domain:parrhesia.substack.com
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2m ago
no more love for the conservative religious right in Israel
But the article is saying there is a systemic issue in Israel generally, not just regarding the right in Israel. They are also jeopardizing their Democrat interests by publishing things which may lead Zionists shifting to the Republican Party. It’s not as simple as “they are liberal therefore criticize Israel”.
MartianNight
3m ago
In the near future, the ethnic Dutch will be a minority in the capital.
They already are. Amsterdam put the overall population at 44% Dutch alone, 19% of Western descent, and 36% of non-Western descent (PDF source), and that was in 2020.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
4m ago
Maybe he does? I hate this idea that only Jews living in Israel have the esoteric moral knowledge regarding Israel. Sorry but you have been a controversial nation for decades, lots of people know how Israeli politics work.
Really? Can you explain in detail the Israeli parliamentary system, the various factions that are currently part of the government coalition, how Haradim are currently seen by the right and the left, exactly when the Israeli left and support for a two-state solution collapsed (hint: long before October 7), and numerous other surface-level details about Israeli politics? Not even getting into esoteric or political wonk territory? Do you know how the feelings of Israelis in Tel Aviv and in the settlements differ? Do you know why Netanyahu was on the verge of being turned out just before October 7? Can you explain the controversy that was the top Israeli political issue the day before October 7?
I don't think you can (you, specifically, because your analysis of Israel always begins and ends with "Jews"), and I think very few people can, especially outside of Israel, in the same way that most people in the world have a general understand of American politics (they know we're essentially a two-party system with Republicans=conservative and Democratics=liberal), but how many of them understand the electoral college and why there is so much emphasis on "swing states," the implications of mid-term elections, the factions within the Republican and Democratic parties, and other more complicated details that only someone who is actually knowledgeable about the political system can describe?
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
5m ago
I think the odds are very low. The US has made meaningful steps towards developing their own semiconducter production capacity, but they aren't there yet, so that means they still need TMSC. Biden has also made explicit statements asserting that a move on Taiwan would be met with military intervention. Moving now risks American retaliation.
Wait some number of years and the situation is different. Biden will be gone, possibly replaced by a new president more willing to let Taiwan fend for themselves. TMSC chips won't be so irreplaceable. If Xi wants to take Taiwan but does not want to start WW3, his best play is to stay patient.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
8m ago
Eh. I grew up drinking raw milk (as did the rest of my family) and not one of us ever had an issue. I think the need for pasteurization to stay safe is vastly overstated.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
9m ago
That potato recipe sounds like some fat fuck shit
That's a good thing. Fat people don't get fat by eating food that tastes bad.
TracingWoodgrains
13m ago
Beautiful essay. I don’t quite agree, nor do I quite disagree, but it makes me think.
My own perspective on body modification is that the body is worth handling with deep seriousness and forethought. Our culture lacks much of the framework to make modification like tattoos meaningful, but more dramatic changes are inherently more meaningful (for better or worse) — people should approach them with seriousness and we should build proper frameworks around them if they intend to pursue them. Such frameworks are buildable but effortful, and are mostly not individual efforts. They can’t be divorced from societal context. A meaningless tattoo is no more or less a tragedy than the rest of a meaningless life.
Is the context you outline sufficient justification? That’s not really up to me, and it certainly isn’t my style, but it seems like people are having a good time. You make a compelling defense.
MartianNight
16m ago
There is some source data here: https://ggdgezondheidinbeeld.nl/ (in Dutch)
For the survey mentioned in the linked article, they surveyed 5351 high school students in grades 2 and 4 (ages between 13 and 16). The survey is primarily about life style and (mental) health; the question about acceptance of homosexuality was phrased like this:
What's your opinion on two girls/women or boys/men being in love with each other?
❑ Normal
❑ A little weird
❑ Very weird
❑ Wrong
Apparently 46% answered normal (down from 71% in 2019) and 25% answered wrong (up from 13%).
Rov_Scam
20m ago
It's not a crime to try to conceal personal information, obviously. But whether or not that was Trump's intent in falsifying the records is a question for the jury. My point was simply that that the statute he was charged with violating has a lower standard of proof than the underlying act itself, and that the evidence was sufficient for the government to make a prima facia case; doing so doesn't require them to prove the underlying act, or even an attempt to commit the underlying act.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
21m ago
I'm most certainly ignorant, so please, educate me. What is the governing case law on this topic, and how does it differ from Merchan's instructions?
Rov_Scam
25m ago
I'm not saying that res ipsa is sufficient on its own, just that there's a certain element involved when it comes to proving intent. If the falsification of the records happened in a vacuum and there was no obvious underlying motive, that would be the misdemeanor. But when you demonstrate that the concealed payments may have covered up a potential campaign finance violation, that's probably enough evidence that a jury can infer that the potential violation was behind the concealment. Like I said in the previous post, if a guy breaks into a store the prosecution doesn't have to demonstrate that the defendant was there specifically to steal a particular item for it to be anything more than trespass; the jury can infer that because there was a very obvious motive for the break-in that the defendant intended to commit a felony. The defendant can certainly argue that that wasn't his intent and present evidence supporting that, but that's a question of fact for the jury. We can argue all day about whether there was sufficient evidence of Trump's intent to commit a campaign finance violation for the purpose of the statute, but my overall point is that arguing about the specific elements of such a violation itself or the mens rea requirement to prove a campaign finance violation is irrelevant here because we're operating on two separate legal principles.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
26m ago
My understanding is that the law says that if the expenditure would not have occurred but for the candidacy, then it is a campaign expenditure. If it would have occurred anyway, then it is not. So in reference to the Trump case, the question is if Cohen would have paid off Daniels if Trump had not been trying to get elected. Presumably, the jury was satisfied that the evidence showed he would not have.
zeke5123a
27m ago
They are real in a humpty dumpty way.
You have already shown yourself not to be serious by citing Merchan’s judge instructions as instructive on FECA. I won’t be engaging with you further on this since you are either bad faith actor or just woefully ignorant here.
zeke5123a
28m ago
Citing that as the law is fucking hilarious. Dude is a lowly biased state trial judge. Scalia made the comment that FECA is the most highly complex law that is hard for SCOTUS justices to parse.
So here we have a biased judge who never in his life had to look at this law (ie is a complete noob) and who is a trial judge in general (ie not appellate and therefore not probably the best person to articulate the law) in one of the hardest areas in US law, but you are citing his fucking jury instructions as if that sheds any light on the law? Especially when a former head of the FEC (appointed by Bill Clinton) is saying otherwise.
I don’t know if you are doing that because you are just naive here because you’re Australian or otherwise but it just shows such a lack of knowledge.
gattsuru
36m ago
But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: the charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor – in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere – has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html)
((It's not clear that the underlying crime was actually the federal campaign finance matter; the jury instructions just reference 17-152, which itself requires "unlawful means", and the judge verbally instructed the jury to pick any combination of FECA, other paperwork record violations, or state tax laws.))
Those surveys tend to back this up: the lightest or attempted theft in this page is still 300 USD in Ramirez, Murray in the multiple thousands, Kirkland for 350k USD(!). I can't find exact numbers for Freeland or Holley, but napkin math puts even a short duration puts it around 200 USD/month and Freeland covering multiple months, and Holley's insurance fraud claims are almost certainly closer to Murray than Ramirez. In this case, the erroneous classification probably increased, rather than decreased, Trump's final tax payment.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
39m ago
According to the jury instructions, the way the law handles mixed motives is as follows:
Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
43m ago
What are the odds China moves on Taiwan in the next 12 months?
The Ukraine war seems to be ushering in a major political realignment in the West. Previously staunch pacifists are penning pieces about how they went from left to center-left, as yesterday's liberals become today's neoliberals and tomorrow's neocons. The circle of life turns, I suppose? It certainly seems like wokeness has traveled far enough down the barber pole that my age cohort is starting to lurch rightwards. Noah Smith is writing hawkish piece after hawkish piece claiming we've entered a new cold war, with a new Axis of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea opposing America and NATO & Friends. He linked to this article making the case for a new cold war, and specifically China moving on Taiwan:
in practice. I see three main plausible scenarios:
Pearl Harbor. China combines an invasion of Taiwan with an attack on U.S. installations, at least in Guam, and possibly on Japanese territory as well. The United States, and possibly Japan, are immediately at war with China, with high likelihood of rapid escalation to general war.
Korea 1950. China attacks Taiwan, probably associated with preparations for invasion. Though, as in South Korea in 1950, the U.S. defense commitment is ambiguous, the brazen character of the attack raises the odds of at least U.S. and Japanese intervention, and all prepare for the possibility of escalation to general war.
Indirect control. China implements air and sea border controls to make Taiwan a self-governing administrative region of China. There is no need for a direct attack on Taiwan or any blockade of usual commerce. Without initiating violent action, the Chinese can assert sovereign control over the air and sea borders to Taiwan, establishing customs and immigration controls. This is not the same thing as a blockade. A blockade would instead become one of the possible consequences if the other side violently challenged China’s assertion of indirect control.
Most of the time, the arguments I see putting China's invasion 5-10 years in the future focus on the second scenario and claim China is still lacking amphibious materiel/experience to pull off a D-day tier invasion. I've only rarely seen the third possibility discussed, but it seems much more likely. The recent military exercises to point in this direction.
This is all wildly outside of my lane. What do people think the odds are that China instigates some kind of blockade or customs control over Taiwan in the next 12 months? The bull case:
- The wars in Ukraine and Israel are straining US defense production almost to breaking point already, however, waiting a few years could see China confronted with an America and EU that brought a ton more military production capacity online.
- The election will inevitably (particularly now that Trump is a felon) lead to an enormous amount of chaos between October 2024 and February 2025.
- China's relative advantages must be reaching their zenith, given demographics and the resurgence of neo-industrial policy.
- A demoralized military-class that is increasingly apathetic to foreign policy/wars that don't directly impact Americans.
The bear case:
- Significant domestic malaise following the mess of zero-COVID, the housing crash and relative slowdown of the economy (or does this make it more likely to boost support for the regime?)
- Fear of economic/military retaliation from US, Japan, Australia, Korea?
- Taiwan is a convenient way to whip up nationalism, but would be inconvenient to actually invade and potentially bungle.
- ?? Honestly, I'm having difficulty articulating reasons why China wouldn't make a move soon.
I'm interested in whether people think this is largely driven by Gell-Mann amnesia and I'm being irrationally swayed by an increasingly hawkish media environment/overly focused on domestic US politics, or whether the odds of China invading are much higher than people seem to think (although I could only find a betting market for a hot-invasion).
inappropriatecontent
Nihil Concierge
49m ago
I think this deserves to be a top-level post for the next few weeks. Sort of like Trans-National Thursdays. Supreme Court Saturdays?
zeke5123a
50m ago
Res ipsa is not appropriate here. If any time you falsify business records you per se are doing it for a reason to cover up another crime, then you’ve written the misdemeanor out of the statute since everything is a felony.
What is also black letter law is that texts should generally be read in a way that does not render any part surplusage.
The only way to give meaning to both the misdemeanor and felony is to treat the intent with respect to committing another crime as having to be proved without regard to the misdemeanor. This is especially true here because unlike burglary (ie why else did you break into someone’s home) there are many reasons why Trump might arguably falsify records (eg he didn’t realize it was false, he wanted to hide it from his wife, he thought it would be bad publicity unaware of the legal implications). The same inference is not reasonable.
So whilst I agree you don’t need to prove the actual other crime was committed you do need to prove the intent to commit a specific other crime was intended or else you render meaningless a large portion of the criminal statute at play and are making an unreasonable inference.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
53m ago
I think this just is one of those where you are not well-versed with a very different legal regime than your own. I notice that you avoided talking about McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. Do you have any comment on that case or how it could play in to a hypothetical future case that directly addresses reporting requirements?
I haven't read that case and I don't intend to.
Express advocacy has reporting requirements.
So it does. TIL.
What's the difference? You just said "any" expenditure made for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign expenditure. So, shouldn't the latter be one, too?
Implicitly I meant "any expenditure by the candidate or people coordinating with the candidate". The distinction I was drawing was that I believed unconnected individuals did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".
Let me one more hypo you. One that I would be very unsurprised if it literally actually came up in arguments if we had a SCOTUS case directly on the reporting requirements. Would the pseudonymous Federalist Papers have been legal? They were all essentially politicians of various sorts and were surely running for elections at various times. The papers, themselves, were certainly aimed at influencing voting, and they could very plausibly think that it would influence things in ways that would get them elected (as they were, indeed, elected to various positions). Pseudonymous? Or reporting requirement? Criminal?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Why would they be impacted by campaign finance laws at all?
zeke5123a
59m ago
I think there clearly is since the judge did not allow evidence in where FECA / the prosecution made false statements
practical_romantic
1hr ago
It sucked. Small towns are boring. I don't need to spend hours to know that
Yeah, I'm gonna have to call up a bunch of places and see if they are going to be open. Im assuming restaurants and bars are at least open, in the worst case?
Nope, go karting through the city sounds like a grand fucking idea and I will do it. We like the act of driving and want various driving-based activities.
Nevertheless, what other quirky things would you recommend? A bit more specific.
I plant to redo this drive: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TUgfiNg06GQ
And rent a car from here: https://fun2drive-japan.com/
I hope so. I want to sneak in some winter activities and Sapporo should be the place to be.
More options
Context Copy link