest won’t.
Conan, I really think you’re living in Fantasyland (or Delusionville) with this belief.
Trump is NEVER going to accept the fact that he lost. He would deride any evidence as “fake evidence” and, as their dear leader goes, so go his reverent followers. It would not be just the die-hard conspiracy nuts who would continue to believe him.
You have to give Trump credit for one thing: he’s a very good salesman. He knows how to pull a con and keep a con going. He knows very well that if he repeats a lie often enough it becomes the truth (to his reverent followers.) Hell, he doesn’t even have to repeat a lie. He can just lie once and his followers will believe him.
JD at January 14, 2021 3:38 PM
I’m not sure which one of these things with Trump is true.
He is either:
• fundamentally incapable of believing/accepting that he lost or
• he is capable of believing/accepting it but he’s incapable of admitting it.
The second is ego-saving but, given that he is an extreme narcissist, I think the first is more likely.
However as far as his followers go, and the evidence that you talk about, that distinction is irrelevant because he’s never going to admit to losing.
JD at January 14, 2021 3:48 PM
JD,
I don't think she would be attacked. I simply think they would walk away and never return.
Amy used to post complaints about Obama all the time and her audience would largely eat it up.
Amy also used to post items more critical of Trump early on and probably noticed it wasn't going over too well with her existing audience.
As a result it looks to me like she chose to focus on other topics that would be less shall we say off putting to her audience.
That is just my observations and speculation of course. I'm not hanging my hat on this one.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 6:06 PM
Conan Says:
"You'd have evidence to point to, taking the wind out of their sails. Yes, the die-hard conspiracy nuts will cling to their claim, but the rest won't."
The reason I keep talking about the ~60 court cases and election recounts is precisely because those items are evidence to point to... as you can see, it isn't working because the folks who buy into the "stop the steal" rhetoric simply do not care.
They can go read the court transcripts, read the court decisions, listen to recordings of some of the fatuous legal arguments put forth by Trump's legal team.
All of this information is readily available if they were the least bit interested in looking at primary sources of evidence.
Instead like little birds they sit their waiting for right-wing pundits to regurgitate heavily processed nonsense directly into their waiting and eager mouths.
If they cannot be bothered to read the court decisions they aren't going to be bothered reading an election audit.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 6:17 PM
Conan Says:
"By the way, Artie, there are loads of environmentalists and greenies out there with "Save the Planet" t-shirts and bumper stickers."
I will note that you never seem to be talking about scientists with any of your criticisms of climate science.
You always reference "environmentalists" and "greenies"... I keep trying to talk about science... as in the peer reviewed findings of the experts.
Since you want to insist you are well informed enough to be a "skeptic" of the science on this topic (let's emphasize the word science here Conan... NOT beliefs of political activists which may or may not be supported by the science), I would very much like for you to explain to me in detail what the primary findings in the field are... including things like physical mechanisms and how the climate models are constructed.
Only after you have demonstrated you actually understand the science can we start to look at your detailed criticisms.
None of this should be a challenge for you if you are informed on the topic. It will not require you to do one bit of research. You can just lay it all out off the top of your head.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 6:28 PM
Artemis, I do seem to recall what you said, that Amy used to post things critical of Trump. She doesn’t now and it may be indeed be for the reason you noted.
Also, if she were to continue posting things critical of him, yes, some people may leave but that’s not the same as canceling her.
JD at January 14, 2021 7:07 PM
Instead like little birds they sit their waiting for right-wing pundits to regurgitate heavily processed nonsense directly into their waiting and eager mouths.
I love that! That would be great imagery for a political cartoon.
I think it’s fascinating (but also disgusting) that birds feed their young that way. Saw a PBS Nature program on wolves recently. They also — at least sometimes — feed their pups through regurgitation.
JD at January 14, 2021 7:13 PM
JD Says:
"Also, if she were to continue posting things critical of him, yes, some people may leave but that’s not the same as canceling her."
I agree with you here 100%... I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear in what I was trying to say.
Many on the political right have used the term "cancel culture" to include things like boycotts or companies and media.
I don't actually agree that boycotts are really cancel culture... I was trying to apply their definition across the board even though I don't happen to agree with that definition.
Artemis at January 14, 2021 7:53 PM
JFC, Artie, you are tedious.
Always? This is the very first time I've used the term, "greenies." Always, eh? And before when I referenced environmental panics, I was pretty clear that my reference was to "environmentalists" and politicians, not scientists.
