MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
I think people with androgynous physiognomy wearing female-coded clothing (such as Sarah McBride, or indeed Nancy Mace as Twitter trolls took considerable delight in pointing out) used to be able to walk into a woman's bathroom and pee in peace. Most of these people were and are cis women, and they shouldn't have to get their ladyparts out to prove eligibility before they go into a stall.
Bad actors using the wrong bathroom for nefarious reasons is a problem we have, empirically, managed to solve without bathroom laws for about a century. Assaults by strangers in public bathrooms are not exactly a common form of sex crime. It isn't worth creating a new problem of Karens harassing manjawed cis women in order to fix it.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
"Littlepeople shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of their Randian overlords" seems to be both a core driver of Musk's politics and a conventional aspect of right-wingery.
Musk is right-wing, and he is eccentric, but the way he is right-wing is entirely conventional. On economic issues he is anti-spending, anti-regulation, and anti-union. On social issues, the views he expresses on X are whatever the right-wing version of the current thing is (even if it is obvious bullshit).
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
I'm happy to believe that a court interpreted the document @hydroacetylene linked to to mean other than what it says, but I'm not wrong about words on a page. You can check by clicking the link.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
Conservative Republicans want to cut Medicaid and ACA subsidies. They haven't said where or how much by, but they're in government now and are going to have to start making decisions. I acknowledge that both GOPe and MAGA republicans like to talk a good game about cutting spending and not do it, but if you take the right seriously about their spending plans then ACA subsidies are on the way out and Medicaid is going to see deep cuts in order to protect Social Security, Medicare and military spending.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
It's much safer to transport a pregnant woman across state lines than it is to lose your medical licence. (Which the State can take without the inconvenience of a jury trial). If you are trying to #resist, it's also more theatrical (providing the State isn't stupid enough to press criminal charges and attract the publicity associated with said trial). So people are doing that rather than fighting abortion bans.
If red states actually try to enforce laws against travelling to get an out-of-state abortion, then the shit is going to hit the fan in way which is unlikely to end up well for the pro-life movement, so they don't.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
At least from reading the supreme court opinion, that is not the impression I got. Of course, most doctors won't read the opinion. Instead, they'll get their information from rags like ProPublica so you might well be right.
The doctors in this case got their information from the Texas attorney general, who publicly threatened to prosecute them if the lower-court order allowing them to perform the abortion didn't hold up on appeal (as, in the end, it didn't).
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
That's because the Texas authorities specifically intended (based on both the text of the law and Paxton's jawboning in the Cox case) to make women carry non-viable fetuses until medical confirmation of fetal death - or to term, for non-viable fetuses which don't die until cut off from the placenta.
The issue in the Cox case is that Texas Republicans want Cox to go through several months of pregnancy, an unnecessary C-section, and six figures of medical bills (which Texas Republicans think she should not get help with, because the government fucking you in the ass is just life, but the government taxing me to pay for the lube when it fucks you in the ass is socialism) in order to achieve the spiritual benefits of watching a baby die in an incubator instead of aborting it. SCOTUS in Dobbs correctly ruled that this is within the powers of the State of Texas, but it didn't rule that it was a good idea.
This isn't even a case where rare corner case is acceptable collateral damage in order to prevent the large number of elective abortions. Paxton's intervention was widely praised by the pro-life movement because this is a type of case they care about. (Obviously not enough to support parents of severely disabled children who would be eugenically aborted if that was legal, because socialism again, but enough to ruin lives because it's for the children works on both sides of the aisle).
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
It is worth noting that under these standards the loss of a limb does not constitute a medical emergency. The definition of "abortion" is strict so doctors who X-ray a pregnant woman with a broken leg are safe despite the risk to the fetus, but I can see why this sort of thing does not engender trust between the medical profession and the Texas authorities. [With this definition of "medical emergency" and fetuses entitled to 14th amendment protection as people, it arguably would be illegal to X-ray a woman with a broken leg because it irradiates a nonconsenting fetus, although I suppose the father could consent on behalf of the fetus]
There is also an interesting bit of drafting, in that the list of "major bodily functions" in section 4 is arguably surplusage, because section 3 says that only life-threatening conditions can count. A cynic would say that section 4 is designed to make the exception look broader than it is. There are definitely pregnancy complications which are not life-threatening but are sufficiently dangerous to the bodily functions listed in section 4 that a doctor could be obliged (by the usual canons of medical ethics, and EMTALA) to perform an abortion that Texas law prohibits.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
England would stick with the US and FVEYS would become the new NATO.
In the scenario we are looking at (where NATO breaks up because Trump offers parts of eastern Europe to Russia as a sphere of influence), this is a tough call. Trump and Russia are extremely unpopular in the UK - we just had a general election where the Trumpy party got 14% of the popular vote and 5/650 seats. And that was with the other three medium/large parties proudly supporting Ukraine and Farage shutting up because he knew that even among his target vote being pro-Russia was a loser. Starmer, essentially everyone in his government, and the civilian Establishment/Deep State would all want to choose Europe over a post-NATO MAGA US, and would by default have public support to do this. (There is, unsurprisingly, an even broader consensus that being forced to choose is a disaster and that we should hedge in so far as it is possible).
Under normal circumstances, if Starmer tried to do this he would be foiled by the UK national security Deep State, who are integrated with their US counterparts through arrangements like FVEYS in a way which would be ultra-painful to unwind.* But Trump is appointing a DNI who is sympathetic to Russia with a mandate to purge the US national security Deep State of the kind of people who make FVEYS work. So the UK Deep State has the choice of "Do we stick with our friends and risk being shafted they get purged and Tulsi sends all our secrets to Moscow, or do we throw our hat in with the dastardly Frogs who are at least sane?" And that is a sufficiently close call that "the elected politicians we nominally work for favour Europe" could be a deciding factor.
* Left-wing lore in the UK is that the military has coup plots in place in case a Labour government tries to break the alliance with the US. It isn't clear how plausible this is because the anti-American wing of Labour has never been within sniffing distance of power. Corbyn came closest during the 2017-9 hung Parliament, but part of the reason why Johnson was able to run rings round his opponents was that the Remainer establishment were more committed to preventing a Corbyn government than they were to preventing Brexit - including 20+ members of the Remainer establishment who were Labour MPs.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
It may have been legally compatible with US neutrality law, but that does not mean that it was not a breach of traditional norms surrounding neutrality - it was very obvious to everyone that the US was not a neutral party, and that it was aiding Britain against Germany.
The US was, uncontroversially, legally neutral under international law during the Lend-Lease period - that's why Germany had to declare war after Pearl Harbour - everyone understood that they were not already at war.
This mattered - before Pearl Harbour, U-boats did not operate in US waters. After Pearl Harbour and the declaration of war, they did - the period between Pearl Harbour and the US putting effective anti-submarine defences in place is called the Second Happy Time (happy, that is, for U-boat captains) by military historians.
There is a big difference between an unfriendly country and a country you are actually at war with. There are times when this matters - in the case of the US vs the Soviet Union, it is why we are still alive.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
(and as I understand it the US would be, legally, considered a co-combatant, so this isn't surprising)
Selling arms to a belligerent on normal commercial terms definitely doesn't breach neutrality under international law (although the arms shipments themselves are usually legitimate military targets). Nor does providing them on less-than-commercial terms (such as Lend-Lease in WW2, which was legally compatible with US neutrality). It isn't obvious why giving them away free would change the logic.
Russia has claimed that Ukrainians are unable to use western weapons without a level of in-theatre technical support which would make the supplier a co-belligerent, but I don't believe them.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
6d ago
The issue isn't Texas state courts, it is specific federal judges in the Northern District of Texas, plus the fact that the Northern District of Texas makes it possible for plaintiffs to choose their judge depending on which courthouse in the district they file in.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
7d ago
Are you a measles virus or something? From a human perspective, RFK is visibly malevolent in a very obvious way.
Before he got on the Trump train, RFK devoted a significant part of his activism to discouraging parents from vaccinating their children against measles based on false claims that vaccines cause autism. His activism caused a measles outbreak in Samoa with 83 deaths.
If we measure malevolence by the degree by which the harm-to-victim exceeds the benefit-to-wrongdoer, killing kids for social media klout is the worst.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8d ago
This isn't a troll act. The intersection between people who can be effectively trolled with a troll act of this type and people who I, personally, find worth trolling (or negging, to use the locally correct technical term for the context I would be doing it in) approximately consists of hot feminists, a group you do not appear to belong to.
"Jokes about ugly women being ugly are always unfunny, even when well-executed" is learned polite behaviour, not a valid generalisation over unmodified human senses of humour. I am absolutely serious about this.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8d ago
It is utterly hilarious if you haven't learned to find misogyny unfunny. (Brainwashed liberal elite, father of daughters etc.)
Calling feminists ugly is evergreen humour, and this time the Bee executed well rather than just using it as a low-effort zinger.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
In lefty circles in the UK (and I assume the US is similar) the dogpiles were led by clueless cis allies and tumblrgendered headcases, not by actual trans people living as the opposite gender to their birth sex.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
The burst pipe was media confusion, not lies by the county. There had been a burst pipe in the morning in a different part of the building which delayed the opening of postal votes. The delay in the counting was an administrative screw-up. [As far as I can see, staff opening postal votes who had been working since the morning were allowed to go home at 1030pm. Some staff counting who were supposed to work overnight if necessary also left, and the party poll-watchers left with them, but the SecState office ordered them back to work after a short delay.]
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
The relevant case is State Farm. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that punitive damages are fines regulated by the 8th amendment, with Thomas and Scalia dissenting on textualist grounds, and Ginsberg dissenting because she doesn't like insurance companies who deny claims. With the current batch of conservative justices, it could go the other way if relitigated.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
Child killers don't normally end up in civil court, because suing someone serving a life sentence isn't lucrative. But I assume that juries would be even more likely to award a telephone number against a child killer than they are against someone who runs around defaming grieving mothers.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
Private Eye still matters in the UK. It's relationship with the cathedral is somewhat ambiguous, but is more friendly than hostile.
My impression is that Last Week Tonight is relevant because it is the Schelling point for a certain type of pro-establishment left person to know what the current thing is.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
The justification for this ruling was that unstable people listened to Jones, right? So Jones is culpable. I don't even agree with prosecution under "incitement of imminent lawless action," it goes against our entire philosophy of law.
It wasn't a prosecution, it was a civil case. Jones isn't going to prison, he is just being bankrupted. (This wouldn't matter if lying was a fundamental right, but there are centuries of SCOTUS precedent that lying is only partially protected by the 1st amendment). Jones never denied defamation (unreasonably making a false negative statement about an identifiable person who is not a public figure, or "maliciously" making a false negative statement about an identifiable person who is a public figure), which has been a well-known limited exclusion from the 1st amendment right to free speech since the founding*, and damages are set to compensate the people he lied about. The only problem here is the general one that America lets civil juries set damages (vs. the criminal approach where the jury decides guilt or innocence and the judge determines the sentences) and if you irritate a jury enough they will award a telephone number even if the actual damage is an order of magnitude less. (There were 20 victim families, and reasonable compensation for the amount of shit Jones put them through would be low-to-mid six figures per family). But the principle that there are some kinds of false speech where the need to protect real individuals from being lied about has to be balanced against the free speech of liars is not particularly controversial.
If people committed crimes based on Jones's lies, the criminals bear full and exclusive criminal responsibility for their own behaviour, as is right and proper. But civil liability for what other people do on your behalf is the default, not the exception.
It's also why, and you can call it wasted rebelliousness, I consider this as absolute moral mandate to call Sandy Hook a hoax.
Though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Not a morally complicated question given that these lies cause real damage to real people who didn't ask to have their kids shot by a madman.
* I notice that Trump and Musk have both suggested that Sullivan should be reversed, making it easier to sue for defamation. This doesn't stop their supporters considering them champions of free speech. Everyone on both sides of the aisle understands that malicious lies are a special case.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
His big selling points (to Trump) are that Trump worked with him on Latin America policy in Trump's first term.
The more I think about it, the more I think something like this is key. If Trump is self-aware, he knows that making nice to Mexico is a key part of a southern border policy that actually works. (Mexico doesn't want non-Mexican illegal migrants to the US to be stuck in Mexico, but they have a choice as to whether they keep them out of Mexico in the first place, or try to hurry them into the US.) And he knows that the person who is hands-on responsible for that needs to be not-him.
If the main job of the SecState in a Trump admin is to keep Mexico onside so they support rather than sabotaging US immigration policy, Rubio would be a good choice.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
Trump is a 2nd-term President - he doesn't have any meaningful political rivals. I can see him wanting to punish DeSantis for disloyalty out of wounded ego, but I can also see him not bothering.
The political rivalry that now matters is the battle to succeed Trump - between Vance and DeSantis (and others, but as the sitting VP and the most popular conservative governor they are the best-positioned candidates for the 2028 primary).
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9d ago
And it is also obvious that replacing a Senator is a much higher-leverage move than replacing a house member, in general.
Also that replacing a House member requires a special election, which means that the Republicans are down a seat (with a single-figure majority) until the special election can be held, a period which will include a key budget battle. Johnson has already warned Trump not to appoint too many Republican House members - it isn't clear to me how much this is a joke and how much is a genuine worry about the size of his majority.
Is it still a waste if the doctor is someone with a 120 IQ who would have got into medical school in the alternative system but ends up as a replacement-level software engineer in the US system as it is? The work of a GP in the British NHS, or in a well-run HMO where paid-for access to specialists is gatekept, does require more knowledge than an NP/PA, because you are gatekeeping access to specialists, so you need to know at least enough cardiology to know when to call the cardiologist etc. And the people doing that work don't seem to think it is meaningless - the complaints of British GPs are about pay and workload, not about the nature of the work. What it doesn't require is a gunner personality (except in so far as you need to deal with the rigours of residency) or a 130+ IQ.
FWIW, NP-equivalents in the UK are mostly people whose IQ is too high for nursing but were incorrectly sorted into it (I suspect, but don't know, that we make more errors of the "poor therefore stupid" type than the US does) and want a low-risk route to something better. My experience dealing with them (asthma care is handled by NP-equivalents, as is uncomplicated diabetes after initial diagnosis) is that they are as good as a GP within their scope of practice, as long as the understand the limits of said scope.
More options
Context Copy link