The Frankish Reich

Serious question: I’ve been looking for an objective study linking exposure to these burn pits to various diseases. So far I’m coming up empty. I have no problem with committing money to further research of possible ties, but should we be legislating in a manner that implies that Congress (not science) has established such a link?

True. Nobody is doing decades in prison for "selling a bag of weed." Just doesn't happen. Even most (all?) of the crack-era war on drugs people sentenced to major time were involved in significant trafficking. I'm not going to belittle the consequences of a drug-related conviction on a lot of people - can't qualify for student loans, barred from a lot of jobs, etc, often for the classic "youthful offense." But 20 years in jail for selling a small amount of weed?. No. That's a myth.

Ahh, remember the good old days? Those days when First Son-in-Law was a special envoy negotiating the “Abraham Accords” with Mohammad bin Salman and some minor sheikdoms? Remember how that was the crowning achievement of Trump’s “think outside the box” Middle East peace initiative? It kind of looks a little different from the perspective of 2022, when the Saudis are dumping $2 billion cash into Kushner’s investment fund and Trump is playing (or really is) dumb about the nationalities of 95% of the 9/11 terrorists. Maybe there was more at stake than mere peace in our time. Like $2 billion more.

I don’t think there’s going to be enough to charge Trump over the false electors ruse. He no doubt egged on those who proposed the theory, but he had a sketch legal opinion from Eastman that he can fall back on. The strongest case I see is the intimidation of Georgia election officials — it’s worst moment was the “find me 11,000 votes” call. A problem we have here is the law needs to more clearly delineate the line between Trump the President and Trump the Candidate. A lot of what Trump was doing was in his capacity as Losing Candidate, and in that capacity he shouldn’t have any more right to urge/cajole/threaten election officials than any other candidate has. I do believe there’s a strong case there, but it may be that Georgia DAs (particularly Fulton Co.) are concerned that a charge brought during the course of some hotly contested other races could backfire on the other Democratic candidates.

There was one Q Anon inspired fool who tried to break through an interior security door protecting duly elected lawmakers, who resisted lawful efforts to repel her, who was then shot and killed. By the way, gun lovers: I have a good friend who’s a cop. He tells me that the Capitol Police officer’s shot was textbook perfect. Center torso, aorta blown up, immediate blood pressure drop to zero, threat neutralized.

I agree in principle, but may I mention: - Governor Jimmy Carter - Governor George W. Bush

That’s kind of a functional definition of “intelligence,” isn’t it? The discussion started with someone labeling Tucker Carlson as “Ivy League educated.” I said he isn’t. So … why would that matter? 1. We are in a world in which relying on intelligence testing per se is illegal at worst, considered uncouth at best. So we use proxies for intelligence. One (for now at least) is whether you were admitted to a top college. And it’s a pretty good proxy since the Ivy League schools generally only admit the top 5% of SAT/ACT scorers. (Note: test optional crap may ruin this.) Economist Bryan Caplan puts it this way: Would you rather be admitted to Princeton and have a run of the mill public university education, or would you rather be denied at Princeton and get a superb, world class education at Southeastern Nebraska State College? That is the “signaling” importance of elite education. If I see Harvard on your resume, I immediately think “high IQ.” Better to just ask the candidate to take an IQ test, but I can’t do that. 2. High IQ — general intelligence, or “G” in the trade, is critical for many (most) important jobs in the non-manual labor sector. 3. Completing college is also a signal — a signal that one has the sticktoitiveness that is critical to success in many challenging fields of endeavor. We are at an odd moment in history today: a Gates or Zuckerberg can also signal “I’m really smart, look at my Harvard acceptance, but my ideas are so awesome they can’t wait 4 years.” But that’s a modern anomaly that applies to the .01 percent. 4. Many non college educated people are as smart or smarter than those with college educations, or maybe even smarter than those with elite college degrees. But it’s really hard to find that out until someone has a long, long history of sustained excellence. So we use college degrees, and elite college degrees particularly, as a proxy for an extended test run. i used to say being smart doesn’t correlate with being, say, a good President. I still think this is largely true. But our recent experience with some, umm, “non-smart” Presidents (Bush 43, Trump, Biden) is starting to make me reconsider that opinion. And yes, one of the above has that Ivy League undergrad degree, and one has an Ivy MBA. Hey, I never said it’s a perfect proxy.

