Open Mic for the week of 6/3/2024

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

144 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Huh. The so-called “Swine Flu” was a lab leak. I did not know that.

    Report

  2. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    Louisiana lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that could make the state the first to require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all schools and colleges that receive public funding.

    Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, still needs to sign the new bill into law for Louisiana to make history as the first state with such a requirement.

    The bill, introduced by GOP state Rep. Dodie Horton, states that the text of the Ten Commandments must be printed in classrooms on a poster no smaller than 11 inches by 14 inches and must be “the central focus” of the poster.

    Other states, including Texas, South Carolina and Utah, recently attempted to approve similar legislation, according to Axios. Those states began pushing the legislation after Supreme Court rulings in cases like Kennedy v. Bremerton School District suggested a looser interpretation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits state-sponsored religion.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/louisiana-become-1st-state-require-ten-commandments-displayed-schools-governor-signs-bill

    Theocracy much?Report

  3. Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    “Louisiana lawmakers”

    I wasn’t aware congress was in Louisiana.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Trump lost the last two elections in Washington but 4 electoral votes defected in 2016.

      Has the faithless electors loophole been fixed? The article doesn’t mention it.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        No idea.

        For what it’s worth, I think this is a bad law. From reading up on the history, it seems primarily aimed at preventing Black folk from holding office in the state. So, yes, a very bad law indeed. Maybe Republicans can help lead the charge on repealing bad laws like this and others. Maybe…Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Good news! Per Wiki: Washington became the first state to fine faithless electors after the 2016 election, in the wake of that state having four faithless elector votes. In 2019, the state changed its law for future elections, to void faithless votes and replace the respective electors instead of fining them.[11]Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Do gotta wonder about the person who thinks: “I’ll vote for Colin Powell for President and Elizabeth Warren for Vice President, yes, THAT’S the empty political signal I want to send to trivia wonks in the future who are the only ones who will care about what I’m doing here today.”Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      As I read it, that means a felon can’t be an ELECTOR for a Presidential candidate. But I’ll admit that the exact text of the law refers to a candidate whose name appears on the ballot, not the person who will actually hold the office.

      But also bear in mind, the chances that Trump will win Washington State in 2024 are functionally zero, so this is, at least for this cycle, an academic quibble.Report

  4. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    What is the middle and high school literature curriculum these days? On another blog, a poster with kids in high school and middle school, in Canada, complained that his kids get assigned nothing but YA dreck published within the last ten years in the language arts course in their school. I was in middle and high school during the early and mid-1990s and the idea of assigning the equivalent of the Hunger Games would be a flat no. Even the YA equivalent we read was from the more realistic spectrum of it.Report

    • Chris in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t know exactly what they’re reading in class, but here’s the summer reading list for the school my son went to. It looks fine to me, and certainly doesn’t seem to justify the “in my day we read real books!” discourse that pops up every few years.Report

      • InMD in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        I looked at the 9th grade list and the only one that stood out to me as, to use Lee’s term, ‘YA dreck’ was The 5th Wave, which I am only vaguely aware of because of the movie. But I suppose reasonable people can disagree on where the line is between literature and genre fare beneath the ostensibly educational purpose. In a world where children’s attention is forever drawn towards screens any book is probably a win.Report

        • Chris in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Yeah, I don’t mind throwing kids the occasional bone, especially on a summer reading list. It’s been my experience that the adults who read the most good books also read a fair amount of brain candy, so it seems reasonable to let kids do so too if you want them to read the good stuff too.Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Basically all of what we read prior to high school was YA literature of one form or another, for the obvious reason that a large majority of elementary and middle-school kids aren’t ready for Shakespeare or adult-level literature. Historical YA literature like Across Five Aprils and the Witch of Blackbird Pond is still YA literature.Report

  5. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The Warshington Post is going through some shakeups.

    “I Can’t Sugarcoat It Anymore”: Will Lewis Bluntly Defends Washington Post Shake-Up

    At one point Lewis was asked whether he was intentionally bringing in people who come from a different culture than the Post. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore,” Lewis said. “So I’ve had to take decisive, urgent action to set us on a different path, sourcing talent that I have worked with that are the best of the best.”

    One idle thought I had reading this was whether the audience halving could have been prevented.

    Maybe it couldn’t have, of course.

    Someone in comments to the twitter thread about it pointed out that it looks like, just from eyeballing, 80% of the recipes in the cooking section are vegetarian. I know, speaking for myself, that if my preferred cooking section went vegetarian, I would use it less and less and probably only for a side here or there (but maybe the other 20% of the recipes remained strong enough to keep using it… I dunno).Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Examples of vegetarian cooking that’s not “pasta without meat” or “bean salad” is exactly the sort of thing I’d want to see in a paper! The whole point of the paper, to me, is “here’s something interesting”.

      And if you figure that something being in a paper is mind control intended to make you believe it’s correct and true and mandatory, well, that’s a “you thing” as the kids say these days.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        There’s “examples” and there’s “80%”.

        If the page transitions, in readerships’ minds, from “cooking section” to “vegetarian cooking section”, it stops being useful for people who aren’t actively looking for vegetarian recipes.

        And they start going elsewhere.

        “Your audience has halved in recent years” might not be a problem if the goal is to provide good vegetarian recipes (with a sprinkling of meat recipes still). Remember that line in Citizen Kane? “You’re right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in… sixty years.”

        What’s the goal?

        Whomever brought in Will Lewis apparently thinks that it’s to have people read the paper.Report

  6. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    A bit on the nose…
    Cheesebro indicted in Wisconsin:

    Former Trump aides charged in Wisconsin over 2020 elector plot

    MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin’s attorney general filed charges Tuesday against an aide and two attorneys who advised Donald Trump over a meeting of Republicans who claimed to be the state’s 2020 presidential electors even though Trump had lost the state.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/04/wisconsin-charges-2020-trump-electors/Report

  7. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    As if we needed further proof that the right wing news media atmosphere is seriously compromised, The Epoch Times has been shown to be a money laundering scheme first and a bad propaganda machine second:

    A once-small newspaper founded by Chinese dissidents that became a prominent right-wing media outlet that trafficked in conspiracy theories in recent years is now facing accusations that one of its top officers was engaged in a criminal money laundering scheme.

    The chief financial officer for the Epoch Times was charged Monday with laundering at least $67 million in illegally obtained funds. After the alleged scheme began in 2020, The Epoch Times’ revenue jumped from almost $15.5 million the year before to over $70 million, according to federal tax filings.

    https://www.npr.org/2024/06/03/g-s1-2640/epoch-times-federal-indictment-money-launderingReport

    • LeeEsq in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      The Falun Gong situation is weird. The PRC does persecute Falun Gong but a lot of the criticism that the PRC has towards Falun Gong is not necessarily untrue. There is also a long history of off-brand religious movements wrecking a lot of havoc in China, including the second largest war of all time, and Chinese governments have been wary of religion since the Imperial Era. It is basically lacite but by hard atheists.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      You should always be the bad propaganda machine *FIRST*.

      This allows you to launder money indefinitely.Report

  8. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    Puberty blockers banned in the United Kingdom, possession of such can lead to a two year stint in jail. I really have no idea why transphobia is such a potent force across the political spectrum in the United Kingdom while it isn’t a potent force on the liberal-left of politics anywhere else in developed democracies:

    https://www.wonkette.com/p/britains-nhs-bans-puberty-blockersReport

    • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Many European countries have been pulling back on their trans stuff for minors in the past couple of years, apparently on the basis of research.Report

      • InMD in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Puberty blockers is often just a euphemism for off label use of cancer drugs. My father in law was on one for prostate cancer that is also I believe used to suppress puberty. Side effects were extreme, bone density went to hell, to say nothing of the psychological stuff. Arguably they killed him before the cancer did. He took a minor fall that shattered a piece of his skull which in turn caused massive brain hemorrhage.

        Given a terminal cancer diagnosis the trade offs made sense. The cocktail of drugs kept him around for something like 18 years after it was identified, and much of that time was a decent quality of life. He got to meet a grandchild he otherwise probably wouldn’t have. But giving it to prepubescent children for the purpose of trying to prevent the development of adult secondary sex characteristics? One not need be a transphobe to have concerns.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          That’s fair. And yet…

          My son is very small for his age but otherwise perfectly healthy. His small stature is merely a function of genetics and growth patterns. And he likes it, suffering no mental, emotional, or social harms as a result of his size.
          However, if we so chose, we could subject him to daily shots of growth hormone to help him grow taller, faster. This would simply be for aesthetic purposes. And we could do this to him now, at 11-year-olds, and actually ideally would have begun this “treatment” a few years earlier. Note: We have zero intention of doing this.

          Now, these drugs from my understanding do not carry with them the side effects/risks that “puberty blockers” do. But they are not without risk or cost. So while I am sure there are indeed people who are concerned about the use of “puberty blockers” without possessing any transphobia, we should consider if their concerns about non-medically necessary use of drugs to “treat” children in ways that will help them achieve their desired physical appearance are limited to trans kids.

          The situations aren’t identical, admittedly. But they are related and I think it reasonable to ask why one course of “treatment” is being banned while others (including plastic surgery for kids) aren’t even up for discussion.Report

          • InMD in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m still not a supporter of banning it here. I also think banning in the context of a highly centralized, completely government run healthcare system where the decision is at least ostensibly being made based on well supported clinical considerations is different than a decision by state legislators in the US.

            What I do think is that any conversation about the subject needs to be well grounded in the reality of what these treatments do. If we were out having a beer and you told me you were considering that treatment for your son, solely for aesthetic purposes, I’d say I thought it was crazy idea and he is perfect the way he is.Report

  9. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Republicans, crafting Democratic Party attack ads:

    Colorado Republican Party issues call to burn all Pride flags

    COLORADO, USA — The Colorado Republican Party marked the start of Pride Month with a mass email attacking “godless groomers” and a social media post calling for the burning of all Pride flags.

    The state GOP’s move to the far right after a series of electoral blowout losses continued with some of its harshest anti-gay rhetoric in recent years.
    The Colorado GOP’s mass email titled “God Hates Pride,” read, in part, “The month of June has arrived and, once again, the godless groomers in our society want to attack what is decent, holy, and righteous so they can ultimately harm our children.”

    The message to Colorado Republicans was headlined with an image reading “God Hates Flags,” a nod to the anti-gay slur on the picket signs of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.

    The party’s message was signed by chairman Dave Williams. A post from the Colorado Republican Party on X, formerly Twitter, read simply, “Burn all the #pride flags this June.”Report

  10. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    There is no bottom with Trump example trillion something. Trump records a video basically telling/urging/begging Putin to keep WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich as a prisoner until after the election: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/06/june-surpriseReport

  11. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Speaking of lacking virtue – I remain convinced someone has untoward photos of her somewhere:

    Judge Aileen Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Donald Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid, signaling the judge could be more willing than any other trial judge to veto the special prosecutor’s authority.

    The planned hearing also adds a new, unusual twist in the federal criminal national security case against the former president: Cannon on Tuesday said that a variety of political partisans and constitutional scholars not otherwise involved with the case can join in the oral arguments on June 21.

    It’s an extraordinary elevation of arguments in a criminal case first filed a year ago this week that likely won’t see trial until next year, if at all.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics/cannon-trump-special-counsel-hearing/index.htmlReport

  12. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    The latest Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is out. Not everyone will find every model their sort of stroke material. I certainly didn’t. If past form holds, some people will think this is a problem. Or maybe they’ll just outgrow it. Place your bets.Report

  13. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Because of course they did:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans issued criminal referrals Wednesday against President Joe Biden’s son and brother, accusing them of making false statements to Congress as part of the GOP’s yearlong impeachment inquiry.

    The Republican leaders of the House Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary and Ways and Means committees sent a letter to the Justice Department recommending the prosecution of Hunter Biden and James Biden and accusing them of making a “conscious effort” to undermine the House’s investigation.

    https://apnews.com/article/biden-impeachment-house-republicans-hunter-james-e310269a42abd4a28a7e105b43f9c05aReport

  14. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Apparently, both Israel and Hamas have rejected Biden’s peace deal.

    Well, at least things appear to be cooling down over there. We’re not getting stories about it every day anymore, anyway.Report

  15. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The Daily Beast ran a story in which they debunk the right-wing theory that Biden pooped his pants at the D-Day event in France.

    “I know that, I just want to hear him deny it.”Report

  16. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    Your regular reminder that immigrants – both documented and undocumented – are a NECESSITY for America’s continued economic success:

    But what’s most important is that light-orange section at the top, the native-born population that is aged 65 and over. It grew 54 percent since 2007, and is now nearly as large as the entire foreign-born population.

    Why this surge? Because of the post-World War II baby boom. The peak year of births during that population surge was in 1957. Add 65 to 1957 and you get 2022. It is not surprising, then that many native-born American adults are leaving the workforce. Since 2007, the size of the native-born labor force has increased by about 6 percent. The size of the 16-and-over population that isn’t in the labor force has grown by 24 percent.

    There’s a lot of overlap here. Older Americans are more likely to be native-born because immigration was restricted until soon after the baby boom ended. They’re also less likely to have children. Immigration — including legal immigration that led to work permits or citizenship — became easier. These are patterns that have nothing to do with Joe Biden or recent immigration.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/07/biden-employment-immigrants/Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      America has always depended on cheap labor. It’s hypocritical to pretend otherwise.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I agree, but one of the major political parties is about to nominate a presidential candidate who has spoken openly about rounding up and deporting that labor.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          That means that the labor that remains will have more bargaining power!

          My lifestyle depends on them not having that!Report

          • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Is that what you think the impact of removing 11 million workers from the economy will be? Fascinating.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              I also think that landlords will be harmed and might have to lower prices to attract renters.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              We’ve played this game before.
              “I want to remove immigrants so as to raise worker wages.”

              “Here’s five other things which will raise worker wages.”

              “No, I don’t like those. I just want to remove immigrants.”

              Labor unions, minimum wage laws, income subsidy, even simple things like postal savings banks and free mass transit are despised and viciously opposed by the very people who claim to want to “raise wages”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Have you ever heard the word “scab” before?

                With regards to labor, I mean.

                Do you consider it to be a slur?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Won’t speak for Chip, though the answer is obvious, but I was, in the long ago times, a Teamster, walked a picket line, and knew what a “scab” was and that it was a slur. What it wasn’t was a general increase in the size of the potential labor force, whether caused by immigration or by people f*****g more often.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s always weird what is and is not obvious.

                You know what they say about making an assumption. It makes an ass out of u and mption.

                Arguing that scabs were just doing jobs that union members won’t do is something that management attempted, though. If the potential labor pool is willing to work for cheaper wages and crappier benefits, doesn’t it just make sense to go with the non-union workers?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, your logic has convinced me.

                We must immediately prohibit right-to-work and allow closed shops where only union members are allowed to work.

                So we welcome any number of immigrants, provided they accept a union card.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If you want to re-define a larger labor pool, with its attendant economic effects, as “scabs,” a long-established term with a well-known meaning, knock yourself out and see what traction you get as an arbiter of language. I’ll stick with the usage familiar to anyone familiar with the labor movement. I’d ask Jimmy Hoffa to back me up, but I don’t know where he is.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Have you seen the BLS report?

                The median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and salary workers
                were $987 in 2023, compared with $1,140 for their native-born counterparts. (See table
                5.) (Differences in earnings reflect a variety of factors, including variations in the
                distributions of foreign-born and native-born workers by educational attainment,
                occupation, industry, and geographic region.)

                Hell yeah! That’s more than $150/week!

                I’d rather pay for the cheap ones too!Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes. I have. I’m also familiar with supply and demand, which would predict something like those numbers.
                That doesn’t make them “scabs.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Hell yeah, it would! Of course employers would want to hire the cheaper option!

                And remember what kicked this off: “Your regular reminder that immigrants – both documented and undocumented – are a NECESSITY for America’s continued economic success”.

                The ones who are working despite not being legally able to are a NECESSITY.

                I imagine that corporations being able to hire people willing to work for smaller wages and fewer benefits could also be seen as a necessity.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well then if we want wages to be driven up, we should immediately grant amnesty to all the undocumented immigrants so they can command the higher wages of their native born counterparts.

                If we want wages to be driven up, that is.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “We just have to make all of the scabs into union members.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yep.
                If we want wages to be driven up, that is.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Why would hiring the scabs instead of the union workers and then declaring the scabs to be union workers drive wages up?

                What’s the mechanism?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Unionized workers would be forced to abide by seniority and union shop rules.

                So the former scabs would be sent to a hiring hall where they would wait for an opening, or be assigned entry level tasks in the apprentice/ journeyman mold.

                The more senior union workers would enjoy the wages conferred by this artificial scarcity.

                If we want wages to be driven up, that is.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Um… how familiar are you with the whole “Union Attitudes Toward Workers Who Cross The Picket Line” thing?

                At all?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Very.
                I was union member once.

                And we aren’t talking about crossing picket lines.

                Remember, once we make them union members, they don’t cross the line, but join it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                How often did your union make scabs union members, back in the day?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What “kicked this off” is:

                Have you ever heard the word “scab” before?

                With regards to labor, I mean.

                Do you consider it to be a slur?

                You brought up the term “scab,” which you insist on using in a way no one who knows anything about the subject would use. You’ve now had three opportunities to admit the mistake or argue for the expanded usage and have done neither. That’s three strikes. With the usual consequences.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Scabs are people who cross the picket line and work jobs that were intended to be for union members.

                I’m making an analogy between citizens (union members) and undocumented citizens working these jobs undocumentedly (scabs).

                “There aren’t any laws against working illegally”, you may argue.

                But I disagree with that.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No, what I argue is that, as you yourself point out, a scab is someone who crosses a picket line. That is what it has always meant. If and when immigrants cross picket lines, you can call them “scabs,” and not until then.
                A mistake is not an analogy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not broadly talking about “immigrants”.

                I am specifically talking about Undocumented Visitors who are working Undocumentedly.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s five strikes. Thanks for playing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                The ump needs glasses.

                Wait, you’re not the ump. You’re… a guy? In the stands? Screaming “strike five”? At the mascot?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s six comments in which you have declined either to admit your mistake or make a case for changing the long-standing meaning of “scab.” Just a matter of counting.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                SAFETY! THAT’S TWO POINTS!

                Anyway, here’s a point that Phil made: “I agree, but one of the major political parties is about to nominate a presidential candidate who has spoken openly about rounding up and deporting that labor.”

                Deporting the undocumented visitors who happen to be working undocumentedly.

                “Doing the jobs that Americans won’t do” is fairly analogous to “Doing the jobs that the Union workers won’t do”.

                Hire a scab! Let them work the hours that union workers won’t work for wages they won’t work for under conditions they won’t work for!

                And then we can point out that we can solve this problem by making them citizens and have them join the union!

                First *DOWN*.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If you’d rather respond to Phil and Chip than defend what you said, that’s your prerogative. But everyone here can read and count. There comes a point where the witness has done the lawyer’s work and, as Irving Younger explained, the thing to do when that happens is shut up and sit down.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s icing, CJ.

                I’m not responding to Phil and Chip. I’m responding to you… who, you may recall, responded to me when I was responding to Phil and Chip.

                That was the context of me responding to you. If your claim is that I’m offsides, I’ll point out that I was following your lead.

                Penalties offset.

                First down.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Eight.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                This indeed a sticky wicket.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Nine. I can count easier than you can duck.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, it’s more that you’re ignoring what I’ve said.

                The analogy I’m making is between undocumented vistors working undocumentedly and scabs crossing a picket line.

                They’re both lowering wages for the people who are part of the union.

                If you want to say that you have more solidarity for the consumers who save money due to the low wages of the scabs, hey. That’s a reasonable position.

                Indeed, let me copy and paste Phil’s point again: “Your regular reminder that immigrants – both documented and undocumented – are a NECESSITY for America’s continued economic success”

                But you saying “well, I don’t accept your analogy!” is fine but you should at least acknowledge that your unwillingness to accept my analogy isn’t sufficient reason for me to abandon it.

                Especially when I have reason that others see the analogy as being good enough to work with.

                You know how many bowling pins are in a strike?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t ignore what you said. You called people scabs who weren’t scabs. Several comments later, you admitted that scabs were people who crossed picket lines, but insisted that you were drawing an analogy rather than making a mistake. That’s your story and I guess you’re sticking to it. But people who saw how long it took you to get there, instead of saying it right away, which is what someone who was being truthful would have done, are entitled to be skeptical of your explanation.
                Ten.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Nah, it’s an analogy that I’ve made before and that I will make again. I can find you links for both. Here, here, and here.

                I appreciate that you want to argue that you have no reason to believe that I repeating myself, that’s fair… but, I assure you, I was.

                I do that a lot.

                But the use of Undocumented Workers acting as scabs is something that there happens to be a long history of in this country, believe it or not.

                It probably doesn’t get as much play on the East Coast as in the other time zones, but, seriously, there’s history there.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m making an analogy between citizens (union members) and undocumented citizens working these jobs undocumentedly (scabs).”

                This analogy fails because the legal immigrant who is made a member of the union is completely different than a scab.

                A scab has no restrictions on contract (thats the whole advantage!) The bosses can force him to work any hours, for any wage, under any conditions allowed by law.

                The legal immigrant union member is not allowed to work harder or for less. He is covered by the same union contract, same union conditions, the same union hours as a native born worker.

                That’s the whole idea of a union!

                It removes the “privity of contract” and forces the company to treat all workers the same, regardless of whether native born or immigrant.

                This is how we drive wages up, which is what you wanted in the first place, right?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The legal immigrants aren’t the ones subject to being deported, Chip.

                They’re the ones who are already working in accordance with the law (presumably).

                It’s the undocumented who have crossed the picket line and are working for any hours, for any wage, under any conditions (even extra-legal ones).

                And you’re suggesting that this problem goes away if we make the scabs join the union?

                Did your union allow scabs to join, back in the day?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, unions let scabs join. As I already stated, this reduces the ranks of potential strikebreakers and forces them to now conform to the rules and not cross the picket line.

                And again, the problem you are pointing out (people willing to work for less) is solved by things like amnesty and labor unions and minimum wage laws which make it impossible for them to work for less.

                We’re just right back to the stage of the game I noted at the outset, where you claim you want to drive up wages, BUT NOT LIKE THAT!Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Your union let scabs join?

                I find that difficult to believe. Like, seriously. You’re not even talking about the last 10 years.

                You’re talking about the 80’s.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think that’s adjusted for occupation.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                According to Pew, undocumented migrants account for 14% of the agricultural workforce; 12% of construction; 15% of food production; and 8% of the leisure/hospitality industry. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/10/a-majority-of-americans-say-immigrants-mostly-fill-jobs-u-s-citizens-do-not-want/#:~:text=Unauthorized%20immigrant%20workers%20in%20the%20U.S.&text=About%20750%2C000%20unauthorized%20immigrants%20held,and%20food%20distribution%20(70%2C000)

                Now, some of those jobs could likely be done by Americans, but not likely at wages currently payed to migrants. However the problem is we only have 1.8 million more American workers not in the work force then we have unemployed Americans. And those two figures added together are just slightly north of 8 million people (Or so the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tells us). Which means thts if TFG’s policy of rounding up and deporting undocumented migrants comes to fruition, we will still be 3 million workers short – assuming all the unemployed and the not in the labor force people were to take those jobs.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No.Report

  17. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Okay. There was a hostage rescue kinda thing this morning in Gaza. 4 Israeli hostages were rescued and a whole bunch of Palestinians were shot during the rescue. There aren’t exact numbers but I’ve seen between the mid-90’s to as high as 200.

    Matt Bruenig threw out this banger:

    I can appreciate the argument that we shouldn’t celebrate the loss of any life, not even hostage-takers, I’d probably not be able to argue the position that this shouldn’t have happened and put my back into it.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Fewer utilitarians in the wild than you’d think.

      Report

      • Pinky in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You write equations with the lives of Jews on one side, as far as I’m concerned, the equation is solved. We’re out of the Treaty of Versailles range; it’s denazification time.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s like they have absolutely no theory of mind whatsoever. They cannot comprehend a view that is not their own. Not that they have to agree with it, of course not… but they cannot conceive it.

        Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          There’s nothing unique or unusual about these people. They are thinking the same way everyone does, the way you and I do.

          Its so common that we have all these memes for it- FA/FO, Me sowing/ Me reaping, etc.

          What they’re really just saying here is that killings by the Palestinians of Israelis, “including many children”, are justified by the larger goal. And of course defenders of Israel are saying the same in reverse.

          There isn’t any lack of understanding here. I’m pretty sure that everyone reading this believes that killing 100,000 women and children was an acceptable price to pay to halt the Third Reich, but that killing 3,000 New Yorkers to force US airbases out of Saudi Arabia was an atrocity.

          And in truth, until we know what the overall goal of the IDF is, the ethics of their actions is an open question.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            The people I’m talking about are not the folks who think that it’s okay to shoot the people holding hostages as you rescue the hostages. Of course I understand that mindset.

            What I don’t understand is the inability to understand that mindset. The claim that rescuing hostages using too much violence against the people holding them is somehow unfair.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              If you don’t understand them, talk to a right winger about Ruby Ridge or Waco.

              And in fact, how do you know the killing of the captors WAS justified? Were you there, did you witness their actions?

              Would it have been justified if they had surrendered and were standing with hands raised?
              Were they even given an opportunity to surrender?
              In every theory of war, killing a soldier pointing a gun is justified, but the moment he drops the gun, it becomes a war crime.

              Were the people killed even a part of the operation? Like, assuming children were killed, was any attempt whatsoever by the IDF to avoid killing them?

              And of course, the ethics of the entire war depend on what the goals are of the combatants- killing even one soldier in service to a goal which itself is unjust, makes that killing unjust. So we need to ask Hamas and the IDF what their goals are before we can pass judgement on their actions.

              You don’t know the answers to these questions and neither do I and neither does Owen Jones.

              Until we do, we can’t really say the killings were justified or not.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And in fact, how do you know the killing of the captors WAS justified? Were you there, did you witness their actions?

                Well, please understand, I’m taking into account the fact that the captors were holding hostages.

                That colors my opinion.

                Would it have been justified if they had surrendered and were standing with hands raised?

                It would depend on whether there had been recent “faked” surrenders.

                Were they even given an opportunity to surrender?

                Do you mean, like, since October 8th?

                In every theory of war, killing a soldier pointing a gun is justified, but the moment he drops the gun, it becomes a war crime.

                That’s not true.

                It’s why faking a surrender is a war crime. It makes it reasonable to not accept surrenders in the future.

                Were the people killed even a part of the operation? Like, assuming children were killed, was any attempt whatsoever by the IDF to avoid killing them?

                Well, there’s stuff like this:

                Maybe it’s not true, of course. Maybe it’s just propaganda from the Israelis.

                So we need to ask Hamas and the IDF what their goals are before we can pass judgement on their actions.

                I wouldn’t have been able to write that.

                I would have considered it over the top.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But now you can understand why people are skeptical of claims made by either side, and that it may be some time before we know what really happened and whether all of the killings were justified, or just some of them, or maybe none of them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I understand why folks might be skeptical of the claims made by either side, Chip.

                The facts that do not seem to be in dispute are these:

                1. Four hostages were rescued
                2. More than 90 Palestinians were killed in the rescue attemptReport

              • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The IDF has argued that the 90 Palestinians who died were Hamas soldiers and that the world is falling for Hamas lies. I am very inclined to believe the IDF in this matter. That so many intelligent people take the lies of such a ridiculous and evil organization as Hamas does not speak well of them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s pointed out that there is no evidence that Abdallah Aljamal was holding captives (apart from reports from the IDF). “He was in a neighboring apartment”, the argument goes.

                Which seems to acknowledge that hostages were being kept in a civilian building, at the very least.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The goal is to rescue the remaining hostages while making sure that Hamas learns a lesson they will never forget even if we can’t destroy them. No Jew should have to endure even the most minor symbolic form of inferiority to Islam ever again in the entire world even if it means nothing in practice.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                No Jew should have to endure even the most minor symbolic form of inferiority to Islam ever again in the entire world even if it means nothing in practice.

                The problem, as I understand it, is that Gazans are under the impression that they are constantly being put through Second Class Citizenship which is a fairly de facto form of inferiority to Judaism.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Israel left Gaza in 2005 and the Gazans are upset that it really isn’t a true end to the occupation because Israel won’t let them attack Jews willy-nilly.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                There’s also $#!+ like this, though (warning: PDF). They don’t have local sovereignty.

                And me saying “they should be allowed to import fruit preserves or coriander” is not the same thing as me saying “they should be allowed to import bombs”.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                This might be because I’m a Jew, Chip but I find a that Jaybird’s essential post to be correct. Many Pro-Palestinian activists in the West believe that Israel’s ability to do greater harm on Hamas is basically unfair and that the just solution would be for Israel and Jews to just leave the hostages for the dead. You find something intriguing in these tweets but it just leaves me very cold. It is saying that we Jews must eternally sacrifice our own lives and the lives of other Jews for the greater good.

                These people are fundamentally disgusting. They wail and wail and wail about the Palestinians but have no answer for what Israelis or Jews should do in the face of Hamas, Iran, and all the anti-Semites with blood raised fists. They put the entire burden on the Jewish people to reach out to the Palestinians and all of Islam to make peace even if it means that we Jews must destroy everything we built and must die in large numbers. The burden on Islam to reach out to the Jews. None, nothing. They don’t have to bend, break, concede, crack, twist, turn, or yield at all. They get to remain in defiance and demand forever. But Jews have to do this and Jews have to do that while neglecting our needs as people. We are denied time, space, and money while the activists will give everything to the Palestinians as a group and nothing to the Jews at all.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                My criticism of the Israeli government doesn’t make the actions of Hamas or even their long term goals legitimate.

                The conflict is fundamentally a political problem- “How can these two groups of people coexist in peace?”

                And right now neither side is floating any sort of vision of what that might look like and in fact it’s not clear that there is any desire for it.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                That might be your take but most other critics of Israel have decided that only Israel/Jews have agency. From what I’ve seen, the attitude is “Fish Israel” and to treat Jews as a group without communal existence and a not real people. Just places Jews in the white column and leave it at that. Don’t even get me into the inanity of the anti-Zionist Jews at the moment.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                From what I can tell, the Pro-Palestinian activists in the West just really don’t get Jewish identity. They have this world view of everything boils down to white vs. non-white and since Jews are wealthy and rich, they fall into the white column rather than the people with a true culture column. So they really don’t understand anything about Jews at all and Israeli Jews in particular. This is really just incredibly infuriating.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                Let’s steelman it for just a second.