I'm not claiming expertise in science, but politics is not science. Panics are not about science either - unless you believe that Malthus and Erlich somehow qualify as scientists. Oh, wait, Erlich actually does qualify as a scientist; he's a biologist who teaches at Stanford.
So, Artie, I'm not gonna get worked up over AOC's "12 years to save the planet" nonsense; or any other "save the planet" nonsense. If you want to, go ahead.
The truth is, the Paris Accords and Kyoto Protocols are more political posturing than science. The reason they went lightly on emerging industrial nations is that was the only way to get those nations on board a protocol designed more to make the signatories look good to an electorate back home than to actually address climate issues, catastrophic or otherwise.
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge where there is no river." ~ Nikita Kruschev
==========
Does it really matter what Trump accepts? He's not the audience for any audit of the election, the electorate in general is. The goal here is not to prove Trump won, but to prove conclusively he lost and to improve the process so claims like that in the future fall on deaf ears.
==========
It's not just his followers. You've still got that 17-30% of Democrat voters who told pollsters they believe the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden.
These are not fanatical Trump supporters who will believe anything he says.
==========
And, Artie, we're still waiting for you to tell us how you propose we "put a stopper in the fountains of disinformation" without censorship.
Conan the Grammarian at January 15, 2021 8:11 AM
Does it really matter what Trump accepts? He's not the audience for any audit of the election, the electorate in general is.
Yes. It matters what Trump believes and then says because his supporters accept what he says as the gospel truth.
It's not just his followers. You've still got that 17-30% of Democrat voters who told pollsters they believe the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden.
Fact-check: Do some Democrats and independents also believe election was 'rigged'?
JD at January 15, 2021 8:30 AM
I haven’t seen enough of Kevin‘s posts to know exactly where he stands but he strikes me as a fairly reasonable person. I think that he and you and I may be the only people on here — and perhaps Amy as well — who don’t believe the election was “stolen.”
JD at January 14, 2021 1:20 PM
You may add me to the list. I think there MAY be more...even if you don't count the half-dozen or so women who left here long ago - and whom I miss. (Ppen, Pirate Jo, Allison, Gail...not that I can really be sure what they would think.)
As many media have pointed out by now, if that election was stolen, why didn't a slew of Senate seats get stolen as well? What happened to the predicted "blue wave"?
Lenona at January 15, 2021 9:32 AM
Thank you, Lenona. Sorry, I completely forgot about you and I shouldn’t have because, from your writing, I’ve always found you to be a very reasonable (and interesting) person.
And that reminds me, I forgot about Nicole too. Based on her writing, she has also always struck me as a very reasonable person.
I remember the names Ppen and Pirate Jo but not the other two. I also remember Flynne, mainly because she was a big music fan like me. Another woman I remember went by the name of LovelySoul, but I believe she only posted in the advice columns section. Her name came across as a bit pretentious but, based on her writing, I really found her to be a genuinely nice person. You also strike me as a genuinely nice person.
In general, I would bet that men are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than women are (and no, Conan, I don’t have a citation for that; it’s just another hunch.)
On the other hand, I think women are much more likely to believe in an absurdity like astrology than men are.
JD at January 15, 2021 10:12 AM
Conan Says:
"Always? This is the very first time I've used the term, "greenies." Always, eh?"
It's a turn of phrase Conan.
If you insist that you can appropriately use the word "archaic" to talk about terminology coined within out lifetimes that was NEVER in popular usage... then surely I have the latitude to point out that you are always referencing activists in some sense and not really addressing any scientific concerns when you talk about your "skepticism".
Agreed that I don't believe you have specifically used the exact word "greenies" before... but you are referencing the same types of folks as you regularly do... activists, not scientists.
Stop being such a binary thinker Conan, this is actually one of your primary critical thinking deficiencies. Please read the following article to help you become more of a so-called probabilistic thinker:
https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/2020/06/23/learn-the-three-types-of-binary-thinking
In common parlance when people say always or never they usually mean "most of the time" and "extremely infrequently". Yes this can be imprecise... but for a grammarian you should be familiar with language usage.
"I'm not claiming expertise in science, but politics is not science."
Climate science is a science and you are claiming to be skeptical of climate science.
If you don't know much about climate science you are in no position to be critical of its findings.
