270 thoughts on “Extra! Extra! The Ten Second News Links We’ve Overlooked!”

  1. The key paragraph coming in about sixteen paragraphs into the paragraph:

    “The result is a reminder of one of Mr. Biden’s favorite aphorisms: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” The poll showed that Democratic misgivings about Mr. Biden seemed to mostly melt away when presented with a choice between him and Mr. Trump: 92 percent of Democrats said they would stick with Mr. Biden.”

    The headline: “Most Democrats Don’t Want Biden in 2024, New Poll Shows”

    I think this is a big distortion: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/us/politics/biden-approval-polling-2024.html

    Again, the polling featured in this article uses my least favorite polling question of is this country on the right track/wrong track because the way it is presented has the President as a bronze age deity-king.Report

    1. I think that right track/wrong track is a good question when it is not the only question asked.

      Do you support President Biden?

      Yes: 52%
      No:43%
      Not Sure: 9%

      Do you think the country is on the right track/wrong track?

      Now look at these two sets of answers through the lens of the first question:

      Right Track: 65%
      Wrong Track: 31%
      Not Sure: 4%

      Right Track: 29%
      Wrong Track: 68%
      Not Sure: 3%

      If I see that right track/wrong track question by itself, I’ve got no idea what’s going on.

      But if Joe has an approval rating of 52%, I know that he (or his party/protégée) is in a great spot come November if most of the country thinks we’re on the right track.

      Now, I’ve mentioned before, that I don’t think that there are two groups of voters but there are three groups of voters:

      1. The people who, if they vote, will vote for your guy no matter what
      2. The people who, if they vote, will vote for the other guy no matter what
      3. The people who, depending, could vote for this guy or that guy

      Right track/wrong track isn’t about the #1s or #2s, really. (Maybe it could be a measure of enthusiasm, maybe. Covering the whole “if they vote” thing.)

      But it’s a pretty good measure of the #3s.

      If you’ve got a “right track” in the 60s or 70s, you’re sitting pretty. Even if the #2s are saying “the president is screwing everything up!”

      Those partisans are nuts.Report

  2. A fun conspiracy theory:

    Report

  3. The Hunter Biden iPhone hack is an interesting phenomenon. Reddit has changed its algorithm to keep any Hunter Biden news off the front page. Google, for a while there, had a warning if you tried googling “hunter biden hack” or the like (I didn’t believe it, myself, so I tried it):

    Here’s a screenshot of what it looks like now:

    That’s right! The first thing returned is a fact-check on whether the warning means that the search results have been censored.

    That result appears right under the warning.

    Anyway, if you haven’t heard about the “hunter biden hack” and would like to read an impartial source, here’s KnowYourMeme.Report

    1. Imagine finding yourself on an airplane seated next to a normal person.

      How would you tell them about why they should know about Hunter Biden without them asking to change seats?Report

      1. I would probably open with something like “man, Google is totally useless anymore… here, could you google ‘hunter biden hack’ and tell me if you get a warning?”

        Then say “Man, I’m getting the same thing!” when they tell me that their search returns a warning and then a link to a fact check about whether the warning indicates censorship.

        And just leave it there.Report

  4. We still haven’t had a post about the Oberlin case (I should really just up and write one) and we’ve gone through the court case (Oberlin lost), we’ve gone through the appeal (got shot down), and now we’re at the part where Oberlin is being charged interest for not paying yet:

    Oberlin grads: Please donate to your alma mater.Report

    1. I read this stuff and think it is part of our evolution to a Godless society, but that is still teeming with people who deeply desire to be godly. When I was a kid folks like Raimondo would have spent all of their time with some church group picketing the local non-chain video store over the porn room in the back or presenting lectures to youth groups on the dangers of weed and mortal kombat. Now we have this, making me kind of nostalgic for what I thought was risible at the time.Report

        2. No, Meredith Raimondo is the (now former) dean of Oberlin who helped lead the protests against Gibson’s Bakery that resulted in the lawsuits that now have Oberlin owing the Gibson family more than $40 million.Report

    2. This was a witch hunt. Accusation then everyone in that section needs to virtue signal how in tune they are. Actual sound judgement (much less due process) is not needed… even a year after the school should understand that the accusation was false.Report

  5. The photograph in the link contains the image of a galaxy as it existed 5 billion years ago. Earth has only existed for about 4.54 billion years, give or take 50K years.Report

  7. The First Lady has apologized to the LatinX community:

    Report

            1. So saying “MSNBC provides important context” feels… silly… and inaccurate… like you meant something OTHER than what you wrote… or like you wanted people to think this wasn’t an opinion piece.

              Communicating is easier when you just say what you mean/think.Report

              1. Kazzy, it says “opinion” right there on the tweet. It’s the first word right after “msnbc.com”.

                Is the argument “MSNBC didn’t say this, they only published it”?

                Can a corporation say anything anyway? “Corporation” is a legal fiction! How can a legal fiction “say” something? It doesn’t have a mouth!Report

              2. I dunno… call me crazy but I believe words mean things and that we should always lean towards clarify rather than obfuscation. You pretty clearly seem to think differently and, hey, that’s your bag. But my bag is going to sometimes be calling out the BS.

                So, to the point I know you’re trying to make but are going to pretend you aren’t making: this isn’t any sort of MSNBC engaging in what-about-ism or BSDI… it is one person making a very clear and specific argument as regards Republican responses to politicians making offensive remarks regarding Latinos.

                Do you want to discuss the writer’s opinion? If not, I’ll move on.Report

              3. So it’s not an indicator of anything in particular on the part of MSNBC? Just on the part of the person who actually wrote it?

                Fair enough.

                I’m pleased we’ve established that sort of separation on the part of news organizations going forward.Report

              4. “So it’s not an indicator of anything in particular on the part of MSNBC? Just on the part of the person who actually wrote it?”

                Yea, thats kind of how it works.

                I mean, unless you are comfortable labeling the NYT as a right-wing rag for allowing the Tom Cotton op-ed.Report

      1. You can’t? That’s odd. You’d think that google would have something about why she’s apologizing.

        In any case, here’s the clip that I think that she’s apologizing for:

        If it’s not that, I don’t know what she would be apologizing for.Report

  9. Report

  11. I had a conversation with a realtor friend last weekend and asked “how’s biz? Is stuff finally cooling off?”

    She told me “I wouldn’t say it’s ‘cooling off’ as much as it’s merely being less insane.”

    Like, houses that used to be on the market for an hour are now on the market for a couple of days. Houses that used to be on the market for a day are now on the market for a week.

    But people who bought last year can still sell for more this year. Just not for as much more.Report

    1. Here at the other end of the Front Range, the market still meets my definition of insane: no one bothers to put “For Sale” signs in front of the properties, they’re getting all the traffic and sales they need just from MLS listings. The infill property a half-mile from ours is putting in the last few sections of townhouses, and the property a mile down the road is about done with the in-ground infrastructure and getting ready to pave the alleys. At the latest city council meeting they heard the application for a 500-apartment development.Report

      1. No “for sale” sign counts to me as insane still. Jeez.

        I’m wondering when the correction will kick in and how bad it’s going to be when it does.