Joe Namath is a good one. I was too young to pay attention to the SB victory, but I did catch a lot of him in the early 70s. When he was on, he could make some remarkable throws. But even accounting for his era and the huge differences between then and now in the passing game, he had a pretty mediocre career overall. Joe Ferguson retired with a better passer rating, and their careers overlapped significantly.

Stupid, yes. But really: when it comes to QBs, the Bills got lucky after years of being similarly stupid.

Yes. I’m sure this is just like how Hillary had secret Parkinson’s because her 70 year old body stumbled into a car in 2016. (She seems in fine old lady shape 6 years later). This is also just like how Trump had secret Parkinson’s because his 74 year old body needed two hands to drink a glass of water in 2020, not to mention how he could barely navigate a 4% grade walking ramp that same year. (He seems to be in fine old man shape 2 years later).

Was rank choice voting for NYC Mayor perfect? No. There were a lot of problems, not the least of which was what seemed like an eternity before the ultimate winner was announced. But in my opinion, it resulted in the election of a far more sensible, centrist candidate - Adams - who appeals to a larger (and yes, more diverse in the true sense of the word) segment on New Yorkers than what we got the last couple times around (DeBlasio x2) with traditional voting. Could Adams have made it with the old voting system? No. So anything that forces candidates to appeal to the great middle - where, after all, most of the voters live - is worth considering.

My thinking is not that the 3rd party will win anything. It’s that the third party - if it’s a centrist party, and if it’s not bound by the weird coalitions that we now have in America (the “if I want lower taxes I have to accept restrictions on abortion rights as part of the deal” thing) - might be the nudge toward the center that both parties need. Ross Perot was a clown. But without the Perot threat, would Bill Clinton have governed as an old-fashioned Mondale style Democrat instead of the more centrist policies he adopted.

I agree. The more I think about it, the more I believe that we DID see a third party emerge -- the Trump Party. It's Patrick Buchanan's old fusion of nostalgia, nationalism, and Trumanesque economic/trade policy. The problem is it took over an existing party, the Republicans, within a period of just a couple years. What used to be the Republican Party vanished from the face of America, or retreated into places like Utah (Romney).

Usually "elite" means "the socially superior part of society"; "the choice part, the cream"; "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise power and influence." 38% of the population over 25 are college grads. I get references to "Ivy League Elites" or something like that. But really ... nearly 4 in 10 Americans are now "elite?" And besides, why shouldn't these "elites" exercise more influence? I'm all for a meritocracy. Putting dumb people in charge is dumb.

Latest evidence: https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/governors/2022-primaries/maryland-goes-maga Maryland was lucky to have a generally sensible Republican governor to balance a solidly Democratic (often of the “progressive” ilk) legislature. Well, no more. The Republicans just decided to go into the general election backing a fool. If I lived in Maryland I’m not sure what I’d do. Other than leave Maryland, that is. At least for a while it looked like former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez was going to win the Dem primary. The word “socialist” is thrown around a lot, but he pretty much fits the bill. Maybe now they’ll escape that fate as some other candidates did ok. Bigger picture: the parties are so extreme now that if I want some kind of brake on taxing and spending, I’ve gotta be willing to accept a heavy dose of election denialism too. Third parties don’t work in America, in that they don’t win elections. But sometimes they push the existing parties more toward the middle. I’m something of a radical centrist at this stage of my life. There is no party I would feel at home in. Is there any movement at all to recapture the voters in my part of the political spectrum? Because if you start looking at issue polling, that’s where most of us live.

Yeah, I just read … what?

The point was “good guy with a gun saves the day” story was ignored - I say IGNORED - by the mainstream media. So the rational response is: yes, I agree, the tweet I embedded here was wrong about that. And then and only then do we get to the “what it all means” analysis Social media makes us stupid. correction: reliance on social media to obtain our news makes us stupid.

I agree. I know it’s fashionable in some circles to disparage the old gray media like The NY Times. And yes, they do make it too easy sometimes. But there’s still a wide, wide gap between a NY Times story and the kind of lazy “commentary” social media post I’m ridiculing here. A quick google search will find hundreds of items all over the mainstream media about the Indians good guy with a gun incident. Posting “liberal media ignored it because it doesn’t fit their narrative” is just lazy and foolish and can only be designed to feed the confirmation bias bottom feeders.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. Right over my head, this one. I guess I don’t digest enough social media … It happened here in Colorado last year in a story that also got tons of coverage. This one ended tragically as the cops mistook the good guy with a gun for the bad guy with a gun. https://www.cpr.org/2021/11/08/olde-town-arvada-police-shooting-no-charges/

True. There are some bills that are out there solely to make a political point. But this wouldn’t be one of them. There is value in making members of Congress stand and be counted. Yes or no. This is your chance.

