Heh, sure, so he says he could be persuaded for 16weeks including Rape/Incest/Health exceptions... maaaaaybe 15 weeks... 'The Base' goes wild for 15 week NATIONAL BAN on 0% abortions.
It's the scenario I pointed out years ago... Team Red enacts 15 week 'Eurpoean like' *ban* and claims victory while Team Blue wails and gashes teeth at total victory while claiming Handmaid's tale defeat.
*The Base is always those voters whose support our need to make our point.
I put my sales cap on and thought, if I had to sell a turd like RFK2 in NY, I'd probably do it like that. Basically anti-Biden at all costs for left/right ... where it 'resonates' is that for an NY Republican, voting for a guy who (theoretically) might get a plurality of disaffected Blue votes? Good gambit.
Then I thought, what if I were in a Red state and I said to the crowd, 'there are no Trump voters here, right?' (basically anti-Trump at all costs) and made a pitch to Dem voters to not 'waste' their vote on Biden but to vote RFK2 who (theoretically) might get a plurality of disaffected Red votes? Same pitch, deny Trump a path to 270 -- but you have to drop the Congress picks a winner kicker. Or, as BB says above, you cobble together some sort of story about winning NY and NC (and others) that RFK becomes the 'consensus' candidate.
Sure, it's all a little preposterous... but all third party bids in a FPTP duopoly are a little preposterous.
"Problem 1 is that the quality of the data out there is inconsistent, often really bad, and the cost of cleaning it is so high no one wants to do it. It may not even be cost effective, certainly not in the short term. The quality of the input severely limits the quality of the output, no matter how much information you put in or how fast you do it."
I am front row to seeing if this next wave of software/ai/compute will work -- it might, actually. Natural Language processing and data quality are merging and emerging via ai and gpu's. It's 'working' in poc's.
Yes, that's the thing about the Israeli/Palestinian thing... very puzzling and perplexing and neither side ever does what we can see is clearly in their best interests.
Sure, something's a little different post-covid. I'm just not sure what it is yet. Have we returned to 'normal' or is there no 'normal' for us to ask about even?
Well, not nothing... Price was suspended, resigned, and moved to Hong Kong in 2017. The 'story' is that in 2024 he could publish his professional observations in a field he's been working in for 30+ years. Without the entire newsroom at the NYT melting down.
It's something; I'm just not sure it's dispositive of anything, yet. I want to believe.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think Israel is a client (anymore)... at least not in the way you're implying... that's a big error if part of our calculations.
I also think reflexively targeting Netanyahu as somehow a focal point of bad policy vis-a-vis the war is also a mistake... there's no Israeli 'peace party' and I don't think Israel is amenable to the 'hints' being dropped with or without Netanyahu.
But if Biden wants to go full discipline on the 'rogue client' Israel in an election year? Well, there will be much else about which to be puzzled and perplexed.
Just as I started reading I started to ask myself about Twitter's role and was not surprised to see him talk about it:
"You can certainly say that the Elon Musk takeover of Twitter played a major role in this lack of outrage. Following his acquisition of the network, many journos and other assorted liberals left; more, Musk’s draconian throttling of links from disfavored publications (like the Times), and later all external links, made “X” a terrible place to react to a published piece. And the ongoing and terrible collapse of media’s financial model has certainly put a damper on the ingroup social signaling that drove so much of the ceaseless screaming."
Alas, I have to hope that somewhere over on Bluesky there's an old fashioned storm...
As for the rest of the article, I was a little underwhelmed... I'm not entirely sure what we're taking away from the Roy Price episode compared to other episodes that still rage. Reminds me a little bit of how civil war combat veterans would describe battle as having 'seen the elephant' in reference to the odd ebb and distant flow until the beast was suddenly and terrifyingly fully upon you. I'm not sure the elephant is dead.
The White House on Monday said it was puzzled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to cancel a delegation meeting in Washington after the U.S. abstained from a U.N. Security Council vote calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.
“We’re kind of perplexed by this,” national security communications adviser John Kirby said when asked for President Biden’s reaction to the decision.
Thanks... yes subsidiarity (my preferred term) or which law supercedes is baseline here... which is why I think some of the breathless takes that TX can't pass 'any' law with regards to migrants who by statute 'illegally' cross the border is missing the fact that if properly constructed a TX (or CA or MN) law would be ordinary subsidiary laws dealing with illegal border crossings -- in line with or subsidiary to Federal laws.
Admitted that there might be some grey areas of what exactly happens after arrest and incarceration... but that's mostly bluff calling on the Feds. I'm sure the Feds could assert authority to remove/deport or take custody of any migrants who cross illegally -- but they already lack the facilities and ability to do so.
My gut tells me that it's more likely that TX is overreaching SB4, but subsequent iterations will depend on how SCOTUS comments on what part of the law was overreach and why.
If I'm reading the issue with Administrative Injunction correctly, proper Court speak might be that Texas can't not be stopped from enforcing SB4, but that it might could be stopped if the lower court had ruled on the facts rather than punting directly to SCOTUS?
Like, I'm not really seeing any tea leaves on how they will rule once the lower court does what it should do and issue a ruling.
On the theoretical plain I could see TX prevailing if the facts are close to this:
SB4 takes what is illegal by Federal Statute and enforces those laws in principle within their jurisdiction... this is actually appropriate as the Federal Govt cant 'commandeer' the local law enforcement to enforce Federal laws.
If you compare to Drug/MJ enforcement, we see a similar matter where Federal laws on Drugs are a superset of state laws on Drugs and different states have different laws while (until recently) adhering to the general principal that an illegal substance on Federal Schedules is illegal in the States. In this scenario, the States are legitimate actors in policing Drug Activity within their jurisdictions in ways that ought to align with Federal statutes. (well, in theory, once upon a time).
On the theoretical plain I could see TX losing if the facts are close to this:
SB4 runs contrary to Federal immigration laws (not as to enforcement/specifics) but because they exceed their policy making authority with regards some aspect of immigration. Specifically, the brief highlights that Asylum policy - as it stands today - might not be respected by SB4.
In which case, these illegals (term in the brief) are not illegal, but rather pre-hearing Asylum seekers. Now, TX might argue that the law states that Asylum seekers must present themselves to approved points of entry and an EO stating otherwise isn't the same as a statute that they (the State) need to abide by, even if Border Patrol *does* have the authority to vette Asylum requests outside of approved entry points (if I'm recalling the current arrangement correctly) -- and therefore they can arrest any illegals who haven't surrendered to Border Patrol for Asylum as something they couldn't adjudicate otherwise; arguing in effect that migrants seeking Asylum should do so as prescribed by law.
But, in any case... that's the sort of scenario where I could see the Court saying that TX cannot have an immigration policy that is different from the US and therefore SB4 as written is unconstitutional.
The political problem as I see it, is that while the Asylum Policy argument might be good for knocking down SB4, it highlights the growing awareness that Asylum Policy as a whole is borked. So a partial win until SB4 is recalibrated to account for Asylum at the expense of highlighting even further that Asylum Policy is being abused.
Most legacies can get in to GMU without needing any legacy help... but by the time you're competing for a slot at Harvard -- even if you are a reasonably bright legacy -- you leverage whatever boxes you can tick to edge out those 1st generation posers.
Virginia has rather a few Top Tier State Schools schools that folks forget about: UVA, William & Mary, and VA Tech are National top 75... Then George Mason, JMU and VCU for next 100 national rankings. There's really something for everyone at some VA state funded school. Not just THE U or some such for other states.
There should be a distinction between Private and Public universities.
Private Uni's won't eliminate Legacies for precisely the reasons you mention: The Legacies *are* the reason... plus fundraising.
But Public Uni's shouldn't have legacies as they shouldn't have stakeholders who cultivate legacy exclusivities.
...of course fundraising off the promise of a special consideration? Tempting even for State sponsored schools. Then again, the legacy checkbox for a Virginia school is a box oft ticked in Virginia -- so not all that compelling of a list.
MattY has been begging Democrats to listen to him.
His Neo-Liberal (self avowed!) takes are fine for what they are... he's less than useful, however, for navigating a new economic liberalism that isn't just 'the things I like best about Neo-Liberalism without dealing with the things we don't like about Neo-Liberalism'
So I read him for he rearguard defense, not for his foresight.
Yes, my fundamental point is stated in my original post which is that it forces Team Blue into economic takes that are political losers. Trying to salvage 'Chinese investment in Mexico to compete in the US is better because ... think of the racism' is the irrelevant part.
Basically I'm begging Team Blue in their attempt to persuade people to vote for their candidate to not be stupid.
Good question... If I were a reporter I'd be asking if we're expecting a transformative Chinese car to enter the market. We might want to lean on China to build those cars in the US and not Mexico...
Additionally, the maladroit handling of this puts Bidenomics and Team Blue in the rhetorical position of defending China building factories in Mexico instead of the US a'la the Japanese trade wars that had the actual outcome of factories in the US. They could, I suppose, tripple down on NAFTA 2.0 -- but the irony is all of these things are political losers. But I'm pretty sure MattY would be happy to write a piece why NAFTA 2.0 would be good actually, so you'd get that as a win.
On the other hand... which Chinese Car make are you considering buying in 2024 that would savage the US auto industry?
Depends what we mean by out of the woods. I don't think states have the power to imprison the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
I don't think presidents (ex or current) have anything like total immunity, but any judgements would sit in abeyance until after his term (if elected).
A Federal crime, like Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator? Hard to say how the constitutional powers would be inveigled against themselves. Probably the basis for the prudential wisdom of the 1973 DOJ to opine that it would be policy not to indict a sitting president. Which, ironically, would bring us full circle to the correct course of action... impeachment for inciting a riot against another branch of government.
On “Open Mic for the week of 4/8/2024”
Heh, sure, so he says he could be persuaded for 16weeks including Rape/Incest/Health exceptions... maaaaaybe 15 weeks... 'The Base' goes wild for 15 week NATIONAL BAN on 0% abortions.
It's the scenario I pointed out years ago... Team Red enacts 15 week 'Eurpoean like' *ban* and claims victory while Team Blue wails and gashes teeth at total victory while claiming Handmaid's tale defeat.
*The Base is always those voters whose support our need to make our point.
"
I put my sales cap on and thought, if I had to sell a turd like RFK2 in NY, I'd probably do it like that. Basically anti-Biden at all costs for left/right ... where it 'resonates' is that for an NY Republican, voting for a guy who (theoretically) might get a plurality of disaffected Blue votes? Good gambit.
Then I thought, what if I were in a Red state and I said to the crowd, 'there are no Trump voters here, right?' (basically anti-Trump at all costs) and made a pitch to Dem voters to not 'waste' their vote on Biden but to vote RFK2 who (theoretically) might get a plurality of disaffected Red votes? Same pitch, deny Trump a path to 270 -- but you have to drop the Congress picks a winner kicker. Or, as BB says above, you cobble together some sort of story about winning NY and NC (and others) that RFK becomes the 'consensus' candidate.
Sure, it's all a little preposterous... but all third party bids in a FPTP duopoly are a little preposterous.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024”
"Problem 1 is that the quality of the data out there is inconsistent, often really bad, and the cost of cleaning it is so high no one wants to do it. It may not even be cost effective, certainly not in the short term. The quality of the input severely limits the quality of the output, no matter how much information you put in or how fast you do it."
I am front row to seeing if this next wave of software/ai/compute will work -- it might, actually. Natural Language processing and data quality are merging and emerging via ai and gpu's. It's 'working' in poc's.
Probably just 10-years away...
On “Terror In Moscow Exposes Putin’s Weakness”
Nothing says the Fella is finished like a Pella!
"
International bank or something... like Pella Windows.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024”
Yes, that's the thing about the Israeli/Palestinian thing... very puzzling and perplexing and neither side ever does what we can see is clearly in their best interests.
"
I think eyes were opened, yes.
But then I would, having defected from Public Education way back in 1999.
Then again, I think peak lesson learning was the Youngkin election in 2021... we're back to making sure that the child-care must flow.
"
Your mother must be very wise. And a good shot.
"
Sure, something's a little different post-covid. I'm just not sure what it is yet. Have we returned to 'normal' or is there no 'normal' for us to ask about even?
"
Well, not nothing... Price was suspended, resigned, and moved to Hong Kong in 2017. The 'story' is that in 2024 he could publish his professional observations in a field he's been working in for 30+ years. Without the entire newsroom at the NYT melting down.
It's something; I'm just not sure it's dispositive of anything, yet. I want to believe.
"
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think Israel is a client (anymore)... at least not in the way you're implying... that's a big error if part of our calculations.
I also think reflexively targeting Netanyahu as somehow a focal point of bad policy vis-a-vis the war is also a mistake... there's no Israeli 'peace party' and I don't think Israel is amenable to the 'hints' being dropped with or without Netanyahu.
But if Biden wants to go full discipline on the 'rogue client' Israel in an election year? Well, there will be much else about which to be puzzled and perplexed.
"
Sure. I'm chuckling over the puzzled and perplexed part.
But, say what you will about the Russians and Chinese, at least they always knew how to use the veto for allies.
"
Just as I started reading I started to ask myself about Twitter's role and was not surprised to see him talk about it:
"You can certainly say that the Elon Musk takeover of Twitter played a major role in this lack of outrage. Following his acquisition of the network, many journos and other assorted liberals left; more, Musk’s draconian throttling of links from disfavored publications (like the Times), and later all external links, made “X” a terrible place to react to a published piece. And the ongoing and terrible collapse of media’s financial model has certainly put a damper on the ingroup social signaling that drove so much of the ceaseless screaming."
Alas, I have to hope that somewhere over on Bluesky there's an old fashioned storm...
As for the rest of the article, I was a little underwhelmed... I'm not entirely sure what we're taking away from the Roy Price episode compared to other episodes that still rage. Reminds me a little bit of how civil war combat veterans would describe battle as having 'seen the elephant' in reference to the odd ebb and distant flow until the beast was suddenly and terrifyingly fully upon you. I'm not sure the elephant is dead.
"
Heh, "puzzled" and "perplexed" the White House is.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4554624-white-house-netanyahu-delegation-dc/
The White House on Monday said it was puzzled by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to cancel a delegation meeting in Washington after the U.S. abstained from a U.N. Security Council vote calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.
“We’re kind of perplexed by this,” national security communications adviser John Kirby said when asked for President Biden’s reaction to the decision.
On “SCOTUS Allows Texas SB4 Immigration Enforcement: Read It For Yourself”
Thanks... yes subsidiarity (my preferred term) or which law supercedes is baseline here... which is why I think some of the breathless takes that TX can't pass 'any' law with regards to migrants who by statute 'illegally' cross the border is missing the fact that if properly constructed a TX (or CA or MN) law would be ordinary subsidiary laws dealing with illegal border crossings -- in line with or subsidiary to Federal laws.
Admitted that there might be some grey areas of what exactly happens after arrest and incarceration... but that's mostly bluff calling on the Feds. I'm sure the Feds could assert authority to remove/deport or take custody of any migrants who cross illegally -- but they already lack the facilities and ability to do so.
My gut tells me that it's more likely that TX is overreaching SB4, but subsequent iterations will depend on how SCOTUS comments on what part of the law was overreach and why.
"
If I'm reading the issue with Administrative Injunction correctly, proper Court speak might be that Texas can't not be stopped from enforcing SB4, but that it might could be stopped if the lower court had ruled on the facts rather than punting directly to SCOTUS?
Like, I'm not really seeing any tea leaves on how they will rule once the lower court does what it should do and issue a ruling.
On the theoretical plain I could see TX prevailing if the facts are close to this:
SB4 takes what is illegal by Federal Statute and enforces those laws in principle within their jurisdiction... this is actually appropriate as the Federal Govt cant 'commandeer' the local law enforcement to enforce Federal laws.
If you compare to Drug/MJ enforcement, we see a similar matter where Federal laws on Drugs are a superset of state laws on Drugs and different states have different laws while (until recently) adhering to the general principal that an illegal substance on Federal Schedules is illegal in the States. In this scenario, the States are legitimate actors in policing Drug Activity within their jurisdictions in ways that ought to align with Federal statutes. (well, in theory, once upon a time).
On the theoretical plain I could see TX losing if the facts are close to this:
SB4 runs contrary to Federal immigration laws (not as to enforcement/specifics) but because they exceed their policy making authority with regards some aspect of immigration. Specifically, the brief highlights that Asylum policy - as it stands today - might not be respected by SB4.
In which case, these illegals (term in the brief) are not illegal, but rather pre-hearing Asylum seekers. Now, TX might argue that the law states that Asylum seekers must present themselves to approved points of entry and an EO stating otherwise isn't the same as a statute that they (the State) need to abide by, even if Border Patrol *does* have the authority to vette Asylum requests outside of approved entry points (if I'm recalling the current arrangement correctly) -- and therefore they can arrest any illegals who haven't surrendered to Border Patrol for Asylum as something they couldn't adjudicate otherwise; arguing in effect that migrants seeking Asylum should do so as prescribed by law.
But, in any case... that's the sort of scenario where I could see the Court saying that TX cannot have an immigration policy that is different from the US and therefore SB4 as written is unconstitutional.
The political problem as I see it, is that while the Asylum Policy argument might be good for knocking down SB4, it highlights the growing awareness that Asylum Policy as a whole is borked. So a partial win until SB4 is recalibrated to account for Asylum at the expense of highlighting even further that Asylum Policy is being abused.
On “From NBC News: Virginia bans public universities from considering legacy in admissions”
It depends on the acceptance rate, doesn't it?
George Mason = 81%
UVA = 20%
Harvard = 5%
Most legacies can get in to GMU without needing any legacy help... but by the time you're competing for a slot at Harvard -- even if you are a reasonably bright legacy -- you leverage whatever boxes you can tick to edge out those 1st generation posers.
"
Virginia has rather a few Top Tier State Schools schools that folks forget about: UVA, William & Mary, and VA Tech are National top 75... Then George Mason, JMU and VCU for next 100 national rankings. There's really something for everyone at some VA state funded school. Not just THE U or some such for other states.
"
There should be a distinction between Private and Public universities.
Private Uni's won't eliminate Legacies for precisely the reasons you mention: The Legacies *are* the reason... plus fundraising.
But Public Uni's shouldn't have legacies as they shouldn't have stakeholders who cultivate legacy exclusivities.
...of course fundraising off the promise of a special consideration? Tempting even for State sponsored schools. Then again, the legacy checkbox for a Virginia school is a box oft ticked in Virginia -- so not all that compelling of a list.
On “A Literal Bloodbath?”
MattY has been begging Democrats to listen to him.
His Neo-Liberal (self avowed!) takes are fine for what they are... he's less than useful, however, for navigating a new economic liberalism that isn't just 'the things I like best about Neo-Liberalism without dealing with the things we don't like about Neo-Liberalism'
So I read him for he rearguard defense, not for his foresight.
"
Yes, my fundamental point is stated in my original post which is that it forces Team Blue into economic takes that are political losers. Trying to salvage 'Chinese investment in Mexico to compete in the US is better because ... think of the racism' is the irrelevant part.
Basically I'm begging Team Blue in their attempt to persuade people to vote for their candidate to not be stupid.
"
Sure, but in 2024 they are called Republican voters.
"
Good question... If I were a reporter I'd be asking if we're expecting a transformative Chinese car to enter the market. We might want to lean on China to build those cars in the US and not Mexico...
"
I agree.
Additionally, the maladroit handling of this puts Bidenomics and Team Blue in the rhetorical position of defending China building factories in Mexico instead of the US a'la the Japanese trade wars that had the actual outcome of factories in the US. They could, I suppose, tripple down on NAFTA 2.0 -- but the irony is all of these things are political losers. But I'm pretty sure MattY would be happy to write a piece why NAFTA 2.0 would be good actually, so you'd get that as a win.
On the other hand... which Chinese Car make are you considering buying in 2024 that would savage the US auto industry?
On “Fani Willis Survives, But Not Unscathed”
Depends what we mean by out of the woods. I don't think states have the power to imprison the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
I don't think presidents (ex or current) have anything like total immunity, but any judgements would sit in abeyance until after his term (if elected).
A Federal crime, like Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator? Hard to say how the constitutional powers would be inveigled against themselves. Probably the basis for the prudential wisdom of the 1973 DOJ to opine that it would be policy not to indict a sitting president. Which, ironically, would bring us full circle to the correct course of action... impeachment for inciting a riot against another branch of government.