        I have no desire to bail out corporations that bought housing…Report

        1. A .75% hike in interest rates would lead to about a 15% increase in monthly payments, unless I messed up the math royally, so that’s going to hit the market soon enough.Report

          1. When I was in the market for a car a million years ago, the first thing we did was go to our credit union and set ourselves up for a loan. We talked to the loan officer and handed in our paperwork and a stool sample and they came back and agreed that they would loan us some money to buy a car.

            We went to buy the car and the first thing the guy behind the desk said was “how much are you looking for your monthly payment to be?”

            I’m sure he had 3-year plans, 4-year plans, 8-year plans, and a 15-year plan in the very back.

            “We’ve got a loan already.”

            His face fell.

            Anyway, I’m sure that buying a house is the same dang thing. They’ve got 40-year mortgages now.Report

    2. It’s kind of sobering to think that current mortgage rates (5-6%) are considered high. To me, the crazy low rates we’ve seen over the past few years were insane. When we bought 30 years ago rates were about what they are now.Report

      1. When my wife and I bought our first house 40 years ago, our mortgage rate was 14.5% At least a couple of our friends who bought at about the same time, but did not have as much for a down payment as we did, paid 17%. We refinanced about every five years as the interest rates declined, keeping the monthly payment about the same but shortening the term. Paid off what was originally a 30-year loan in 17.

        Insanity was common at that time. I worked at Bell Labs and occasionally had to do engineering economics studies. The official discount rate (“cost of money”) to be used in such studies was set by a group of economists at headquarters. It was so strange to do 30-year studies that assumed interest rates would be 10% forever.Report

        1. Dr. Peter Venkman: You’re not going to lose the house. Everybody has three mortgages nowadays.
          Dr. Raymond Stantz: I know, but at 19%? You didn’t even bargain with the guy.

          from Ghostbusters (1984). Modern audiences just don’t understand.Report

          1. Although the price of houses was a lot lower back then, as well.

            The constant factor being “how much money, over the lifetime of the loan, does the bank expect to get”. That number has stayed pretty much the same as interest rates rise and fall.Report

      2. Yeah. We had a rate in the 4s for a while there and my friends who were refinancing were bragging about getting a rate in the 3s. I was sitting there thinking “I can’t believe that I’m sitting here like a jerk with a rate in the 4s!”

        We called our credit union and asked about options and we were able to get a rate adjustment (not a refinance, they emphasized) in the 3s.

        Then our friends refinanced into the high 2s. And I was sitting there thinking “I can’t believe that I’m sitting here with a rate in the 3s like a jerk”.

        WHICH IS NUTSReport

    1. How many officers does Uvalde have? How many other departments or levels of LE were on hand? How did they ALL fuck up so badly?

      400 officers couldn’t confront an armed 18-year-old locked in a room with young children.

      Cowards.Report

  15. Twitter is buzzing because, apparently, Biden said that he has cancer.

    Now, some people are arguing that this is old news. Everybody knows that Biden had skin cancer a few years ago.

    Some people are saying that there is a difference between the words “had” and “have” and that difference is important when it comes to speeches like this one.Report

    1. The clarification has come out: He meant “HAD” not “HAS”.

      In vaguely related news:

      Report

    1. Good guy with a gun with very good aim apparently.

      https://www.deseret.com/2022/7/18/23268407/the-greenwood-mall-shooting-victims-and-shooter-identities-indiana-good-samaritan-killed-gunman

      “Footage from the shooting showed that Dicken shot 10 rounds from his handgun, while motioning for citizens at the mall to exit behind him.”

      https://www.wthr.com/article/news/special-reports/greenwood-mall-mass-shooting/experts-impressed-by-armed-bystanders-response-at-greenwood-mall-shooting-gun-rounds-fired/531-26f89de8-aed4-4035-ad2f-7875ac9292e1

      “Autopsy results also revealed the suspect was hit eight times from about 40 yards away. Police say Dicken fired 10 rounds.” That’s damn good with a handgun at that range.Report

      1. A trip to an American shopping mall is like a Dothraki wedding.

        Anything less than half a dozen deaths is considered a dull affair.Report

  17. If you want a thread that went through the entire chancery court hearing of Musk, you’re probably crazy. However, you also happen to be in luck:

    Report

      1. I am opposed to strapping people down and injecting them with the vaccine.

        I am fine with treating them as though they’re potential carriers of a deadly disease if they refuse to get vaccinated. That includes not allowing their children to be next to mine in school and allowing their employers to not allow them to be next to other employees. In practice that last may mean “firing them”.Report

          1. For this guy’s legal case to make any sense, he must have been dealing with the looks-real version and not the obviously-a-toy.

            Now if he was dealing with an orange toy then he’s going to have an short and bad time in court.Report

            1. “Middleton works in training at the NYPD shooting range in Rodman’s Neck, and he allegedly went to work following the fatal shooting, sources said. Police tracked down Middleton through surveillance canvassing, following his vehicle. The corrections officer was arrested at work in Rodman’s Neck, earlier today, cops said.”

              Well, what legal case could he have? He isn’t a police officer, he’s a correctional officer. And if this turns out to be true, it doesn’t appear he was even pretending to act in any official capacity. He fired at a car that he thought had a dangerous person wielding a gun in it, the car travelled another half mile down the road, and he just walked off the scene and went to work?

              I’d bet dollars to donuts that he got hit by the water gun and was just a pissed off dude with a gun and decided to respond, not realizing he actually hit the kid since the car kept driving.Report

              1. In the other comment you’re claiming shooting him was a crime. I don’t know why you’re trying to claim in this one that it wasn’t.Report

              2. I’m referring to the kid.

                I don’t care how real his toy looked… shooting someone for holding a gun de facto means holding guns is illegal when everything and everyone on the right keeps telling us it’s super legal to hold a gun any and everywhere.Report

              3. First, the whole thing about using a water gun is you’re using it, not just holding it.

                2nd, we’re talking about what looks like a crime. Someone killing someone else and then getting charged says what he did was illegal. You’re assuming he gets off.

                3rd, we’re working off of limited information.
                This is one of the those situations where we make a snap judgement but then may need to change our minds.Report

              4. Well, yea, using a water gun isn’t endangering anyone’s life. It’s a water gun.

                You shared an image of the gun, which I presumed was meant to be some sort of defense of the guy. If I got that wrong, I apologize. If I got that right, well, I stand by my argument that it doesn’t matter how real the gun looked because holding a gun isn’t illegal. No bullets were coming out of it, no gunfire sounds were coming out of it… real or not, the kid was breaking no laws that I’m aware of that would have justified anyone using force against him.Report

  21. There’s currently a tempest in a teapot over the definition of “recession”.

    If you had asked me what the definition of “recession” in the past, I’d have probably said something like “two consecutive quarters of negative growth”.

    Apparently, that’s not the *REAL* definition and it’s dishonest to argue that it is.

    Here’s what the White House blog is saying:

    What is a recession? While some maintain that two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP constitute a recession, that is neither the official definition nor the way economists evaluate the state of the business cycle. Instead, both official determinations of recessions and economists’ assessment of economic activity are based on a holistic look at the data—including the labor market, consumer and business spending, industrial production, and incomes. Based on these data, it is unlikely that the decline in GDP in the first quarter of this year—even if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarter—indicates a recession.

