A note on formatting, in case it’s not clear. Comments on new topics are separated by “==” (a double equal sign) while parts of reply threads are separated by “-” (an en dash). That said, let’s get on with this.
==
2026-05-15
[A
post, the link to which I unfortunately failed to record, discussed the
requirement for new cars to have a kill switch, supposedly to prevent
drunk driving. It included four questions for discussion.]
Answering the questions in order:
Do you have an analog car and are you planning to keep it? Yes, and I’m keeping it as long as I can keep it running.
Does this bother you, or honestly, does it not? Yes, it bothers me, bothers me both because of the invasion of privacy (or, rather, the off-handed assumption of a lack of it) and the paucity of attention to the potential for unintended consequences.
Do you think saving 13,000 lives a year [the claimed benefit] is worth it? “Lives saved” is a claim, not a fact, and should be treated with the same skepticism as any other promotional claim should be. On the other hand, “false accusations” is a reality and while we can’t quantify the effect of these measures on that, we can safely assume based on the historical record that it will primarily affect minorities and other marginalized communities.
Is there a bigger agenda behind the legislation that we aren’t being told about? Maybe not an “agenda” in the sense of a conscious plan but it is part of an overall trend, an overall bias call it, toward the government in general and the police in particular knowing more and more about us while we are more and more restricted about what we can know about them - with the phrases “public safety” and “national security” waved like magic incantations.
Or do you think there’s a better way to get there? “You got anything better?” is not an argument, it’s a way of avoiding the issues and objections by demanding that you on the fly come up with something “better” - which assumes the supposedly desired end, whatever it is in a given case, requires no justification to a degree that “the ends justify the means” and thus the method is the only question involved while unintended consequences are irrelevant.
==
2026-05-16
[Popular Information revealed that The Orange Overlord had been investing in stocks
just before acting in a way to promote them, clear evidence of insider
training. Some commentators bemoaned a supposed inability to do anything
about it because of presidential immunity.]
Will people puh-leeze stop saying that SCOTUS gave The Orange Overlord “absolute immunity” so he can do whatever the hell he wants, commit whatever crimes he chooses. That immunity decision was horrible but it was limited to actions related to “core presidential duties and powers,” if I recall the quote correctly. I don’t see how even this court could create a fig leaf big enough to define insider stock trading as a “core presidential duty.”
The statute of limitations for insider trading is five years for civil cases and six years for criminal ones. So yes, the SOB can be held responsible. Very likely not until he’s out of office, but yes.
Stop letting him off the hook before you even cast your line.
==
2026-05-17
[Re the White House video of TOO doing his bit during a Bible reading event]
Okay I will say he didn’t look as bad as I’d been told but otherwise, what a disaster.
He obviously had never seen those words before, had made no preparation - but my word, even for a cold reading, what a crappy job!
==
2026-05-18
[On
May 18, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that hospitals which stopped
GAC because of The Orange Overlord’s anti-trans EO discriminated against
transgender youth in violation of state law.]
The most important sentence in the whole thing: “Because the Kennedy Declaration isn’t federal law.”
YES! And it’s damn well about time everybody - and I mean anybody and everybody - stopped acting as if any of that mass of heinous Executive Orders is anything other than what it is: the vapid ramblings spewed by biased fanatics dreaming of what they wish the law would be, not what it is.
-
2026-05-18
[Excellent news but can it be overturned by the Supreme Court?]
Not easily, anyway. This is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Colorado - a state court, not a federal one. SCOTUS should have no say unless there is a federal law to the contrary - and, as the decision points out, a declaration from Robert F. “My father would be ashamed of me” Kennedy Jr. is NOT a law.
==
2026-05-20
[Erin Reed reported that California has reaffirmed
its policy re trans girl high school athletes where if a cis girl
places lower than a trans girl, for the purposes of awards and meet
records, she is treated as if the trans girl didn’t compete at all.]
In this case, as in a number of others, the thing that strikes me is that the people supposedly damaged by the presence of someone like A. B. - that is, the other competitors - seem to be the ones who are the least troubled by it.
==
2026-05-20
[In a
discussion of supposed advantages trans women athletes have over cis
women athletes, it was noted how the idea was being applies in
competitions like disc golf, darts, and chess. Another unrecorded link,
dang it.]
Just a bit of trivia to throw in: There is a way in which physicality can provide an advantage in chess, particularly at its highest levels. A game of tournament or match chess at master or grandmaster level can take a physical toll on a player because of the mental effort involved. In fact, it’s not uncommon for a long, hard-fought game to be lost because someone got tired enough to make mistakes.
