Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025
On this day in 1968, Johnny Cash played a concert at Fulsom Prison.
There’s a phenomenon where someone writes an essay about this or that but someone else wants to discuss something that has not yet made it to the front page.
This is unfair to everybody involved. It’s unfair to the guy who wrote the original essay because, presumably, he wants to talk about his original essay. It’s unfair to the guy who wants to talk about his link because it looks like he’s trying to change the subject. It’s unfair to the people who go to the comments to read up on the thoughts of the commentariat for the original essay and now we’re talking about some other guy’s links.
So!
The intention is to have a new one of these every week. If you want to talk about a link, post it here! Or, heck, use it as an open thread.
And, if it rolls off, we’ll make a new one. With a preamble just like this one.
This one is weird. The Eagles beat the Packers last night in a big playoff game, 22-10.
Saquon Barkley was the big running back who made a play where he got a first down and then did a slide instead of running all the way to the end zone for another touchdown.
The first down locked the game down tight. There was no way that the Packers could come back, even in theory, after that first down was scored. Clock management, baby.
HOWEVER. Barkley was the biggest recipient of sports betting on Sunday. More people bet that he’d score a touchdown than they made on any other player.
And Barkley did *NOT* score a touchdown, he, instead, did the slide thing to lock down the game and the QB took a knee on the next play to win the game.
And ESPN is covering it as controversial due to the whole betting thing.Report
Professional sports may (probably will) someday rue the day they got into bed with bookies, but Barkley’s slide was just a class move to not run up the score. Why prolong the game?Report
What is the difference between point shaving and not running up the score?
(And I agree, getting into bed with the bookies was a bad move… especially since there are people who have six-figure one-year contracts playing right next to people who have nine-figure multi-year contracts. How much money is there to be made in making sure that a prop bet goes *THIS* way instead of *THAT* way?)Report
Let’s say he scores. Then there’s the PAT, where no time runs off the clock. The Eagles kick off and it’s a touchback. Still the same amount of time on the clock. The Eagles’ D has to come out and defend who knows how many plays in garbage time. Why risk the injury?Report
100%. Perfectly reasonable.
That’s what makes point shaving so pernicious.
Why do you care? The Eagles won anyway. How does it affect you personally?Report
But this has always been a thing, to some extent – the main difference with *legalized* gambling is that ESPN is more apt to write a post about it.Report
I’m going to go with Occam’s Razor on this one. ESPN is JAQing off with this stuff. There’s absolutely no substance. (Though the NFL has certainly invited this. Remember when there couldn’t be professional sports in Vegas due to the legalized gambling?)Report
Amazon’s Thursday Night Football has three of the studio analysts put together a three-factor parlay bet during their pregame show. With at least fine-print disclaimer on screen that neither Amazon nor the analysts have any association with the online sports book doing the instant money line for the parley, and that the money line for the bet is subject to change.Report
Some years back the Chicago Bears wound up losing a game because on a play inside the last two minutes, their running back went out of bounds and stopped the clock instead of sliding. The opponents had no time outs left and almost certainly wouldn’t have scored a game-tying field goal as time expired without the 40 seconds that didn’t run off the clock.Report
They will absolutely rue it.
I believe the slide is now the consensus ‘correct’ play, not (just) a matter of sportsmanship. Even in a game that is almost certainly won you don’t want to give the ball back or have someone injured on meaningless plays.Report
As usual, dismally so, the Democrats have learned all the wrong lessons from their very small Senate and House defeats this election cycle. Thus they are still trying to be Republican light on important things like immigration. The worst part of this is that granting states standing to sue over federal performance in immigration enforcement is yet another blow to federalism.
Read more here –
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/12/politics/laken-riley-immigration-enforcement-lawsuits/index.htmlReport
To be perfectly honest, suing over federal performance for issues where the federal government has claimed jurisdiction is a First Amendment issue.
The law shouldn’t have had to be passed to get that part going.Report
This is not a redress of grievances issue – its a sovereign immunity issue. The Constitution grants the federal government sole control over borders, immigration and war making. Congress then appropriates to the executive such monies as Congress (not the Executive) deems warranted to perform those duties. The Executive then implements those responsibilities within those constraints.
Texas not liking that there is not more border enforcement is nice, but the way to impact that is to have Texas Congressional representation assure proper funding and oversight. Diverting federal public funds to answer Texas in court every time a decision has to be made won’t actually change how DHS does its job unless Congress appropriates funds differently.Report
proper funding and oversight
Ah, funding.