Quite simply put, you are too ignorant of this topic to have a strong opinion either way. At best you should be completely agnostic because you don't have enough knowledge or information to formulate a defensible stance.
"The truth is, the Paris Accords and Kyoto Protocols are more political posturing than science."
How would you know if you do not understand the science?
Artemis at January 15, 2021 11:45 AM
Conan Says:
"It's not just his followers. You've still got that 17-30% of Democrat voters who told pollsters they believe the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden."
This is a false statement.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/08/ted-cruzs-misleading-statement-people-who-believe-election-rigged/6598185002/
It is false in numerous ways, but the one I find most interesting at the moment is that you claim that 17-30% of Democrat voters believe it was rigged in favor of Joe Biden.
"The survey asked respondents to indicate: "how much you agree or disagree" with the statement: "I am concerned that the election is rigged.""
The survey question was just if they believed the election was rigged... it never asked who it was rigged in favor of.
For all we know all of those Democrat voters believe that Trump rigged the election and failed to win anyway.
How on earth can we trust that you or anyone else will look faithfully at an audit or any other information when the very basis for your arguments are falsehoods, distortions, and lies?
Artemis at January 15, 2021 11:51 AM
The survey question was just if they believed the election was rigged... it never asked who it was rigged in favor of.
Good point, Artemis. I didn't catch that aspect of it.
When Conan would throw out facts I used to tend believe they were coming from someplace reputable. But now that his "You've still got that 17-30% of Democrat voters who told pollsters they believe the 2020 election was rigged in favor of Joe Biden." has been exposed for the blatant falsehood that it is, I'm going to be highly skeptical of any "facts" he presents from now on.
JD at January 15, 2021 11:58 AM
Conan,
Just to be clear... they rated Cruz's claim to be "mostly false"... you went one step further than Cruz and keep claiming that Democrats believe the election was rigged to favor Biden.
That would have gotten you a "pants on fire" rating.
Yet you insist you just honestly want to get your hands on more information.
I don't see any evidence of that here.
Artemis at January 15, 2021 11:58 AM
And when I stated what is clearly an opinion...
"I would bet if you were to look at the politics of people who have guns confiscated by the TSA, more of them would likely be Trump supporters (or conservatives) than Biden supporters (or liberals.)
...Conan asks, "Got a cite for that?"
JD at January 15, 2021 12:05 PM
JD,
Conan always wants rigorous citation for any statement he doesn't hold to be true... and he can get extremely critical of the references you offer.
I once offered a reference from the dictionary about word usage because he was insisting I was using a turn of phrase incorrectly... the dictionary agreed with my usage.
He turned around and rejected the dictionary because he said it didn't have the authors name attached.
Since when have you known a dictionary to have authorship assigned to any particular page?
You should be rightfully skeptical of anything Conan says. In my experience his statements are almost never what they appear to be when taken uncritically.
Artemis at January 15, 2021 12:17 PM
Conan always wants rigorous citation for any statement he doesn't hold to be true
Yes, I can see that, especially when he demands -- OK, asks for -- a citation for what is clearly an opinion.
As I said, I tended to give Conan the benefit of the doubt before, but now the curtain has been pulled away, just as it was with the "Wizard" of Oz.
JD at January 15, 2021 12:28 PM
How, pray tell, does that make a difference in my overall point about people's faith in the integrity of the election process?
If 22% of respondents strongly agree that it was rigged with another 17% somewhat agreeing, that translates to 39% of voters expressing doubts, both mild and strong, about the integrity of the election.
And you're over there with your head up your ass saying that because Ted Cruz amalgamated the strong and somewhat agreement numbers that everything's hunky-dory. You're as comfortable with a large percentage of people doubting the integrity of an election as you are with censorship.
Dear God, you're an idiot! An authoritarian-minded useful idiot!
By the way, you'll always be "Artie" to me - with an "ie." Never a "y." Like Artie Shaw.
Conan the Grammarian at January 15, 2021 1:39 PM
Conan,
If you were the least bit interested in actually looking at the fact checking you would note that they found his claim to be "mostly false".
Furthermore, the poll in question involved ~1000 people.
Are you really suggesting we should take that seriously enough to make sweeping policy decisions?
Leading up to the election we had hundreds of polls indicating that Trump was going to lose:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
Why were none of those polls the least bit convincing to you?... but this one poll with a small group of people that has unclear findings is sufficient for us to take Congressional action?