Really? How about: 1. Liberal CNN https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/19/opinions/uvalde-response-indiana-mall-shooting-filipovic/index.html 2. Ultra liberal NYT https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/us/armed-bystander-indiana-mall-shooting.amp.html 3. Lowest common denominator Gannett: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/07/20/indiana-mall-uvalde-shootings-gun-narrative/10104876002/?gnt-cfr=1 This story is all over the place. Weird-ass conservative media has one trick and they fall back on it even when it’s absurd: “the liberal press is ignoring this and talking about [climate change, critical race theory, transgenders: choose one or more from the approved list] instead. More lazy ass, imbecilic meme-ing. It’s what sustains Big Blitz! I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. How about a little explanation so we aren’t forced to watch a clip from some unknown commenter?

I'm afraid The Federalist is "missing the point completely." It's a garbage write-me-800-words-for-250-bucks linkfest from a garbage "news" site. The writer hyperlinks the term "May Day," apparently oblivious to the fact that May Day is Communist Day. How stupid can they be? And did you even take a look at the linked article? Obviously not. You just saw the misleading headline and cut-and-pasted away as usual The headline that's supposed to show how liberal US media isn't covering conservative protests? It's about a damn anarchist protest. The antifa of France: "Black Bloc" anarchists ransacked a McDonald's restaurant on the Place Leon Blum and trashed several real estate agencies, breaking their windows and setting garbage bins on fire. Police responded by firing tear gas. About 250 rallies were organised in Paris and other cities including Lille, Nantes, Toulouse and Marseille. Overall 116,500 people demonstrated across the country, including 24,000 in the capital, the interior ministry said. In Paris, trade unionists were joined by political figures - mostly from the left - and climate activists. EDIT: Oh, no wonder the author of this garbage piece didn't catch the meaning of the May Day refererence: Beth Whitehead is an intern at The Federalist and a journalism major at Patrick Henry College where she fondly excuses the excess amount of coffee she drinks as an occupational hazard. You might ask, "what the hell is Patrick Henry College?" Founded in 2000 by home schooling anti-Darwinists: Teaching faculty must also sign the Statement of Faith and a more detailed Statement of Biblical Worldview, which represents the college's requirements for what should be taught.[15] For example, the Biblical Worldview Applications states, "Any biology, Bible, or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1–31, was completed in six twenty-four-hour days."[16] In 2006, PHC founder Farris commented that the college held the view that its faith was the only true faith ("we believe that there is truth and there is error") and expressed disapproval of religious and social toleration. "Tolerance cannot coexist with liberty" because "the crowd of tolerance wants to ban speech."[17] Is there an editor at the Federalist to check the work of the college intern from a minor "Christian" creackpot league work? Apparently not. But quote away! Little Beth Whitehead totally burned the New York Times, didn't she!

The Federalist is easily the dumbest of all lib trolling publications. Here’s what we have this time: the New York Times and Washington Post are ignoring economy-based protests in places like France. Those damn NY and DC lefties! And they explain: “Many of the French protesters took to the streets on May Day for salary increases and against President Emmanuel Macron’s increase of the retirement age. Fifty-four people were reportedly arrested in Paris after some demonstrations turned violent.” So … it appears that the left-liberal NYT/Wash Post are ignoring SOCIALIST protests against Macron’s old-school REPUBLICAN type reforms like raising the retirement age. Which would make those papers, well, conservative I guess. it doesn’t matter. The Federalist (which started life as a Never Trump pub) knows the B-Mans of the world will just mechanically embed their tweets without ever noticing the illogic.

Hmm, I wonder what we could call that approach. Wait a minute! I've got it. Let's call it Roe v. Wade. (And that's why I think the John Roberts approach of allowing adjustments to the Roe strict trimester approach is the right one)

Seek and ye shall find in the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution). “the right to life…” Aha, our founders would have abhorred abortion had they even thought about it as a possibility. “liberty ….” Aha right back at you! Our founders grounded the new breakaway nation in the Enlightenment right to be left alone.