Anyway, I think being able to sue the government for screwing up something where it has claimed jurisdiction *IS* a redress of grievances issue.
I mean… how is it *NOT* that?
Come on, man.Report
Just because they aren’t doing it Jaybird’s way doesn’t mean they are screwing it up.
That aside, the Bill of Right is about individual citizens, not a subordinate level of government.
Again – the way for Texas to address the issue as a state is to have its congressional delegation appropriate and authorize while conducting oversight through public hearings. Its quite telling that Congress wants to hand off more of its responsibilities to others.Report
That aside, the Bill of Right is about individual citizens, not a subordinate level of government.
So it would require a law to make it so that Texas can petition them for redress of grievances?
Sounds like they went about it one of the several right ways, then.
Just not, you know, the one that Philip H would have preferred.
I mean, if we’re willing to run with that as a particularly salient criticism.Report
You are right – I wouldn’t have Congress give away their authority in this manor. It won’t actually solve anything.
Which I thought was the point. But I guess its better that Jaybird get to iterate his game.Report
“Never let a crisis go to waste.” – Winston Churchill – Rahm EmanuelReport
it all depends on which version of the Democrats we’re talking about. If it’s Obama era trade of increased security and enforcement for leniency for long settled non felons and/or broader legal pathways to immigrate thats something that can be worked with, and isn’t so obviously in stark opposition to the views of the broader electorate. If it’s Biden era tolerance of specious asylum claims to backdoor in the mass, unregulated, and indefinite resettlement of millions and millions of illegal aliens then it’s not going to work. And the ball has been dropped so badly during the later era that the only path back to the former positions that has any credibility may well be making a bunch of concessions to anti immigration hardliners unrequited. It sucks but it’s the predictable consequence of the party giving so much credence to out of touch activist organizations that it turns out don’t even represent the views of the people they claim to and true believers in the immigration bar.Report
And when those concessions lead to both citizen deportations without redress and a hobbled federal executive forever bogged down by lawsuits what then?
Much as I detest Jaybird’s Divorce or War quip, I’m beginning to believe We would all be better off without Texas.Report
The nice thing about democracy is that nothing is permanent. If the predicted disasters materialize then the answer is to go win an election and change the law to something better. As always the tides will turn and the Democrats will at some point have power again, probably sooner than anyone is predicting in the wake of a defeat.
We also just have to be realistic about the current environment. Ask yourself if we’re better off with, I dont know, Fetterman in the Senate or with whatever Republican defeats him.Report
As a student of the modern history of Central America, I would posit that your rosy ideas about democracy are rapidly becoming a quaint notion of history. And if Fetterman continues to back irresponsible GOP positions because Democrats continue to learn the wrong lessons, no we are not better off.Report
I don’t think you really believe that because if you did you’d be out in the street and/or taking up arms not debating it on some website.
I would also think really hard about what you’re saying about Fetterman. A succesful party that governs more in line with your preferences has a lot more Fettermans and probably even Manchins, because thats what it takes to build strong majorities. You also cannot be succesful in a democracy or even claim the mantle of defender of democratic principles if you’re unwilling to ever meet the electorate where it is on completely legitimate questions of public policy, like immigration.Report
Democrats signing on to this bill are not meeting the electorate where it is – because the bill does nothing that present law already does, save allowing governors to usurp the powers of Congress and the President when the governors don’t like things. The electorate also doesn’t want mass deportations, but we had a president just get elected promising just that.
As to taking up protest – no one is organizing them here yet because Mississippi seems to think our undocumented migrants won’t be touched – even though we were one of the few states where Trump’s prior administration actually rounded undocumented migrants up.Report
The electorate also doesn’t want mass deportations, but we had a president just get elected promising just that.
My dude… what do you think the election was about? Sure there were other issues most notably inflation but the people spoke. I too strongly doubt this is going to go well but I don’t know what makes you think people are worked up about deportations of people the law says are to be deported.Report
Where’s the claim that citizens will be deported?
Are you talking about ‘undocumented citizens’ … I’d be curious what level of exposure that is… sure, I could imagine a 100yo fellow born at home in rural West Texas that might have some(?) challenges… probably not, but I could imagine a curious edge case.
Live birth recordings are generally available online on a state-by-state basis. Heck, you can get *anyone’s* birth certificate after 75 yrs:
Protected records are:
Birth certificates from the last 75 years
https://ovra.txapps.texas.gov/ovra/order-vital-records?
Anyhow, would be interested in a cite where someone is making the case that Citizens are at risk.
Note, I’m not commenting specifically on the Laken Riley bill (which doesn’t reference citizen deportations that I could tell from the article), but curious about this sort of claim that I’m starting to hear bubbling under the surface — trying to get a bead on that.Report
Citizens being deported has been part of the incoming CBP head’s rhetoric for weeks – where he blatantly says that if a family has citizens and undocumented migrants in it, the citizens should leave with the undocumented migrants to keep the family together. To punish the citizens apparently. Once that starts, its a not very slippery slope for them to be rounded up and shipped out without due process.Report
Thanks for clarifying; strikes me a rhetorical escalation to call that Citizen Deportation, but it helps to know where that’s coming from.
On slippery slopes in matters social, I have it on good authority from years of leftist criticisms that Slippery Slopes do not exist.Report
Obviously he means self deportation by the nation’s DEI officers to the occupied people’s freedom zone Justin Trudeau is establishing in the Yukon territory.Report
Then we annex Canada and BOOM! right back here again.Report
I’m beginning to believe We would all be better off without Texas.
Everybody thinks that there are people the country would be better off without.
The only difference is whether you think that we’d be better off without criminals, homeless, etc versus whether you think we’d be better off without people who do their jobs, pay their taxes, and mostly stay off the radar.Report
You can’t realistically do it person-by-person; you pretty much have to do it territorially and take your chances.Report
Probably the easiest thing to do is take control of the government and make it unpleasant for the people who don’t want and pleasant for the people you do.
Iterate a handful of times and the people you don’t want will self-deport.
Easy. Breezy. Covergirl.Report
It’s been done.Report
Where are they going to self-deport to? Assuming you’re trying to squeeze out 10% of the population, where are 34M Americans going to go?Report
Maybe it’s only something that can be done at a local level. (And they don’t *HAVE* to be Americans. Though I’m sure that there are some folks who would want those to be the ones that go away rather than the alternative.)Report
It doesn’t have to be done locally, but it often has been. Often to Americans.Report
Make Texas Mexico Again!*
*Also everything taken in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.Report
They aren’t illegal if the border moves south.
Trade open borders for expanding borders!Report
Or north. with California’s farming, Silicon Valley, and shipping, Texas’ oil and tech, Colorado’s tourism, Kansas’ wheat, Utah’s Mormons, I mean tourism, and whatever it is that happens in Phoenix to draw so many people there, the economy of Mexico changes dramatically overnight.Report
Heh, constitutional bake-off 1776 vs 1917.
edit: erm, I guess it’s 1788… but 1776 is more dramatic.Report
Filed under ideas that seem less outlandish with each passing day.Report
From the Canal to the Yukon Territory…Report
There needs to be a way to convince people to be more pro-immigrant. I think that globally, the developed world is turning against immigration. I don’t like it but it is where popular sentiment lies. At the same time going “racist, racist, racist” at people skeptical of immigration has not exactly worked as a strategy.Report
One of the problems is that you’ve got some yokel saying “they’re giving debit cards to illegal immigrants!” and good, honest people correct him saying “no human being is illegal and NOBODY WALKS HUNDREDS OF MILES FOR WELFARE!” and then the media prints out something like “NYC ending controversial debit card program for migrants” and the yokels see this as justification for what they said instead of appreciating the nuance that the good, honest people were explaining to them.Report
Fixing the housing market would probably help. That’s the main thing that leads people to actually suffer harm from new people entering the community. The best part is that the real regulatory problems are at the state level, so it doesn’t matter that the Democrats are 0 for 3 in controlling the federal government.Report
Dept. of Justice ends warrantless airport search program after InvestigateTV reporting
https://www.actionnews5.com/2025/01/09/dept-justice-ends-warrantless-airport-search-program-after-investigatetv-reporting/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=organicclicks&tbref=hpReport
My opinion on immigration is that relatively free and open immigration happens at times of elite consensus that relatively free and open immigration is a good thing. When you have at least one group of elites that believe that this is not a good thing or believes they can benefit from xenophobic feeling than you aren’t going to have free and open immigration.Report