This clearly isn't about facts or evidence for you... it is about politics and what would best service the Republican party.
That being said, if you are really interested in investigating something related to election rigging, I suggest we begin with the post office shenanigans related to ripping out mail sorting machines in the weeks and months leading up to an election in the midst of a viral pandemic.
That certainly seems like rigging to me... how do you feel about a criminal investigation into that set of events?
Artemis at January 15, 2021 1:54 PM
Conan,
I'll also point out that you are cherry picking the polling data.
A more recent Marist Poll indicates that 95% of Democrats and 67% of independents accept the results of the election as legitimate.
Only 24% of Republicans believe the results are legitimate.
Of the ~75% of Republicans who don't believe the results are legit... white evangelicals, white men without without college degrees, and those living in rural areas are the most likely not believe the results were accurate.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-Written-Summary-of-Findings_2012080824.pdf
The point being that if a particular belief set about the results of an election is strongly correlated with things like religious affiliation and lack of education it doesn't suggest that an information gap is the issue.
The educated Republicans who aren't in religious institutions that promote particular political allegiance already accept reality for what it is.
Artemis at January 15, 2021 2:37 PM
Only 24% of Republicans believe the results are legitimate.
Because they’re sore losers.
JD at January 15, 2021 2:57 PM
One thing we haven’t touched on is allegations by Democrats that Republicans have used — and probably continue to use — tactics to suppress voting by Democrats.
So I guess we should have a thorough audit of that.
JD at January 15, 2021 3:03 PM
Ayatollah Khomeini banned the clarinet after the Artie Shah of Iran was overthrown.
JD at January 15, 2021 3:11 PM
Okay, I'll play the gotcha game you guys like to play.
I've no objection to looking into it. I don't know that they were tactics specifically intended to suppress voting, but if they're having that effect, they should be looked into.
I happen to agree with Republicans that requiring an ID to vote is a good idea, but also agree with Democrats that people who cannot easily get to the DMV may be discouraged from voting by such a rule. So, we should look into ways to solve that issue so that every eligible legal voter has an opportunity to participate in our democracy.
I have no objection to an investigation if one is merited. Congress can call the Postmaster General in for questioning. It probably should have done so at the time that this was actually happening, but there was greater hay to be made from shouting about suppression than in conducting an actual investigation. Still, if it's eroding faith in the election process, then an investigation is warranted.
Keep in mind that the Post Office said at the time that this was a long-planned operation - moving less-used mailboxes, scrapping old machines, and replacing machines nearing obsolescence. When Democrats objected, the Post Office agreed to delay any action until after the election.
==========
Of course! That's it! The elections are actually perfectly secure. No Russians got Trump elected in 2016. The Supreme Court didn't select George Bush in 2000. And there were no irregularities in 2020. Anyone who said otherwise was just a sore loser.
By Jove, you've solved the problem! Make sure you tell everyone you meet that anyone complaining about losing an election is just a sore loser. Get all your friends to do that, too. If you do that, confidence after the next election will be 100%.
==========
Not cherry picking, Artie. The polls with the 39% are from right after the election. I was reading an article this evening that said the numbers have shifted in polls taken after the Trump melt down and tantrum. I don't have any new numbers yet, so I'll accept yours.
As I said earlier (and possibly in another thread), Trump's tantrum and the Capitol storming are having serious consequences for him. He's been impeached again, as I suggested he was likely to be.
In addition, several Republicans withdrew from objecting to the certification of the election results. Chances are he'll have to finance any presidential library himself. The PGA has moved its tournament from his club. There's a movement afoot to erase him from his appearance in Home Alone II. And no publisher is clamoring for or coughing up a giant advance for his memoirs.
It is still worth noting that, in the immediate aftermath of the election, confidence was not as high as it should have been in a democracy - for both parties. And that, I still maintain, merits bipartisan consideration.
==========
Don't quit your day job, JD.
Conan the Grammarian at January 15, 2021 6:49 PM
Conan, I could already tell from your previous reactions that, while you probably have a sense of humor, we don’t share the same sense of humor.
One of the things I love about Amy’s advice columns is her clever wordplay in the headings. She’s always cracking me up.
But some people don’t like wordplay. And I suspect you’re probably one of those people.
JD at January 15, 2021 7:59 PM
“...anyone complaining about losing an election is just a sore loser.
Yep, pretty much. Glad you’re finally getting it.
JD at January 15, 2021 8:08 PM
Conan Says:
"Okay, I'll play the gotcha game you guys like to play."
I assure you that I'm not playing a "gotcha game" with you... I just find that you present more sober thought when you look at things from a different perspective.
"I have no objection to an investigation if one is merited."
This is the kind of sober thought I was looking for.
That is what is at issue here Conan... it is whether or not the kinds of investigations or audits you want are "merited".
You have not once articulated an argument on the basis of the merits justifying why any particular issue should be investigated.
Your argument has hinged on a poll of the feelings of the electorate.
However, we are a nation of laws... we need to abide by the rule of law and not the passions of the mob.
I agree with you that erosion of faith in the election process is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I simply disagree with you that a baseless investigation will do anything to resolve this problem.
I still owe you an expansion on my thoughts for how I would try and address this issue, I just want to be thoughtful in my reply.
I also want to give you a chance to do something that I asked another poster on this blog who instantly disappeared when challenged. Please share with me the issue you are most concerned about... please share the evidence that supports your concerns.
Artemis at January 15, 2021 8:24 PM
Conan Says:
"How exactly do you propose to "put a stopper in the fountain of disinformation" without preventing anyone from promulgating said disinformation?"
To put it simply... by changing the incentive system surrounding the disinformation efforts. The disinformation campaigns we see operating within the US are often fueled by activities that are already illegal but not being investigated or followed up on and/or by lack of professional ethics standards.
Addressing these issues doesn't constitute "totalitarianism" any more than taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when being sworn in constitutes "censorship".
For example, ones right to free speech is not denied to someone when they risk perjury if they lie under oath.
Needless to say your constant accusations that I have "totalitarian" instincts has always been unfounded... it is just a needless smear to try and poison the well before you've even bothered to ask for or consider my arguments.
That kind of behavior has no place in a civilized or reasonable discussion.
Now for some specific examples of what I would do to "put a stopper in the fountain of disinformation":
1 - I would address so-called dark money political donations through legislation. The reason for this is that in principle it is illegal for foreign entities to make campaign donations or financial contributions to influence political officials. The existence of dark money makes it essentially impossible to get these potentially illegal monetary influences out of our election system. It should be possible for federal and states governments and the citizens to easily track where financial contributions are coming from to ensure faith in the election process. Getting foreign money out of our political system is NOT censorship.
2 - I would address issues related to tax exempt organizations providing political guidance to their members in violation of the law. At the moment we have not been holding certain organizations accountable for promoting certain political candidates while also enjoying special tax status. This is illegal and needs to stop. If these organizations want to be politically active they should be paying their taxes like the rest of us. Again this is NOT censorship... if they want to be politically active they pay taxes... if they want to be tax exempt they cannot be politically active. These organizations get to make a choice here.
3 - Officers of the court should be required by their various Bar associations to operate by the same standards of ethics when representing their clients outside of the court room as they would when standing in front of a judge. As we saw with recent events, the legal team for the President made sweeping allegations of fraud while on television and during press conferences, however when in court they made it very clear that they did not actually allege any evidence of fraud. Officers of the court need to hold themselves to a higher professional standard when presenting information to the public on behalf of cases they are involved in. Enforcing a higher quality of professional ethics amongst officers of the court also does NOT constitute censorship. If they insist on telling bald-faced lies to the American public they can do it as a private citizen... not acting as an attorney.
4 - In addition to the current oath of office members of congress, the president, and high ranking officials of the executive branch take, I believe it is time to expand on this oath. In particular, these individuals who represent the citizens of the United States should be bound by oath not to lie to the American public when acting in a professional capacity under penalty of perjury. This would include when speaking on the floor of Congress, when giving television interviews, when giving press conferences, etc... There is no reason on earth our elected officials should be able to lie to the American public with impunity. They can have different political opinions, and they can express them passionately... but they should also have to be honest. None of us could get away with lying directly to the face of our employers day after day and expect to stay employed. This also does NOT constitute censorship unless you want to argue that our elected officials have a reasonable expectation of actively deceiving their constituents.
These 4 measures would go a long way toward improving confidence in the election system as well as our elected officials and none of it requires "totalitarian" behaviors. These items serve to improve integrity within the system by removing some of the incentives to destroy confidence in our government.
There are also election security measures we can put in place that would help, but I can suggest those in a future post if you are interested.
Artemis at January 16, 2021 12:57 AM
Leave a comment