    Republicans are, of course, pouncing.Report

    1. They aren’t wrong. Unemployment remains down. Gas prices are dropping. The Fed probably has one more rate cut in it this year. and frankly the Q1 drop in GDP percentage wise is within historical variance.Report

        1. I don’t honestly know that I’d have had a ready answer. Our most recent Example was the Great Recession, and the factors contributing to that are not (yet) present here. If I had said anything I’d say calling the thrashing out of the last repercussions of the Pandemic a Recession is irresponsible fear mongering by the press. I still think that’s true.Report

            1. (Google: “Definition of recession” (economics definition))

              a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.

              (I’m skipping the non-econ definitions).Report

              1. I think that the argument should have been something like “after several months of rapid growth due to our covid policies coming to fruition, we are having a bit of a correction and part of that correction is going to be a mild recession. HOWEVER! Do not focus on the mild recession to the exclusion of our great jobs numbers, our successful ability to turn around Putin’s price hikes across the board, and major steps forward on immigration and women’s issues. Black lives still matter! After the mild recession due to rapid growth, you can look forward to a return to growth but a steady, *HEALTHY* growth. Vote Blue no matter who! I’ll do the student loan forgiveness after we win better numbers in the house and senate. I promise.”

                At the very least it would just be run-of-the-mill lying instead of “what do you mean two consecutive quarters of negative growth? Where in the hell did that come from? I’ve never heard that! Nobody I know has ever heard that! Recessions are really complicated! You’re crazy.”Report

        2. The classic definition of a recession is “that which the NBER considers a recession”. The common definition is two downward quarters. Philip’s definition is probably “that which the White House considers a recession, depending on the occupant”. But I have to admire his “emanations of the penumbras” definition here, just for the sheer guts of it.Report

            1. And can you guess why I’d be more inclined to trust their analysis (which hasn’t been released yet) of economic data (which hasn’t been released yet) over your interpretation of the White House’s message?Report

              1. What’s wrong with the White House’s message or my addendum to it? We have one quarter of GDP decline (1.6%) after significant growth (6.9%). We have steady employment – which again is back to the pre-pandemic levels that were touted as “full employment” at the time. We have retail and foodservice sales trends that are, at best, just peaking, and we have a slight, but not statistically significant down trend in industrial production. Using the NBER’s definition there’s no there yet for a recession. The WH statement simply echoed that.Report

          2. it does take a lot of balls to say “the answer to your question would result in me being owned, therefore I shall declare knowledge a myth and questions unanswerable”Report

            1. I have answered ever question asked in this thread – and cited my sources. That my conclusions don’t match Pinky’s don’t make him right or me wrong.

              And should the NBER declare a recession based on data I will accept and go along with that. They haven’t, and as the WH points out, a recession is not JUST based on downward changes in GDP.Report

      1. this definition is over a decade old, and while it includes GDP it doesn’t center on GDP:

        A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough.

        https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-january-7-2008

        GDP is down for a single quarter. Employment is stable, and back to prepandemic levels. Industrial production is down ever so slightly but not statistically significantly. Monthly wholesale trends are still going up. Monthly retail trade and foodservice are steady after increasing. Gas prices are declining.

        So sure, call it a recession if you want based on GDP- assuming we get a second quarter drop. But its not going to be backed up by much if you do.Report

        1. It’s the very worst kind of recession, where everybody has a job and employers have to keep raising pay to attract workers.

          Man, I hate those kind.Report

          2. Dude, that’s a monkey paw observation…

            Like, low interest rates, booming housing and people making money hand over fist flipping houses. Love those too.

            My company just started freezing hiring and I have no idea why.Report

    4. Report

      2. According to the NBER, the covid recession lasted two months. It saw only one quarter of declining GDP. Most recessions are longer because, hey, most recessions are longer.

        I think the game being played here is the smushing together of three different concepts in the public mind: whether there was a recession which included 2022-1q, whether there’s a recession now, and whether the next several quarters are likely to be recessionary. The upcoming GDP number doesn’t exactly answer any of them, but if people are thinking they’re connected and the upcoming number is positive, it’ll seem like an answer.Report

        2. I mean, I can understand the position purely on a game theory basis.

          If the Republicans can successfully “talk down” the economy, they will give a positional reason to prefer Republicans over Democrats when it comes to house representative races. Maybe even senate races! Admitting that we might be experiencing a normal part of the business cycle is, effectively, writing a campaign ad for the Republicans.

          Why do you think that we should write campaign ads for the Republicans? You a Republican or something? A big Republican fan? Are you just pretending to be anti-anti-Republican? We can all see through you. This isn’t about the economy at all, isn’t that right? You’re a white male and you’ll be fine. You always are. This is about BIPOC people who can’t afford a recession and you’re trying to talk down the economy and make the economy worse! We see right through you. Trying to hurt BIPOCs like that.

          That totally makes sense.

          The problem is that if you take the whole “three groups of voters” thing vaguely seriously, there are a handful of your people who have, like, principles. And I don’t mean “everybody who votes for a Democrat has passed the basic ‘do you have principles?’ test!” but, like, actual principles that are not tied to whether you vote for Democrats. And these people are somewhat discomforted by the changing of definitions on the fly.

          The people who can swing either way (the four, maybe five of them, who are paying attention at this point in the election cycle anyway) are as likely to think that changing definitions in midstream is hinky as the principled people do.

          Of course, the evil people on team evil will vote for evil no matter what, but they’re pouncing on the perfectly reasonable request to step back and hammer out definitions as an example of dishonesty when, really, it’s the only honest thing to do.

          And so here we are.Report

          1. I’m more interested in the practical side, getting the truth out of bed and getting its shoes on. Instead of blaming big government, looking up whether the NBER does declare recessions with short durations. Instead of pretending we don’t know what “recession” means, citing its common and technical definitions. Like, the idea of fact-checking sites was probably doomed to failure, but it would’ve been nice if they’d stayed uncorrupted for a decade or so. And I’m surprised at how well Wikipedia has held up despite its corruption.Report

              1. I’m employed. I’m paying more for food. One of my kids didn’t have her internship turn into a job (this is a real surprise). Some of the big techs have stopped hiring.

                This doesn’t feel like a boom.Report

              4. Upper middle-class Boomers (like me) are always given disproportionate attention. I’m sure any number of my contemporaries looked at their IRA balances, read about Walmart’s mid-quarter profit warning yesterday, and are thinking, “I am so much poorer than I was a few months ago.”Report

              5. This drives a point that I wish more folks understood – the fundamentals are all still pretty sound. Many economic indicators are still Trending up. But because finance has lost some money, we are all expected to panic.

                As if Wall Street in any way represents the actual economy.Report

              6. Wall Street isn’t everything, but it’s important in a lot of ways. It’s state budgets, it’s spending money for retirees, it’s potential startups debating the big decision.Report

          2. Also, what are the odds that I would do a search for NBER on this thread where you also posted a story about Rep. Spanberger? It just doesn’t make sense. I mean, they’re not the rarest letters in the alphabet, but that’s just bad luck.Report

    5. Paul Krugman, in the New York Times, makes the case for ignoring the two-quarter rule:

      He mansplains the rules we should be using instead:

      So where did the two-quarter thing come from? Part of the answer is that the N.B.E.R. doesn’t make recession calls in real time. For example, while the Great Recession is now considered to have begun in December 2007, the dating committee didn’t make that call until December 2008. Also, other nations don’t have any equivalent of the N.B.E.R. So there has always been an incentive to look for simple formulas, not dependent on judgment, that can quickly determine a recession.

      Two quarters of economic contraction — a downturn sustained enough that it probably isn’t a statistical blip — seems, on the surface, like a reasonable criterion. But it’s not hard to see how it could be deeply misleading, even if the data are correct. Imagine, for example, an economy that suffered a severe slump for one quarter, then briefly stabilized and grew a bit, then resumed its plunge for another quarter. Would you really want to deny that this economy experienced a recession?

      Report

          1. Here’s a fun little exchange:

            Report

              1. Not “politically sensitive”, they don’t have the guts to phrase it that way. “Potentially sensitive”. So maybe an algorithm did that automatically? I don’t know, it’s still a pathetic platform.Report

        2. Krugman isn’t an economist any more. He’s a political commentator. If it helps Team Blue he’ll explain why decreasing supply will make prices go down.Report

          1. I would never take a paid pundit seriously on any kind of technical analysis. It’s a bigger question of why write or publish such a bad and embarrassing argument?Report

            1. There should be a meme of Moe eating an irregular Oreo with him saying “I wonder why this technical analysis is listed as an editorial?”Report

      2. I like that we have Paul Krugman discussing economics the same day we have a story about Chris Cuomo discussing his style of journalism. Nature rarely produces perfect symmetry.Report

    2. yeah, right

      two weeks from now: “GUESS WHAT’S BACK / BACK AGAIN / CHOCO’S BACK / TELL YOUR FRIENDS” (an ad campaign that is quickly disappeared after someone points out the other lyrics in the rap this is referencing)Report

      1. I admit, part of me was sad for a moment or two hearing that Choco Taco was leaving but realized that I have maybe eaten two of them? In my almost 50 years here on Earth?

        It’s like Taco Bell. It’s the same five ingredients as the other fine Klondike products, just remixed and put into a somewhat different physical configuration. Just get a Klondike Cone and flatten it out and it’s the same dang thing.

        But, yeah, if they brought them back in August, I’d buy a box. Like a dang lemming.Report

    1. Constitution:
      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      Burger Court:
      “NOT LIKE THAT!”

      Roberts Court:
      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      States:
      debating policy

      Chip:
      “NOT LIKE THAT!”Report

      2. I mentioned this to my wife. Her take is that the technology has existed for decades and is even more widespread than we know, thus explaining the Mandela effect.Report

      3. “ Correction: Welp, we’re day-one patching this piece. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that a season one episode of Stranger Things had been edited retroactively to remove a shot of Jonathan photographing Nancy while she was changing.”Report

        1. We should have a petition to have corrections put at the very tippy top.

          Though I’m now curious about this part of the article:

          Confirmation was given to Variety later that month. “We have George Lucas’d things also that people don’t know about,” Matt Duffer said, declining to touch upon the specific alterations made to previous seasons (a longstanding rumour, that a shot of Jonathan photographing Nancy from the bushes outside Steve’s house had been removed, has proven to be false).

          Report

          1. The article version I read said it was correcting a weird detail that some fans thought represented a plot hole (something to do with conflicting dates.)Report

            1. It’s something like “in the first season they said one character’s birthday was on a particular date, in the fourth season that date was mentioned and nobody said anything at all, we considered pretending that we’d done it on purpose but it was clearly just a mistake so we fixed it”Report

              2. They can *TOTALLY* go back and rewrite characters that were too creepy and change things and make the characters less creepy. Absolutely.

                Nobody was arguing that they did not have the jurisdiction to do this.Report

              4. Oh, I can’t speak to how GQ is framing it.

                I, personally, think that it’s downright creepy and have trouble imagining a mindset that would be pleased by having characters retconned like that to better fit whatever current flavor of morality is in fashion (especially when making a period piece in the first place!) but “dangerous” seems like such a strange way to describe the act of editing art that has already been released.Report

              5. Now, I *WILL* say that little minor tweaks that involve fixing dates or similar are no real biggie.

                “We said that Halloween was on a Friday in 1985 but it was on a Thursday so we fixed it” strikes me as a bit nitpicky and belongs on a “Goofs” page on IMDB (rather than something that requires a fix) but I wouldn’t see it as worth getting in a twist about.

                Like this:

                In the early 1980s, the lights on the kids’ bicycles would have been powered by a tire-driven dynamo. The dynamo’s output and thus the light level would have varied according to the bike’s speed, becoming totally dark when the bike was stopped.

                Additionally, as with the “flashlights” anachronism, the headlights would have been yellowish, not the blue-white of a modern LED headlamp.

                If they went back and yellowed the headlights? I’d think that they were “fixing” it. Perhaps unnecessarily, but I’d see what they are going for.

                If they went back and made this or that character less creepy? I’d see that as a different category of changing things deserving a different category of criticism.Report

              7. Oh…

                I imagine that if it was something like a political position that was shoehorned in and then, like, someone else gets elected and now the old position that was OBVIOUS is now INCONVENIENT, I guess I can see the mindset that would demand that the political position be changed.

                Yeah, I get it now.Report

              8. Can you imagine the mindset that thinks making a character less creepy is, um, ok actually?

                This seems like a weird thing to trip the Outrage-O-Meter.Report

              10. Han shot first.
                No he didn’t.
                Yes he did.

                The real question should be what is best for the story.

                For Han it should have been that he was total scum when he ran into Luke and started a redemption/hero arc.

                idk what “less creepy” does for this story, I don’t follow it. It could be that the author wasn’t sure if he was going to make him a villain later (leaving a clue here) and then changed his mind.Report

              11. If you had one audience when you wrote the original story and you have a different audience today, it might make sense that “what is best for the story” is what best resonates with today’s audience.Report

              12. Well, this has been going on for a while… TV edits of movies routinely remove elements that someone somewhere felt was “inappropriate” for that audience.Report

              13. The world of everything licensed via streaming service IMO makes it a bit different. If the theatrical version is always around on some permanent media like a DVD or VHS then it’s hard to get too upset over a prime time TV cut that removes the scene with the boobs or overdubs the f-bomb. But that’s all well in the rear-view mirror.Report

              14. I agree it is a bit different but it’s also like, what can we do about it? I know there were films that came out just after 9/11 that went back and removed images of the Twin Towers.

                The idea of something being memory-holed for any reason is definitely off-putting, but telling film makers (or whomever) that they can’t go back to edit their work because we don’t have permanent hard copies any more also doesn’t feel quite right. I think it’s just an oddity we’ll have to work our way through as tech continues to evolve.Report

              15. What can we do about it!? Well we can gripe on the internet of course! 🙂

                In terms of what should or even could be done my guess is very little beyond hoping most creators have the sense to realize that most of the time whatever they do will be worse, not better.Report

              16. We’ve remixed The Godfather and The Godfather Part II to remove the parts that are probably insensitive to Italian-Americans!

                We’ve also removed Andy Garcia from The Godfather Part III entirely.Report

              17. Oh I can think of way more outrageous stuff than that, especially if China continues to grow into the dominant market. Imagine if you will, a future where all film must perpetually cater to the demands of an endless cultural dialogue between PRC censors and blue check twitter.Report

              18. “We’ve remade Moonlight to get rid of the gay thing and to downplay the black people. But! People in the West who complain can be asked if they’re triggered by a movie that focuses on women. Win-win!”Report

              19. I wonder if the final results — or at least the next stop on the train — will be less “memory holing” and more:
                “Do you want to watch the original theatrical cut? Or the extended cut? Or the PG-for-television cut? Or the Don’t-Say-Gay cut? Or the Ethnically-Ambiguous-Bad-Guys-Rather-Than-Islamic-Terrorists cut? Etc.”
                Or, perhaps, “American gets THIS cut and China gets THAT cut and neither country really knows what the other has unless someone happens to watch the movie in both countries or uses a VPN or something and even then, who cares?”

                I mean, we’re already in a place where Netflix has removed Ep2.14 of “Community” (the fantastic D&D one where Ken Jeong portrays a ‘dark elf’ by coloring his skin a dark black because some folks considered it akin to black face… something which is addressed within the storyline) but Amazon Prime has not removed it so there are already different “cuts” of “Community” available based on which service you subscribe to.

                In the end, this may lead to MORE consumer choice… FREE MARKET BABY!

                Heck… maybe they’ll even just let you edit your own version. BYE BYE OFFICIALLY JAR JAR!Report

              21. Are you a Star Wars fan? Or at least somewhat clued into Star Wars fandom?

                What is the general feel on the original trilogy as it was in the 70s/80s vs the remastered versions that came out in the 90s/00s? Like, are people glad that the graphics were cleaned up and improved? Or do people prefer the older versions? Is there a big market for resales of the original copies? Are they available beyond resale?

                While not a perfect analogue, that might be somewhat instructive on how people feel about modifying art after the fact. If anyone won’t take things lightly, it’s a Star Wars fan.Report

              22. Here’s the attitudes that I’ve seen:

                The explosions are explodier? The lasers laserier? The light sabers lightsaberier? They’re getting rid of some of the artifacts that attend practical effects? Good.

                Like, here’s a scene from Breakin’ (1984):

                One of the criticisms of this scene is that you can see the wires (1:54-1:55).

                Wouldn’t it be great if they could go back and digitally remove the wires? Heck yeah it would!

                In 1977, the scene where Han talks to Jabba assumed that Jabba was a guy. Just a guy. In the comic book, the scene where Han talks to Jabba appears and Han talks to Jabba and he’s just a guy.

                Well, Lucas wasn’t thrilled with that scene and removed it. It stayed in the comic book, though.

                Well, in the 90’s, we *FINALLY* got our scene with Han and Jabba with the NEW AND IMPROVED JABBA FROM 1983!!!

                Except there’s a scene where Han walks around Jabba like he’s a guy. A fat guy, sure. But a guy.

                But we don’t care about those, do we?

                We both know that the scene that everybody cares about is the scene with Greedo in the cantina.

                Who shot first?
                Was it Han? Was it Greedo? Did they shoot at the exact same time?

                In the original version, Han shot first. Greedo never saw it coming.

                In the first version of the 90’s version, Greedo shot first. Han shot back. Self-defense.

                In the current version, they both shot at the same time. They both knew what was up.

                Which version is the “right” one?

                You’ve gotta admit, that that debate takes place on significantly different ground than the one that asks “should we go back and digitally remove the strings from Turbo’s dance scene?”Report

              23. That all makes sense. And I would say there is a difference between making technical/continuity/anachronism adjustments (basically anything you’d see on the IMDB “GOOFS” page) and editing the story itself.

                But I think StarWars presents an interesting argument because, absent fan editing, you have two choices: Original version with the original story and all the crappy lazers OR the remastered version with the edited story and the lazer-y lazers. I don’t think you can get the best of both worlds, right? So what do people tend to choose?

                I have broader thoughts on the amount of fan-appeasement that generally exists in pop culture/art these days but that is kind of a separate conversation.

                But I’d argue that probably starting with SW the horse was out of the barn when it came to retro-editing of art and the trend is accelerating (due to technological advances) and feeling increasingly irreversible (due to the prominence of streaming).

                So, yea, if you really love a particular piece of art, get a hard copy of it.

                I’d also say that this is where our consumer choices can’t be ignored. If we didn’t all jump onto the streaming bandwagon and throw all our DVD players away, we might not be where we are. We chose this world.Report

              24. It’s definitely out of the barn. Maybe the real concern is the speed with which it now travels, and the (downsides of) the constant, direct conversation between creators and the general public enabled by the internet. The best art is made with a little bit of safe distance.Report

              25. Yes. I believe “fan service” is the word I couldn’t find earlier but is what you get at in terms of the lack-of-distance between creator and consumer.

                I generally don’t like to draw distinctions between “art” and “entertainment” and “high/low art” or whatever. But at some point we may need to just accept that art more oriented towards fan service is going to be somewhat amorphous and malleable and some art is going to remain focused on artist’s intent, warts and all.

                And we can shake our fists online all we want about which is wrong and when.

                The only thing I’d consider “dangerous” is someone other than the artist or someone the artist gave control over the art to trying to make edits (in an official capacity… fan fic is fine). Like, if you think the Mona Lisa sucks or is offensive or whatever, you don’t get to paint over it. I don’t want hackers going in and making Han shoot first. I don’t want the government demanding edits. Etc.

                But if Lucas decides he wants to change Han’s arc? Eh… I may not like it but that’s my problem.Report

              26. True enough. And maybe Jaybird is right in his suggestions about liberalizing IP law to be less protective for shorter periods of time, which is probably good for a bunch of other reasons too. You like a particular version? Fine you can keep it. But to your point, as it stands, it is the decision of whoever owns it, effectively forever for people alive today.

                Part of me wonders if we aren’t also overly focused on a handful of popular, beloved movies. But what about the notorious, disowned disasters? One example that comes to mind for me is Alien 3. David Fincher disowned it, and there is widespread consensus that studio meddling completely eliminated any possibility of it being a good film. However, in the years since, they’ve released what is known as ‘the Assembly Cut’ (Fincher refuses to touch it so it doesn’t have a Directors Cut like the others do) which most fans of the franchise see as a major improvement. Not on par with the first 2, but at least an ok, respectable effort. Again though, this was put together and released with a lot of distance between it and the original, and to something that not a lot of people liked or would have defended to begin with.

                My guess is that the heart of what gets people angry is the possibility of major changes to things they like due to ephemeral outrages and fleeting campaigns from the squeaky wheels of the day. And I get why.Report

              27. “My guess is that the heart of what gets people angry is the possibility of major changes to things they like due to ephemeral outrages and fleeting campaigns from the squeaky wheels of the day. And I get why.”

                Agreed.

                “It was perfect and those damn jerkwads went and ruined it what with their political agenda.”
                For any and all political agendas.

                I mean, a lot of this just boils down to folks not liking changing and particularly not liking things that they really like changed.
                See:
                – folks complaining the NFL has gone “soft” with increased attention on player safety
                – folks complaining the NBA sucks because of all the three point shooting or “lack of fundamentals”
                – folks complaining MLB sucks because of defensive shifts and an increase in the “three true outcomes”
                – folks complaining that McDonalds fries were better when they used to use the old oil

                There are some merits to all these arguments but at the end of the day we’re really just looking at competing preferences.

                Also, funny Fincher story which was perhaps motivated by his experience with Aliens 3: While working on “Fight Club,” during an iconic scene where Marla is in bed with Tyler after they first have sex, she says, “I haven’t been [fished] like that since grade school,” a truly shocking and disturbing line. Fincher got it in because the original line was “I want to have your abortion” and he agreed to change it IF AND ONLY IF the studio agreed to accept the edited line sight unseen.

                They did. He did. And now we have the (in)famous scene/line. And folks still like to argue over which one was “better.”

                ETA: Without going into specifics, I would also agree to liberalizing IP law.Report

              28. Agreed on all those examples.

                I’ve also heard that to this day Fincher considers Alien 3 an extremely educational and influential experience.*

                It would be cool if instead of bowing to pressure to change things that worked edits were done to improve failures. I have a soft spot for an Antonio Banderas movie from the late 90s called the 13th Warrior. It was also a notorious disaster and I think still makes inflation adjusted lists of top box office bombs of all time. I would never defend it on any merits. But you can tell, somewhere, there is a good cut of that movie if only someone had access to the footage and the tools to make it! Obviously there is no money in using the technology for good, but if only there were.

                *Re: Fight Club, the grade school line is of course better. It’s funny and shocking as opposed to just shocking, which is moes in line with the movie.Report

              29. I agree re: the Fight Club line. I think the debate is really about which one the studio would have gone with and I think for political reasons they probably would have chosen the “grade school” line but the entire story is just such a badass one for Fincher.Report

              30. “Who shot first?
                Was it Han? Was it Greedo? Did they shoot at the exact same time?

                In the original version, Han shot first. Greedo never saw it coming.”

                Interesting thing about that: Lucas claimed Greedo was always supposed to shoot first and they actually filmed it that way but the effects turned out so rotten they just edited that bit out…Report

              32. I had two cavities filled this week and took the opportunity to watch Solo while the dentist and tech worked. No question about who shot first at the end of that one. Which I figure settles the “Did Han or Greedo shoot first?” question.Report

              33. “Lucas claimed”

                Interesting post-modern notion of ‘unreliable narrator’s.

                Future PhD thesis on the earliest documented reading of Lucas retconning his now lovable hero – who also coincidentally happens to anchor his new blockbuster…

                Ultimately I’m not sure I care so long as it’s documented…like a changeling. It would concern me if we were constantly being gaslit that the [revised] version was in fact the original and that those who remember otherwise are doing violence to someone or something.Report

              34. “Ultimately I’m not sure I care so long as it’s documented…like a changeling. It would concern me if we were constantly being gaslit that the [revised] version was in fact the original and that those who remember otherwise are doing violence to someone or something.”

                Agree with this. But that is again where the internet will be an ally as much as a foe.

                When I couldn’t find the aforementioned “Community” episode, I found endless posts on what happened, when, how, and how I could still find it. Netflix might have had me think the episode never existed but the internet proved them wrong.Report

              35. I think it’s bad that Netflix lies and have less faith in future internet.

                I’m mostly indifferent to artists hacking their work…because firstly most are hacks. But my position is to own the hackers.

                The lying, though, is what’s really coming.Report

              36. Yea, Netflix’s handling was weird cuz rather than just go from Episode 13 to Episode 15 they seem to have just shuffled everything up and renumbered them. Now maybe that is just some technical thing but it strongly gives the impression the episode never existed. And that was annoying to say the least. If they had got from 13 to 15 and maybe had a note about 14, that’d have felt better. But drawing attention to what you don’t have is probably not great marketing, at least after the initial round of virtue signaling has passed.Report

              37. Lucas is a dissembler of near Presidential levels is one problem. The re-imagining of the Greedo scene clearly made the story worse.

                This is partly a limitation of technology. If he had replaced the scene entirely with a new one instead of trying to special-effects his way through the existing film, he might have provided an adequate alternative storyline, maybe one in which Greedo is disarmed before they sit-down and is interrogated in a way that emphasized that Jabba is nearby and a scary threat.

                Han didn’t shoot until after Greedo, aiming a “blaster” directly at Solo, says that he plans to kill him. The whole preceding dialogue establishes that Solo doesn’t have any choice. Greedo won’t negotiate, neither will Jabba. Greedo has a longstanding grievance with Han.

                In the rewrite, the blaster is sort of like a 17th century flintlock, slow and apt to shoot wide of target. Han can do the admirable thing and wait until he is fired upon because the technology is easily avoided.Report

  27. White Hispanics:

    Report

    1. Is this editorializing? It’s more showmanship than opinion.

      I looked back on the changes in the federal funds rate over the years, and I could only find a full series back to 1990. The rate was raised .75% only once, in 1994. I think “super-sized” is a fair description. And yes, I know the data from the previous decade was horrific. But that was a generational event. If you could ask any office-holder or economist whether they’d like inflation and monetary policy reminiscent of the early 1980’s, they might slap you, and they’d probably describe it with stronger language than “super-sized”.Report

      1. I think that “clinical” is probably the way to go.

        If “75 basis points” is too confusing, “three-quarters of a percent” works.

        Put “this has only happened a couple of times before” in the opening paragraph.Report

        1. Eh, any headline that doesn’t begin with “Yowza!” is too tame for me. Especially financial headlines. You want to bring in the kids? Try “8 Rate Changes That Will Leave You Speechless!”.Report

    1. The worst part is that you just *KNOW* that all of the Trump supporters out there would be explaining the importance of the fundamentals and saying that the definition of whether we’re in a recession is much more subtle and nuanced than the ham-handed “two quarters” thing if Trump were prez.Report

        1. The drop was less than the one in the first quarter?

          Good! That’s an indicator that it’s only a mild recession and is part of the natural business cycle and we should be able to come out the other side with some nice slow-but-steady (perhaps even healthy/sustainable) growth!Report

          1. Yes, the drop was less:

            The U.S. economy shrank in the last three months by 0.9%.

            This is the second consecutive quarter where the economy has contracted. In the first quarter, GDP, or gross domestic product, decreased at an annual rate of 1.6%.

            Report

    2. Not to harp on it, but there are three conversations here, whether there was a recession, is a recession, or will be a recession. I’m surprised that 2q declined, and it does indicate that there had been a recession. That doesn’t tell us whether we’re in a recession, and it doesn’t tell us whether we’re headed into one. (Except for the possibility that we’re in a recession that began in 1q and will continue and meet up with an anticipated worldwide recession in the next couple of years.)Report

      1. 1) If we follow the NBER definition I posted up thread, then technically we MAY be in a recession as we now have 2 consecutive quarters with negative GDP.

        2) As noted above also, NBER tends to make those determinations after the fact, so we may have to wait a while for the “official word” as to whether or when we were in a recession.

        3) With a quarter of -1.6% GDP, followed by another at -0.9% GDP set against low unemployment, and generally positive trends in other fundamentals, this one will be tricky to call since the only real negative seems to be GDP.

        4) I posted this in no small part because some folks around here seemed to think upthread I wouldn’t.Report

        1. 1 & 2 – Like I said, indicates a recession, not demonstrates or confirms it.

          3 – You keep citing the current fundamentals, but they don’t tell us anything about whether there was a recession. And for the record, NBER has never held a two-quarter decline in GDP to not be a recession.Report

  32. DVDs and Blu-Ray still exist. People still buy them. I do occasionally, but less often, since I don’t rewatch stuff very often (I can hardly keep up with new stuff). Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you write like these things are gone.
    And Star Wars edits predate streaming by a large margin.Report

      1. I think that having access to the original is a large part, but only a large part, of the issue.

        The other parts of the issue have to do with the trust relationship between the artist and the consumer.

        Who will have shot first tomorrow?

        Or, like, speaking of Star Wars, have you ever seen the US version of the poster vs. the Chinese version?

        Some people complained about this.

        And they weren’t moved when asked whether Disney has “the right” to do it.Report

        1. Did these issues arise in 1997? Or only now with the (now disproven) “woke” edit of Stranger Things?

          I get that intent matters but it seems like we might be overstating how much it matters for anything even remotely “woke” adjacent.Report

            1. I’m not sure. Fans were upset “that they neutered a badass” or whatever. I don’t see much in there about “trust” though I suppose you could infer it.

              I agree there are issues that can arise from after-the-fact editing. I just don’t buy that what “Stranger Things” was accused-of-but-didn’t-actually-do was any more dangerous (GQ’s framing, not yours) than what Lucas did with Han/Greedo.

              Was GQ writing pieces about the “danger” of the Chinese movie poster? Yes, I know folks were upset about it then. Folks were upset about Han. Heck, real folks are upset about the hypothetical-but-not-actual “Stranger Things” edit. Folks are always going to be upset. And I sometimes agree with those folks and may sometimes be upset myself.

              But there is a difference between THING = inherently dangerous and THINK = only dangerous when done by/for folks I disagree with.

              If we’re okay with editing films after-the-fact up until the point where the edits seem consistent with a political ideology we don’t like, then either we’re not actually okay with editing films OR it isn’t the editing that bothers us but the fact that a political ideology we don’t like has seemingly “won” another battle.

              All of which is fine to be upset about but we shouldn’t pretend one thing is a different thing.

              “WE’VE ENTERED A BRAVE NEW WORLD OF FILM EDITING!”
              “Eh… film editing has been happening in lots of ways for a while. It’s a tad different now but not really.”
              “Yea but now *THEY* are doing it so it is clearly an evil.”
              Meh.Report

              1. I think it’s a tempest in a teapot. How many versions of Blade Runner are there? I think all of the cuts have their advocates.

                How about LotR extended editions?

                Director’s cuts have been existed as long as I have been watching movies.

                King revised earlier books in the Dark Tower series to make them better connect with the later books.

                Retroactively editing a character to make him less creepy, possibly because he ends up filling a role you didn’t originally intend, does not strike me as a problem at all.

                This happens a lot in comics as well, but they just rewrite the history without actually changing the old books.Report

              2. I saw a funny Tweet/response where JK Rowling had apparently said something like, “Harry should have ended up with Hermione, not Ron” and someone replied with, “Didn’t you write the damn book?”

                Feels weirdly relevant to this conversation.Report

              4. Everyone knows that while the main three were members of Gryffindor, they embody the traits of Ravenclaw (Hermione), Hufflepuff (Ron), and Slytherin (Harry).Report

              5. I wouldn’t call it a “Brave New World” of film editing.

                I’d call it an Orwellian one.

                But anyway.

                I don’t like the whole after-the-fact editing to keep a work in line with whatever the current zeitgeist happens to be.

                I’d rather they just do a remake. “Hey, we’ve remade Romeo and Juliet and have set it up so that the Capulets are the obvious bad guys! We’re calling it The Full Montague! We’re setting it in Tampa and the Capulets have been renamed to the Delgados!”

                Oh, okay. Just have fun.

                Going back and saying “Oh, Han and Greedo shot at the same time”? You’re not lying to me, you’re lying to yourself. What’s the point in watching the next movie? Will the story be the same a week after it comes out?

                “It’s just a story”, I imagine someone could say.
                “Yep. No problem with picking a different one, then. Lotta stories out there.”

                It only gets weird when people start implying (or arguing) that, no, I should still have similar opinions to the ones I had before the changes.Report

              6. “It only gets weird when people start implying (or arguing) that, no, I should still have similar opinions to the ones I had before the changes.”

                I will unabashedly argue that complaining about things changing is an inherent right.

                I mean, it’s not QUITE the same thing but as much as I love the Fast&Furious movies, I hate having to pretend that a group of people that struggled to hijack trucks and lost at “Race Wars” within a few years became civilization’s only hope against terrorists. Like… which is it… are they plucky underdogs or superheroes?

                See also: Mighty Ducks
                They only got to the finals because they stole Banks and another team got sick and forfeited.
                Then in the next movie they had like three players and become the Junior USA team.
                Then in the next movie they’re JV at some boarding school and struggle to beat varsity?

                Come on guys… But complaining about it is one of my fave things to do. And don’t anyone dare try to stop me.Report

              7. Remember this scene?

                Imagine the director saying that he didn’t like the kid’s facial expressions in 2022. Like, he didn’t want to communicate that the kid was a sociopath. Just that he wanted to win.

                So we’re changing the kid’s face, digitally, to be more resigned… like he’s shrugging. We’re also changing the line to “It’s just a game.”

                We think that this would give better lessons to 7-year olds.

                Now, I’m not asking you to defend this change that Disney might be making. Just ask whether you can see how someone might say “that’s a completely different story and I’m not sure it’s a better one” in response to the change.Report

              8. “Just ask whether you can see how someone might say “that’s a completely different story and I’m not sure it’s a better one” in response to the change.”

                100%. And those folks may be right, too!

                I’m not well-versed in Star Wars lore but as I understand it, I think “Han shot first” makes for a better story and character. If I had my druthers, that is how the story would go I suppose. And, heck, I might even just squint my eyes enough during that scene and say, “Yep, Han shot first.”

                Another beauty of fiction is that the viewer/consumer does have some control over their experience. One could just choose to ignore or not even read whatever Lucas says and hold true in their mind that Han shot first. That may get harder if the retconning goes further.

                But, yea, folks are fully entitled to their opinions on these things and to expressing them. That’s another beauty of art.Report

              9. 100%. And those folks may be right, too!

                Now imagine someone coming up and asking “But doesn’t Disney have the *RIGHT* to do that?”

                Would you feel like “we were talking about aesthetics. Now you’re talking about property law?”Report

              10. Well, are those folks who are upset yelling, “THEY SHOULDN’T DO THAT?!” or “THEY CAN’T DO THAT?!”

                To me, calling it “dangerous” really toes that line.Report

              11. It only gets weird when people start implying (or arguing) that, no, I should still have similar opinions to the ones I had before the changes

                Isn’t this just called “Living in a cooperative high trust community”?

                Thongs that were OK yesterday, are no longer acceptable and you are asked to abide by a new norm?Report

              12. “Conform! Conform! Conform!”

                I have lived in communities like this one, actually.

                Norms change less often than you’d think. You know what happens when someone tries to change a norm?

                You’ll never guess. Okay, I’ll tell you: They get told to conform.Report

              15. I mean, you really seem to like living in a world where there are rules and norms and expectations and obligations. Just that when those bind you in ways that are uncomfortable you chafe.Report

  33. Technical Question:

    Lately when I click on a comment via the sidebar, it takes me to that comment but only briefly and then races me somewhere else on the page. Is that a glitch on my end? Or something on the backend? Seems to be happening on desktop and mobile, both using Chrome.Report

    1. I get something similar on the Twitter-heavy pages. I think it takes the tweets longer to load, so their arrival pushes you around the thread.Report

    2. That’s my fault.

      It first populates the page with text and takes you where you want to go.

      Then it populates the tweets and youtubes and other things and being 70% down the page immediately becomes being 60% down the page once all of the tweets and whatnot expand from 0 lines high to being a few dozen.Report

      1. Eh, it is what it is. I like having the Tweets and images and videos here rather than via link. Just didn’t seem to notice it before but noticing it lots now. Wasn’t sure if there was something else afoot.Report

    1. Officially to investigate the culture of workplace sexual harassment. Unofficially because redistricting has locked 2 long time NY reps, 1 of whom is on the committee, into a no holds barred re-election battle and this is an opportunity to grandstand against the owner of a division rival.

      Not that I don’t hope with all my heart it somehow results in Snyder’s destruction so I can root for a football team again. It won’t but one can dream.Report

      1. But like, what is Congress’s role or jurisdiction in any individual workplace’s culture? Or is this just like toothless investigations to grandstand and virtue signal? Like, can Congress actually DO anything?Report

        1. Committees and subcommittees have investigative powers, which makes sense as part of the legislative drafting process. Theoretically we want them learning something about the topics about which they will write laws. Not sure if this is related to any actual legislation that’s on the table.Report

        2. I can’t think of a reason Congress couldn’t invite anyone to testify on this matter or any other. You or I could decline the offer, or answer no questions, but lying under oath is a crime, and I’d think any crimes admitted to in testimony could also be prosecuted.Report

        3. Like, can Congress actually DO anything?

          If Congress found workplace sexual harassment occurring in the NFL in violation of existing laws, then Congress could indeed pass new laws toughening penalties, making it more criminal etc.Report

          1. @Pinky

            The NFL was trying to subpoena Snyder so it wasn’t just a matter of inviting him.

            @Philip

            But they couldn’t actually punish the WFT, right?

            To be clear, I think Snyder is an a-hole and a monster and I think the stories coming out of the team are really problematic. I hope heads roll for the guilty parties. I’m just trying to make heads and tails of how Congress ended up involved.

            Is this basically the same thing as the Jan 6 investigation? Congress can go on whatever investigations they want — complete with subpoena power — but can’t actually punish folks based on their findings? They can pass laws that could then be used to punish folks who violate those laws and/or could pass along the results of their investigations to relevant authorities if evidence of illegality is found?Report

            1. Generally speaking, you can’t pass a law to punish something that wasn’t illegal when it was done.

              Example: Someone in my state tried to sell a baby. He was arrested and then the cops found out that wasn’t illegal in my state. It was made illegal after this blew up in the media but they couldn’t convict him for it.

              Having said that, my expectation is a lot of the stuff that happened on Jan 6th was always illegal. The various rioters being given jail terms aren’t be convicted of “new” crimes.Report

            2. The only penal power Congress has is indirectly through the tax code. Wer ethey to uncover current illegal action by the WFT they could refer it to the appropriate criminal prosecution agency, just as the January 6th Committee can do. But no, Congress can’t arrest or try or lock up.Report

              2. Does Congress have investigative powers that the appropriate criminal prosecution agency lacks? Or did this just somehow catch the eye of a Congresscritter or two or ten and become an issue du jour?Report

            3. Oh, yeah, when someone voluntarily accepts Congress’s offer to testify, it’s either something you really want to say or it’s a response to an implied threat.Report

    2. Among other things, the NFL has some limited exemptions from antitrust law (and has occasionally asked for broader exemptions). From time to time, Congress — or at least Congress critters — ask the commissioner or owners to come in for a chat about some egregious behavior, and whether the exemptions should be removed. Example — the league accepted the NFL Players Association when some Congress critters began speaking out about rescinding the exemptions because the league was being actively anti-union.Report

        1. IIRC, MLB has an even better deal: a hundred years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that MLB is not interstate commerce. During the steroid thing, the SCOTUS might reverse that. To be honest, today? It’s conceivable that the five justices to the right of Roberts might confirm and start drastically reining in the Commerce Clause.Report

  36. I’ve been away in Canada but I’m surprised no one is talking about Manchin and Schumer’s new deal over climate change, taxes and deficit reduction. It’s quite a surprise. Though in fairness with that loony tune Sinema not yet committed and the parliamentarian not weighed in yet there’re a lot of things that could go wrong.

    Still, it could be pretty good policy. A lot of solid moves forward on global warming, shoring up the ACA subsidies for a good bit of time, deflationary policy at a time when deflationary policy is called for and more deficit reduction than the GOP has ponied up since, what, HW Bush? Not that any deficit hawks would say a nice thing about it since it raises taxes which is what they actually care about when they yap about the deficit.

    And the fact that Manchin sprang this after Mcconnell already signed off on the semiconductor bill is just *chefs kiss* mwah!Report

      1. Oh I see! Yeah I mean it’s a fair cop that things are pretty preliminary. I still think the policy in this proposed bill is pretty solid- a darn sight better than doing nothing.Report

        1. It is. And his criticism isn’t wrong. But I am also hopeful about it. The trends are what they are but good to go into a fight with a little resume builder, and, it is IMO sound policy which is what I care most about.Report

Comments are closed.

Related Stories

US Department of Education Announces that it is Restarting Loan Collection

Jaybird April 22, 2025 25

Open Mic for the Week of 4/21/2025

Jaybird April 21, 2025 133

SCOTUS Temporarily Halts Trump Administration Removal of Venezuelans

OT Editors April 19, 2025

You may have missed

Bradstreet Window

POETS Day! Anne Bradstreet

Ben Sears April 25, 2025
1903_World_Series_-_Boston_Americans

Series! Recap of World Series of the 1900s

Mike Schilling April 25, 2025
golf

There are Times when Murder Seems Justifiable

Clare Briggs April 24, 2025
postnailclip

Weekend Plans Post: Caffeine Rituals

Jaybird April 24, 2025 16