That is, physical endurance can make a difference.
It’s trivia because there is so much individual variation and it’s such an individual quality that it’s silly to suggest men have more endurance than women.
==
2026-05-21
Why are there no ethical complaints against Reed O’Conner [the notorious judge in the notorious Northern District of Texas]?
He is patently biased to the point that he essentially has decided LGBTQ+-related cases even before they are filed. Overt animus drips from his every order. (Why is that not an issue in every such case he handles?)
He got a request to enforce a subpoena against Rhode Island Hospital signed by two of his former law clerks (Why didn’t he recuse himself?) and issued it hours later. (Why was the target not allowed a chance to respond?)
He has continued to press the matter even after learning (assuming he didn’t know originally) that the parties were in active negotiations literally the day before the request for the enforcement order. (Why didn’t he withdraw the order as not ripe?)
And now he has declared that he can decide where the targets of his bigoted wrath can seek relief and by implication what cases and motions other courts can accept.
And yet nothing happens and lawyers wonder why people don’t trust the system.
-
2026-05-21
[It’s really not that difficult: Just don’t hand over the information. Do not obey a single ruling handed down by Reed O’Connor]
I expect it will soon - indeed it has - come to that, where people need to just say “no.” The problem, the difficulty, with what we used to call “doing ‘no’” is that it involves consequences and it’s always easier to convince ourselves that those consequences (which seem real and immediate) are of greater weight than the potential gains (which seem distant and uncertain) than it is to convince ourselves that despite that the risks are worth the goal.
Breaking through that psychological barrier takes a good deal of courage, perhaps even more so for those in situations like hospitals, where people may fear the consequences not only to themselves but to others.
So I have some sympathy for places like Rhode Island Hospital even as I agree that the moral (and in the long run, more effective) course of action would be to tell Reed O’Connor and the entire 5th Circuit to stick it.
-
2026-05-21
[”These
people should suffer such overwhelming personal / professional
consequences from their collaboration that whatever the Trump regime
threatens them with looks preferable.” (quote edited for length)]
My sympathy (or, as you tellingly put it, “sympathy”) was specifically directed at people in the crosshairs of the state, including situations such as that involving Rhode Island Hospital where those targeted may be deterred from resistance not only by the consequences to themselves but to the broader community; in the specific example, those whose access to care might be damaged by institutional resistance - which could, for example, result in the loss of Medicaid funding.
I recognize that you refer to “people in positions of power” but also say every person who “failed to say no” should be “hounded from polite society” and include those who acted under “whatever the Trump regime threaten[ed] them with” among the collaborators.
I find it both strategically dumb and morally offensive to lump those who wind up bending before the power of the state together with actual collaborators, who by definition are those who willingly cooperate with an enemy or oppressor.
Reed O’Conner (who faces no threat from Trump) is a collaborator - indeed, we could properly call him an oppressor. Rhode Island Hospital (which is under threat) is not. And we should not confuse the two.
I repeat: I have sympathy for places like Rhode Island Hospital even as I agree that the ethical and (ultimately) more effective course would have been to say “no.”
In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, “I understand. I do not approve.”
==
2026-05-22
After
surviving a major heart attack, my wife was involved for several years
with a group called WomenHeart, speaking to community groups and doing
outreach at health fairs and the like. The stories I heard about women
not receiving proper care because of the ignorance ranging from EMTs to
MDs about women’s heart heath were both jaw-dropping and revealing.
It’s truly disturbing to hear now that in the six years since her death (ironically - and I maintain that is a correct use of the word here - not from a heart issue) it seems not much has changed.
==
2026-05-22
Please don’t tell me you didn’t see this coming.
“Right-wingers falsely claim San Diego mosque shooters were trans”
OTOH, it admittedly was amusing to see the San Diego police described as “leftists.”
==
2026-05-24
[Jess Craven said some were upset that she said the Harris campaign’s silence on Israel/ Gaza cost the election.]
Just a quick note about the postmortem and Gaza: Don’t sweat the critics. You were right.
Openly calling out the slaughter in Gaza might have cost Harris the votes of some folks, but it for damn sure would have gained her those of a whole lot more. Enough to change the outcome? Precisely because the gap in so many states was so small, I’d say yes - but anyone reasonable would have to at least allow there was a good chance.
What can’t be denied is that her silence hurt her chances.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment