A grim read and zero comfort to people who have been displaced, but Mike Davis's Ecology of Fear from the dark ages of 1998 predicted exactly this and offers good insight into how fuel to power these fires accumulates and how the pressure of land development wins out over knowledgeable stewardship of the land.

Thank goodness we won't have to build a wall to Greenland now!

I tried tuning out for a while back in 2015. Here were my thoughts at the conclusion of the experiment.

They make me sad to re-read today, but not because of the experiment itself, but rather because that post is just saturated with previous life circumstances that within fifteen months of the writing of that post were all gone, and the truth is I've not stopped mourning them even now. This is probably not good for my mental health. But for you all, my thoughts on finding happiness (and some of the resulting discussion) may well be worthwhile re-reading, whether you participated in that discussion or not.

"May you have the future you deserve" strikes me as about as likely to be a curse as it might be a benediction.

This was a lot of fun to read!

"[1937] is, by the way, the most recent time the Giants made the postseason in two years in a row." is a bit of trivia that made my eyebrows arch. It feels like the Dusty Baker/Barry Bonds era Giants should have got at least one trophy, should have been perennial postseason threats. And the 2010's Giants had quite a lot of swagger too.

Well, who knows what the future shall bring!

Yes, in sobriety, some of these folks access mental health care, when they are able to, in a building kitty-corner from my office downtown. Offering them shelter is not going to do any good; they'll refuse it because there are other, serious mental health issues that need to get solved before they can even begin to think about trusting someone who seems like an authority figure.

But not everyone is such a "hard case." Many of the unhoused folks that I've interacted with are caught in a triad of substance addiction, lack of economic opportunity, and criminal record. Those are folks that, if they can get indoors, can start to put together solutions for these problems. And they don't become instantly prosperous, just like they don't instantly overcome their addiction problems. But being indoors does give them a chance to escape chaos and physical risk on the street, a chance to do something with their few possessions and reach out to get other aid that's on offer like job coaching and addiction treatment. They have to want to start living a "straight" life, and addiction is pernicious. But there are plenty of success stories, and they usually start with getting someone indoors and then tackling other issues.

No, I don't have an easy answer for people with profound mental health issues. I don't think there are many answers, easy or not, for those poor souls.

I have never had a Billy Beer; people who have had it have given it rave reviews like "well, it was a novelty," and "nothing special." Good on Jimmy for seeing past his fuckup brother's mediocre brew and realizing that maybe some other folks could make good stuff.

Perhaps the example you're looking for is Iceland.

Whew. Thank goodness my priors are affirmed! Let's call the whole thing off, the project is hopeless and doomed if it can't succeed 100% under budget within a year.

Chris. Chris!

Are you saying that when we have unhoused people, we should ... house them?

It CAN'T be that simple! Come on.

He didn't PARDON these people. He commuted their death sentences to life sentences. Have you enjoyed the accommodations in Federal prison lately? These folks will now get that, until the unconstitutionally shitty medical care there kills them.

Have had episodes like you describe too. It's nothing you need to apologize for. The muse will sing for you one day again, and when she does, enjoy her song.

What you say is true but my goodness you don't suppose that some boosters of the Saudi bid might have used corruption or bribery on the FIFA officials who c

Sorry, I couldn't finish that paragraph because I was laughing too hard.

No good will come of this, mark my words.

I'd love to go back for a second trip too. My thought was to go in the summertime, though, and maybe NOT get sulfuric steam condensing into ice in my beard, as charming as the experience is.

"We do not suggest that the President could not have chosen to condition Lorance’s pardon on a confession of guilt, only that he chose not to do so here, instead granting a pardon that did not purport to address Lorance’s innocence or guilt. We reject the district court’s suggestion that every presidential pardon constitutes a legal confession of guilt unless expressly grounded on a presidential finding of innocence. Although acceptance of a pardon may imply a public perception of guilt, it does not have the legal effect of doing so where the pardon is not expressly conditioned on such a confession. "

Seems clear enough to me: my initial recollection was incorrect and the acceptance of a pardon does not confess guilt. At least not in the Tenth Circuit.

IIRC, accepting the pardon is admitting guilt, no?

Some interesting remarks in that thread about a potential pardon for Hunter Biden. Just sayin'.

Seems like a great thing to let develop before we do a lot of commenting on it. But I do think that when ordinary people respond immediately and forcefully to reject a declaration of martial law, that's pretty admirable.

Do you disagree with the point that we're probably talking about a lot of low-engagement, low-information voters, though? Maybe not voters so willfully ignorant they had to ask, en masse, if Biden had even dropped out by election day, but still pretty low-information?

My dude, we're both lawyers who deal with individuals. We've both heard people tell stories that reflect the remarkable degree of physical flexibility necessary to put one's own head THERE.

An interesting exercise from Eugene Volokh: a 1% popular vote swing would have produced a Harris win along the "Blue Wall" path, and a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, and the Senate would be 52-48 rather than its projected 53-47. Make it a 1.1% swing and Harris would have kept Georgia in the Democrats' column. Bear in mind, all that Professor Volokh is doing here is playing with numbers.

There's a couple of really basic things to say about that observation. First, of course, is that yeah that suggests this was actually a pretty close election and very much not a landslide for Trump. Second is that those political consultants who may well be trying to salvage their reputations after losing what seemed like a very winnable election maybe ought to be including this fact as part of their pitch -- but then again, their raison d'etre is to make that 1% flip actually happen, and it didn't. Third is that Trump makes everything different, which I take as a matter of faith to be true even though there's no way of proving or disproving it.

Seems to me that Harris & Co. did damn near everything right from the moment she got the football, but this was the result anyway. Had she chosen Josh Shapiro instead of Tim Walz? I don't see that making a difference. Had she found "X" issue to more forcefully distinguish herself from Biden? Probably not. Had she gone on Joe Rogan? I'm inclined to think she'd have got about the same result.

And the reason is the factoid that that Lee just cited. And another one I saw this morning -- "casual" voters, by definition the low-information, low-engagement folks -- broke for Trump by enough to carry him over the top. If you didn't know that Biden had dropped out and Harris was the candidate on Election Day that feels to all of us like indifference to politics elevated to the level of a ludicrous superpower. But those people seem to actually vote, and in a very closely-divided electoral scenario, yeah, that could be decisive, or perhaps more accurately, that could be a substantial part of what was decisive.

Where are you hearing "Trump is too much like Harris"? I have not heard that.

Second Trump Administration = America's FAFO years. We got to coast from 2017-2021 because our institutions were strong, at least to start with. Here's hoping they haven't been eroded too much since then.

I dunno; Republicans seem to have no trouble with cognitive dissonance.

No, strike that.

VOTERS seem to have no trouble with cognitive dissonance. The issue is Republicans are able to capitalize on that fact while Democrats aren't.