                The argument isn’t reducable to “Jews == White”.

                It’s reducable to “Jews are *ACTING* White”, specifically, treating Palestinians the way that Whites treated Blacks during Jim Crow.

                You can see examples of this when the IDF does obvious “put them in their place” acts like burning books or smashing tea cups or shredding a fancy dress or négligée.

                And then you see some dumb shit that makes you say “yeah… maybe steelmanning is giving too much credit…”

                Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Or this:

                Yes. Let us please imagine the condemnations if Hamas committed a bloody massacre of Israelis.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Steelmaning Pro-Palestinian activists is really giving them too much credit. To them this conflict is just really very simple the Jews are the evil white settler-colonialists, never mind a lot of facts to the contrary, and the Palestinians are the good indigenous people of color, never mind that without any identifying attributes most people would not be able to tell a Palestinian from an Israeli and other things. Therefore, everything the Palestinians do is just and Jews should have no problems turning all cultural, educational, and governmental organizations over to the Palestinians.

                There is a hatred of all forms of Jewish culture and identity. The Western Left essentially sees us as cosplayers intruding on the the position of genuine persecuted people or the interesting cultures that they care about.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                You know what might help?

                Not burning books, smashing tea cups, and shredding intimate clothing.

                Only silly utilitarians will have a problem with people dying during a hostage rescue.

                Most people will have a problem with a deliberate attempt to put Second Class Citizens back in their place.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                There are a lot of “silly utilitarians” out there.

                There is also a non-barking dog here. I don’t hear anyone condemning Hamas for locating the hostages in a civilian area.

                As far as I can tell, Israel had a military operation to get hostages back and the situation escalated to the point where heavy weapons were used.

                If we’re going to say that’s unacceptable then we’re saying… what?

                That the raid shouldn’t have happened?Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                To be fair to the French, their government treats all religions with the same contempt. Which isn’t the worst thing in the world for a secular government to do.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I still think that the Further Left’s ideal solution to the Jewish problem is basically the French Revolution solution of “to the Jews as individuals everything, to the Jews of nation as nothing.” That is Jews are to be given the basic citizenship right package but recognizing the Jews as a group with culture and identity of our own is a no go.

                This is basically a version of “I don’t see color” for Jews and the Left should know how much “I don’t see color” works out. My guess is they figure that there are not that many of us and having Jews exist as widespread, small, and insular communities is the best solution. We won’t be persecuted but we won’t really be part of the mainstream either and if we feel alienated from where ever we live, so what? Who cares about 1% or less of the population.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            What they’re really just saying here is that killings by the Palestinians of Israelis, “including many children”, are justified by the larger goal.

            That’s the wrong question.

            The question should be, whose fault is it that those people died?

            This quickly becomes, “did Israel deliberately kill civilians?”

            My read on what happened is:
            1) Israel found out there were 4 hostages in two buildings and decided to go get them.
            2) The raid almost went pear shaped. They got the hostages before Hamas could kill them, but there were enough militants in the area that the teams came under serious fire.
            3) The teams called down heavy fire to cover their escape.

            If Israel didn’t deliberately target civilians, then ethically we’re stuck with it being the fault of Hamas for locating the hostages in the middle of a camp of civilians.

            If it’s Israel’s fault, then we’re proclaiming that Hamas has the right to take hostages and use human shields to protect their militants. This is rewarding what should be punished.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          They are also incredibly shocked that Jews aren’t really impressed with the idea that we should die so that others could live.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s like they have absolutely no theory of mind whatsoever.

          Most normies don’t Jay. And IF they do, they don’t call it that.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The more I read tweets like this the more outraged I get. The International Caring community is just really anti-Jewish. They expect us to support them because of our history but at the same time treat Jewish life is cheap. They don’t see Jewish efforts to preserve our culture as a minority seeking to save it’s identity under siege but wypipo doing wypipo things but for the groups they care about said acts are part of the great song of human liberation. I’m pretty sure that if there were Palestinians held hostage by Israelis and four Palestinians were released at the expense of hundreds of Jewish lives, they would say it is worth it.Report

  18. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Additional context for San Francisco:

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *