Blog

  • The Untold Story of the DoD’s Anthrax Vaccine Program, Serialized: Prologue

    “This court will come to order in the case of United States versus Petty Officer David M. Ponder, United States Navy, at Marine Corps Base Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan.” I’m a little nervous, like I am at the beginning of every trial, but I don’t show it. It’s just an arraignment anyway. We’re mostly here to arrange dates for trial and I’ve already talked to the prosecutor, known as the “trial counsel” in military parlance, a professional Marine Captain by the name of Chris Kolomjec, and we’ve agreed to push the dates out a bit on this case. Like me, he had another specialty in the Marine Corps before becoming an attorney, so we have a collegial relationship. Chris is going on temporary duty to an exercise in Thailand called “Cobra Gold” and I’m in the beginning stages of a plan to plead this case out under very favorable terms if I can get in to see the Convening Authority – my client’s Commanding Officer – while he’s out of town. In courts-martial, the prosecution has one-hundred twenty (120) days to be ready to go to trial and the arraignment stops that clock from running.

    In David Ponder’s case, stopping the clock is mutually agreeable, but we have to coordinate our plans with the judge’s trial schedule.
    I put on the required lawyerly mask of indifference, but inside, my guts still twist a little. A trial is like the start of a “big” game in sports, except the stakes are a whole lot higher. I am, as one might expect, extremely competitive, particularly in sports, but I’ve played and lost enough games to have perspective – at the end of a game, even after a loss, nobody goes to jail, gets busted, kicked out of the service, or loses their pay. On the other hand, as a defense counsel I also have a standard line to my clients: “At the end of the day, I’m not the one going to jail. I’m going home to my wife and four daughters.” Notwithstanding this shpiel, I’m a bit new at this and keenly feel the punishment hanging over my clients, the mythical sword of Damocles hanging there, waiting to fall. One mistake on my part…. On the Defense side of the courtroom, it is your intellect, initiative, imagination – and a ball point and legal pad – against the resources of “The United States of America.” While it can be a unique intellectual challenge, it is also daunting because I am gambling with another person’s liberty. Anyone who ignores that is either another class of lawyer than I am or a fool.

    I edge a little closer to Petty Officer Third Class Ponder, a sailor who refused the controversial anthrax vaccine. My move closer might appear to outsiders as a sign of my solidarity with my client; and in David’s case, it’s got some truth. We’ve only just met, but I like him. In most cases, however, being proximate to my client makes me feel less alone. I am six months removed from Naval Justice School, nine months from passing the Bar, eleven months from law school graduation, and a lifetime away from my former occupation in the Marine Corps as a Cobra attack helicopter pilot.

    Captain Kolomjec finishes reciting his bona fides and how the court came to be created by the Commanding Officer of Naval Mobile Constriction Battalion Seventy-Four, Petty Officer Ponder’s C.O. This part really was boring, scripted, and I waited for my turn to speak.
    “Captain Saran?” the military judge, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Miller, looked up from his Military Judges’ Benchbook in my direction, my cue to do my part.

    “Sir, I have been detailed to this court-martial by Major J.R. Woodworth, Senior Defense Counsel, Legal Services Support Section, Third Force Service Support Group, Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan. I am qualified and certified under Article 27(b) and sworn under article 42(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” I don’t need to look down at my trial guide for this, which is a script for Navy and Marine Corps trial proceedings for the repetitive parts in the process. It keeps everyone tracking where the trial is, but the real reason for it is to make for better records of trial. Anyone who receives a punitive discharge in the military gets an automatic appeal up to their service specific appellate court. Given the number of courts-martial in the military, this helps the appellate courts do their jobs. Arguably, it also helps the accused get a better, cleaner trial. The familiar recitation helps my nerves dissipate; I suspect it has something to do with being raised Catholic.

    “I have not acted in any manner which might tend to disqualify me in this court-martial and no other defense counsel, either military or civilian, have either been detailed to or are on this case.” I start to sit down and then stay on my feet in anticipation of my client standing up when the judge speaks to him for the first time – just as I instructed him to do.

    “Are you Petty Officer Ponder, the accused in this case?” David Ponder stands up to the position of attention.

    “Yes, sir.” Firmly, not too loud, perfect. He looks good in his uniform, as well. I know because I inspected him myself before we came into court. The defense shop keeps an extra set of uniforms, spare ribbons and devices, and whatever else we can scavenge for when our clients are brought in by the chasers – military escorts – from the brig. They come over in those ubiquitous orange jumpsuits in shackles; while their units are supposed to provide the uniforms for them, we always wind up with clients missing ribbons and sundry uniform items, so we have a small stock available.

    “Okay, Petty Officer Ponder, you may take a seat, and you may remain seated unless I otherwise direct you to stand.” Lieutenant Colonel Miller nods gently from behind his glasses. I notice he’s still rubbing his hand as he continues, a habit since the pins were removed. The judge flipped over the handlebars of his bike and busted his wrist up pretty badly and I knew the scar must itch where the pins had come out. Reconstructive shoulder surgery at 15 left me with an intimate understanding of that feeling.

    We finish with the preliminaries; I rattle off all of the awards which David Ponder had earned during his three years as a Navy Seabee. The judge goes through my client’s rights to counsel, military and civilian, and then his own qualifications. He then gives us a chance to challenge him or ask any questions if we think he might be partial for any reason, a formality at this point, because I’m pretty sure that Lieutenant Colonel Miller isn’t even going to hear this case if we go to trial. He’s likely to pass it to Major Eric Stone, the other military judge on Okinawa, because of some scheduling conflicts with other cases in the Pacific region, which includes mainland Japan and Korea. We all do a good bit of traveling because of the odd and disbursed units that have occasional courts-martial, but the bulk of the work is on Okinawa.

    I look over at my client; David Ponder looks young to me – and I just turned thirty. He has the beginnings of a moustache, but it’s just that, the beginnings. The good thing is that he likes to keep his hair short by Navy standards, which helps in a Marine court. He’s also a genuinely squared-away sailor. I liked him, which is supposed to be irrelevant to attorneys, but it’s not. Everyone gets the same level of representation; it’s just a question of whether you like defending them or not and whether or not you’ll feel badly if they’re convicted. It also helps in generating the emotional energy to work late nights and long hours cheerfully, as opposed to drearily.

    “Petty Officer Ponder,” the judge breaks into my thoughts, “I now ask you how do you plead, but before accepting your pleas, I advise you that any motion to dismiss or grant any other relief should be made at this time. Captain Saran?”

    I stand up, my stomach now fully settled, which is great because we’re just about done; we have our dates for trial, but I’m thinking this gets pled to a Summary Court martial, where my client can get no more than 30 days in the brig and no punitive discharge, but he’s probably going to have to waive his right to an Administrative Discharge Board and they’ll kick him out with ‘bad paper’ – an ‘Other Than Honorable’ discharge, which is like being fired from the military.

    “Sir, at this time Petty Officer Ponder requests to defer entry of pleas and motions in accordance with the schedule the court has already set forth.”

    The judge goes through the dates Kolomjec and I have already picked for motions, responses, witness requests, and discovery. All parties are agreed.

    “Anything else from either party before we adjourn?”

    “No, sir,” both Kolomjec and I answer after glancing at each other.

    “Then this court is in recess.”

    “All rise!” Kolomjec intones. I’m already on my feet and David joins me as the judge passingly says “Carry on” and departs.

    As my client and I walk out, we almost bump square into David Allen, a reporter from the Pacific “Stars and Stripes.” I’ve only been on the island for a few months, but my reaction is immediate – I step in and tell David Allen we’ll give a statement at some point and he’ll be the first to know. Blah blah blah.

    The first thing any decent defense attorney wants regarding his client’s talking – to anyone, but particularly law enforcement and the press – is to STFU and let the lawyer do the talking. The cop shows and movies are dead-on in one respect: anything you say can and will be used against you. Plus, offhand I can’t remember either the Code of Professional Responsibility or the more stringent Navy Instruction for all Judge Advocates on speaking to the press. I know generally it’s frowned upon, if not outright verboten, to speak to the press. Add to that my natural aversion to the media as a military officer and I’m curt, but polite.

    Oddly enough, this is one of the few times it likely won’t matter. It’s not as if David could say anything damning – he had refused a direct order to take the anthrax vaccine and even talked about it in interviews with local media in his homeport of Biloxi, Mississippi. There isn’t a whole lot of dispute factually. I don’t want to give the government any additional ammunition for sentencing, however, should we ever get there. A jury or military judge would probably not look kindly on someone who was bashing the military in the local paper. So, we pass on the “exclusive.”

    Back in my office, I drop into my chair.

    “Sir,” Petty Officer Ponder begins, “what happens now?”

    “Well, you heard the dates for motions. That’s the next big milestone. It’s likely that the prosecutor will file a motion asking the judge to find the order to take the vaccine lawful. That’s been the standard in the few other anthrax cases that have gone to trial. The good thing is that Captain Kolomjec leaves for Thailand the day that our response is due. Likelihood is he won’t be around in the afternoon when I drop the response off on the prosecution. He also won’t be back until right before the motions session and I’m betting no one else is going to pick up our response and run with the ball. So, it may not win the day, but it will certainly limit his time to be ready to answer our motion.” David Ponder nods, but I can tell he’s nervous. I would be, too, if I were in his shoes.

    “Sir, did you get in touch with Major Bates’s attorney, Mister Smith, at that number I gave you?” David Ponder put me in touch with an attorney in the States named Bruce Smith, an administrative judge in North Carolina and Major in the Air Force Reserve. He defended Air Force Major Sonnie Bates, the highest ranking officer to refuse the anthrax vaccine. He had been discharged with ‘good paper’ as a result of a plea negotiation.

    “Yeah. I talked to him. Interesting conversation.”

    When I spoke to Bruce Smith, he calmly asked me if I could consider that the order to take the anthrax vaccine was unlawful. Not quite expecting the question, I had said, sure, albeit hesitantly. In my own mind, I figured he was a loon, a conspiracy theorist, but he had gotten a good result for Major Bates, so what did I have to lose by listening to the guy? He told me to look up a particular federal statute and then said he would send me some other materials and asked if I would I please keep them “close hold.” His manner was so cordial, I casually agreed, thinking nothing of it.

    My boss, Major John Woodworth, figured he had done me a favor by assigning me – a brand new judge advocate – three of the four anthrax refusal cases on the island of Okinawa. The assumption was that these were guys looking for an excuse to get out of the military and the units would likely agree to Summary Court deals with a Board waiver and these would be over in short order. Like Tom Cruise in a “Few Good Men” I came to David Ponder’s case with the goal to get him the best deal possible, and do it quickly and quietly. I also have several major cases pending, including a rape defense.

    I got the first three of my anthrax shots just before coming to Okinawa. I took them somewhat reluctantly, as I had read an article in a major news magazine about the possibility of some experimental substance called squalene being in the anthrax vaccine given to soldiers during Desert Storm. I had sat in the medical clinic at Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island, discussing the matter with another Marine attorney. Both of us had served previously as officers in the Fleet Marine Force and while we tended to think that squalene had been used in the anthrax vaccine, our leaders wouldn’t allow it to be used now. Quite simply, we trusted our chain of command, our senior officers.

    David breaks into my thoughts.

    “Do you think my CO might consider not court-martialing me or something if you explained this to him?” David Ponder’s question was laden with ethical implications that I was glad I explained to him. While the anthrax vaccine was getting a lot of attention in the press back in the States, and the issue was very interesting legally, I couldn’t let that interfere with my duty to my client, which is to advocate his interests. If he wanted to deal, to plead guilty, no matter how much I might like to litigate the issue, it was his ass on the line. I explained as much to him from the start. David Ponder didn’t have a Juris Doctor, but he was sharp and understood the bottom line.

    “Well, I’m going to set up a meeting while Kolomjec’s away and see if the C.O. won’t listen to what we’ve got to say. I’ll get back to you as soon as I get out of that meeting, okay?” I smiled at him.

    “Okay, sir. I’m going to change up. Where can I go to have a smoke?”

    “Out on the stairs at the end of the building.” I nodded toward the general direction. When he left, I went back to work. I was concerned with the other fifteen other clients who were counting on me to keep them out of jail. At the time, I had no idea that David Ponder’s case would take us both from Okinawa to the highest military court of appeals, to the doorstep of the Supreme Court, and eventually to testifying in front of Congress. It would also eventually cost me my active duty career, but that was a long way off.

     

     

  • Team Blue Debates Open Post

    LET’S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUMMMBLE!

  • Glibertarian Survey Results

    I promised we would all get to see the results of the Glibertarian survey from last week, to answer a question that one member of the editing staff posed.

    Lets just say, somebody owes somebody else $1.  Now the results, based off 309 total respondents:

    Question #1:  Are you libertarian?

    95% of  respondents answered in the affirmative.  Which given a certain statistic (98%) by a certain individual, whom we will call “Michael Hihn”, suggests there are at least 14,308 libertarians out there that reject the label.  Are the respondents really libertarian?  Is there a way we can determine this?  Yes.  With this purity test…

    Question #2:  If yes [to question #1], choose the statement you most agree with.

    An overwhelming 85% of respondents chose the two statements that most closely align with the “correct” libertarian position on regulating Google.  Correct, from a purely doctrinal standpoint.  One’s opinion on this topic in particular might vary to some degree, which is the reason behind a second correct answer.  One of the responses cited a specific tenet of libertarian philosophy:  private property rights.  The other took a basic NAP approach but perhaps left a possibility for one to be a “realist”  but does not imply direct action taken against Google.  The difference between the two in the quantitative sense is not very large (5%); in the qualitative sense however, it can be argued this makes a world of difference.  Perhaps more can be said on that later.

    As for the 13 respondents that use Google to get their jollies…now Google knows you like ginger trannies…

    Question #3:  Do you intend to vote in the 2020 election?

    The data suggests at least 2/3 of respondents are going to.   Not many ways to split this one.

    Question #4:  Who do you believe will win the Republican nomination?

    Like Question #3, this one is also straightforward.  One thing to add here is there is a single respondent that believes Bill Weld will win.  It stands to reason that only Bill himself, thinks he has a chance to primary Trump.  Which means Bill is watching—let’s give Governor Weld a nice, warm, Glibertarian welcome…

    Question #5:  Who do you believe will win the Democrat nomination?

    The results here are filtered for responses greater than zero, given the number of choices available at the time the survey went live.  The respondents have Joe Biden up 10 percentage points on the next highest candidate, Kamala Harris.  Followed by Elizabeth Warren, who likely has a plan to correct these responses.  Which brings us to…

    Question #6:  Who do you prefer to win the Democrat nomination?

    Tulsi Gabbard received 25%, 5 points more than the next highest response being “other”.  It is somewhat troubling Marianne Williamson was third on the list, which can only be explained by promises of taxpayer funded crystal meth.

    Question #7:  Will you entertain a third party option?

    About half of the respondents are willing to throw their vote away…

    Question #8:  Are you retarded?

    Trick question.  Everyone compared to Mr. Lizard, is retarded.

    Question #9:  Should Justin Amash run for president, will you entertain the idea of voting for him?

    It appears 44% of respondents will…with one caveat—

    Question #10:  Which of the following notable libertarians do you like for the Libertarian party candidate or as an independent?

    Amash does not poll well when compared to other well-known libertarians.  He barely gets 1% above the throw away response,”None of these cucks are worthy of my vote.”  The respondents’ preference is Rand Paul, who at 28% is 10 points higher than the next highest choice, the lovable TV host Mike Rowe.

    Where it gets interesting, is when the responses are cross-referenced.  When filtering among respondents choosing the purity question (#2) response suggesting “realism”, the support for Amash drops by 3 points in Question #9.  Support for Paul in Question #10 rises by 7%.

    The reverse of this results in a rise of support to 51.88% for Amash in Question #9, and slight drop to 26.87% for Paul in Question #10, respectively.

    Why does this disparity exist?  Feel free to discuss.

  • Tuesday Afternoon Links

    Well, here I am again. I just want to call out the totally justified criticism of using Lobster Girl to cover weak links yesterday. Totally justified. So you get what you get for a featured image, and you can judge the strength of the links for yourself.

    China abruptly announces release of nearly 1M Muslims, saying they need the space for Hong Kongers. Okay, I made up the 2nd clause, but does that really make it untrue?

    Oh man, the Feds are gonna go on a rape spree over this: Parents transferring custody of children to less wealthy individuals to get the kids more financial aid. Book a room at Club Fed, folks.

    I approve of the response time here. Less than five minutes from 911 call to engaging the shooter. If anyone deserves to be shot at Walmart, I nominate this chick.

    Well, I found the new Glibertarian secret lair site.

     

    Also, I think YouTube is throttling me. I haven’t been able to get a damn thing to play since I got back from vacation. All the shit loads except playback, so no music for you.

  • Let’s Get Pessimistic About 2020

    Previously, we examined whether the culture war has been lost.  Yes, yes it has, as the commanding heights of our culture have been captured by collectivist/tribalist crypto-Marxists of the Left, who have expanded their reach into the administrative state and into the business world.

    As an aside, I think we can safely count the major Christian denominations (with the possible exception of the Baptists) as having also having been captured by the Left. With the election of the Commie Pope,  even the Catholic Church has fallen.  The Long March through the Catholic Church would be an interesting article in and of itself, if anyone wants to volunteer.

    Leftism requires coercion, which is generally the province of the government.  They cannot complete the desired destruction of  America as we know it without capturing the dominant American institution, the government, by taking the elected branches of government.

    Trump was elected as a backlash candidate against the Left, and there are a number of Republicans (and possibly even a few Democrats) who are still opposed to the Leftists to some degree .  Could Congress and the Presidency keep Leftism in at least some semblance of control?

    First, you could hardly find a weaker reed than elected politicians for, well, just about anything other than the preservation of the perks and opportunities for enrichment of elected politicians.  That aside, elected officialdom as a bulwark against Leftism only works if Leftists don’t win.   So its really a question of when, not if, the Left recaptures Congress and the Presidency.  Which will happen the next time the Democrats win the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress.  Such as, next year.

    At the moment, there is a fair amount of optimism that Trump will win re-election, that the Repubs will hold onto the Senate, and even rumblings that they have a fair chance of winning the House, on the belief that the Democrats, currently fronted by their nutbar Presidential candidates and the odious “Squad”, have gone too far to the Left, too fast.  I’m thinking that optimism is unwarranted.

    The Presidency.  Don’t discount the importance the Leftist major media.  Trump, despite presiding over no new wars and a healthy economy, has yet to break 50% in his approval ratings.  I think you can credit the relentless spew of Trump hatred for that.  And a drag on approval is a drag on votes.

    But, you protest, the last time the Dems ran lefty candidates (McGovern, maybe Mondale), they lost in historic landslides.  That was a generation or more ago, before the Left captured the cultural institutions, many businesses, and had the opportunity to indoctrinate a generation.  I see little reason to believe that past performance in 1972 and 1984 will predict future results in 2020.

    Trump won by swinging a largely uncontested Rust Belt by a narrow margin.  I cannot believe the Dems will make that mistake twice, so in 2020 the Rust Belt will be fought over like the swing states they are.  The voters that will ultimately matter are in the suburban “purple” districts.  You know, the ones that gave Congress back to the Dems last year.

    Congress.  The Repubs lost the House in 2018, and while the Democrats’ ardent embrace of Leftism may be the underlying change in the political dynamic that needed for the Repubs to win it back, the events preceding their loss of the House (the Kavanaugh hearings, the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ) had the ugly side of the Left on full display.  Maybe the optics have gotten somewhat worse, so there may be some chance that the Repubs win the House despite what will certainly be a full court press by the Leftist media and Big Tech.

    The Repubs hold the Senate by a mere two seats, and have nine more seats on the table than the Dems do in 2020.  I have not bothered to prognosticate how many Repub Senators are “at risk”, but on the most basic calculation, the odds don’t seem to favor the Repubs.

    The real danger, though, comes from two places:  the assault by the Left on the machinery of voting, and the determination of the Leftist Big Tech monopolies to push the Left over the finish line.

    The Machinery of Voting.   While this is probably a topic for a post of its own, I suggest you consider the following:

    The Dems absolutely believe its not the votes that count, its who counts the votes.  In most states, elections are run by the Secretary of State, and the Dems have set their sights on capturing this seemingly nondescript office.  And, of course, there is the astonishing win/loss record of the Dems in recounts, often accompanied by the discovery of previously unknown ballots.  You can count on any sufficiently close contest being “won” by the Dems.

    There are over a million more registered voters in California than there are actual eligible voters.  While California is likely the worst on this front, the voter rolls nationwide are notoriously, well, garbage.  There’s a reason why Democrat states are refusing to go along with any attempt to clean up the voter rolls.  I’m not saying its because every “excess” registered voter is an opportunity for fraud . . . well, actually, yes I am saying that.

    Wherever they can, the Dems run “ballot harvesting” operations (for which those excess registered voters come in very handy).  I seriously doubt they have declined to take advantage of the open door these create for fraud.  While Martha McSally ran a pretty nondescript campaign in 2018 for Jeff Flake’s Senate seat, I believe her loss in what had been a pretty safe Red state to the explicitly pro-Left and anti-Arizona Krysten Sinema is due at least in part to the Dems’ ballot harvesting machine in Phoenix.  Mind you, that’s in a state nominally controlled by the Repubs, so its not just Dem-controlled states that are vulnerable to election fraud.

    In short, there is less reason all the time to believe that the preferences of voters for candidates who are not anti-American Leftists will necessarily determine who actually wins elections.  The margin of fraud has been getting wider and wider over time, and Trump’s margins in key Rust Belt swing states are well within that margin.

    Big Tech.  The power of Big Tech to control the information that is readily available to the voting public is immense, and these quasi-monopolies are overtly Leftist.  Beyond the various deplatforming pogroms of Twitter and Facebook, and Google’s manipulation of search results, there should be no doubt they are planning to put their thumb on the scales as hard as they can.  The information most Americans get is heavily mediated by the Big Tech monopolies via search results, ad placements, and simple visibility and ranking.  As they de-platform, de-monetize, de-rank, and even refuse ads from, anyone not a Leftist, their impact on the election will likely outstrip even the DemOp Media.

    I don’t think any political movement in American history has ever had that kind of backing, and I can’t believe it won’t affect the outcome.

    The Courts.  Ah, you say, but Trump and the Republican Senate are stuffing the federal judiciary full of non-Leftist judges.  Can the courts, which have certainly been expanding their ambit so that any federal district judge can set national policy, stand as some kind of limitation on the Leftist program?

    One reason not to pin too much hope on the federal judiciary is that its jurisdiction is almost completely up to Congress.  While Article III of the Constitution has a seemingly healthy list of cases to which the “judicial power shall extend”, it also states that:

    “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    The lower federal courts, I should point out, are creations of statute, and thus their jurisdiction is also subject to Congressional . . . revision.  If the newly Trumpist courts have the temerity to mount any kind of effective resistance to Leftism, a Leftist Congress and President can simply strip them of their power to interfere with the fundamental transformation of the country.  Recall, as well, that judicial review of the Constitutionality of statutes and government action is a creation of the courts and not the Constitution, and if push came to shove I see no reason why Congress could not strip this power from both the Supreme Court and the inferior courts.

    Next Up:  Apres les Deluge, or, what happens when the TWANLOC Left succeeds in their mission of destroying, err, fundamentally transforming, America.

  • Tuesday Morning Links Plus

    Good morning to the Glibertariat! Because Banjos needed a day off, I figured I’d steal her theme.

    And there’s such a wild mix of talents and experience here that I will try to take advantage of you. As I mentioned a week ago, after turning our lives upside down, my new employer decided to cut expenses, which included any new product development, which meant me. So I’m treading water. In the meantime, we’re faced with the disgusting reality of Obamacare. Our main issue is our prescription costs, since both SP and I are on a med that costs a rather staggering amount of money (in a relative sense, about $20 per day for each of us). So… I’m looking at either Mexico or Canada as a source, and wanted to see if any of you had experience with that. Advice and cautions will be gratefully received.

    Besides being the anniversary of the Defenestration of Prague, there are some notable birthdays, including some long-winded chick; a Jew-hater who revolutionized our economy;  a pretty damn excellent guitarist; the most copied inventor ever; a bass player who was just not quite good enough; and a chick who always checked her soda cans. Oh and WebDominatrix, whose Wikipedia entry I will not link to.

    On to the news!

     

    This is a Twitter link, but really well done and (in a sense) hit home for me. My old neighborhood. And what we actually get is kayfabe. Not that having the Feds step in would fix anything, the corruption an incompetence in local government there is too profound.

     

    Obligatory Demi Rose link.

     

    Korean ranchers?

     

    I’m failing to see the problem with allowing more export sales and trimming a bit from Saudi Arabia’s fortunes. Stupid law, I’m glad it’s dead.

     

    I know, it’s not until tomorrow night, but we can still start drinking.

     

    Sure sign of the end of civilization.

     

    TSA has helpful suggestions.

     

    Rand Paul has pretty weak trolling skills.

     

    Close your eyes and think of England.

     

     

    Old Guy Music is from one of SP’s favorites, expressing the sentiment I feel.

  • East Plum Creek – A pictoral

    Castle Rock, Colorado

    While wandering around on a day off, we decided to try the Plum Creek “Riverwalk.” Wendy had the scooter charged, so we could go miles…and we did. It turns out that son and my hiking XP, combined with the wife’s power chair, gives us a long range, 3 miles one way on the first day,  a real pretty place.

    Meadows, Interstates, and a wild crippled woman on a scooter.

     


    Here’s the 3 miles up, more meadows and too many rabbits for Bella to keep up with.

     

    Some more stuff. Don’t walk on Colorado concrete or you stub toe very badly.

    We are thinking of moving, cause this motel sucks, but Castle Rock is a nice place, good people, and relaxing. Until then, enjoy Colorado!

    The Gallery

     

    Bonus! View from a tall building

    This is the view from the 24th floor of the Chase bank building in Denver, where we are stuck working,

    I have never been in such a tall building, the Penthouse machinery is impressive.

     

    Here’s what your cat does while you’re at work. I didn’t know she is a Bowie fan.

    Until next time, Cheers!

    (Why am I headed to Las Cruces? Mistakes happen in life, so you fix them.)

     

     

     

     

  • Monday Afternoon Back-to-Work Links

    Oh, boy. Unfortunately, I did not find several million dollars on vacation, so I am back to work. Womp, womp. At least I still have you guys to make my work life a little less boring.

    Florida Man excited about the idea of his brain swelling to normal size.

    Huh. It looks like the cyberpunk future is finally arriving.

    Oh man, look. My wife and I were woke before it was cool: The Ultimate Luxury Vacation: Doing Nothing in the Middle of Nowhere

    The AEI has a bold prediction: Not even China can make socialism work. For the sake of millions or Chinese citizens, I hope they don’t try very hard.

     

     

  • SLD: The Libertarian Case for Section 230 Reform

    There’s a piece of legislation that has been invaluable in the rise of social media, the Communications Decency Act. In particular, Section 230 of the Act says “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Without Section 230, it’s hard to fathom that Facebook or Twitter would ever have been able to surmount the potential legal liability they would otherwise face from civil lawsuits over IP infringements, libel claims, or threats that are posted to their websites on a regular basis. They’d be potentially liable for whatever anyone decided to post on their sites.
    Interestingly, though, the provision wasn’t even created with social media in mind. The Act was passed in 1996, before social media was even a glint in Mark Zuckerberg’s eye. The provision was included in the Act ensure that internet service providers or e-mail providers weren’t liable for anything that anyone decided to transmit on their services. And that makes sense. You wouldn’t hold Verizon or AT&T responsible for anything anyone says on the phone. They don’t control what people say on the phone, so they shouldn’t be responsible.

    The internet shouldn’t be any different.

    But, as the internet advanced, the logical extension of this principle went to websites themselves. And that still sort of makes sense, at least conditionally. If the owners of the website don’t control what is posted or not, they shouldn’t be liable for what people do post. The key distinction is whether the owners of the website are providing an internet service or whether they are providing internet content. In Fair Housing vs. Roommates.com, the courts said you couldn’t claim to be a service provider if you weren’t a passive pass-through of information provided by others or simply a facilitator of expression, you had moved on to become a content provider and weren’t immune from lawsuits under Section 230.

    Today, many conservatives, and even libertarians are concerned about the editorial lines that are increasingly taking hold in the social media universe. In their attempts to filter out “fake news” or “Russian bots” or “disruptive voices” or “hate speech”, they are increasingly deplatforming conservatives and libertarians for behaviors that they show no concern with coming from the left. We know that the social media giants are culturally very much aligned with the “woke” left and many claim that they’re rigging the public discourse in favor of the left.

    While some conservatives have suggested addressing this by breaking up the social media giants or subjecting them to regulation, an alternative that many of us have advocated is reform of Section 230 to make it clear that you’re a publisher if you’re pushing an editorial line. You can have rules of the road and can forbid threatening, harassing, or inciteful posts, but your rules have to be objective, viewpoint-neutral, and universally applied for you to retain Section 230 protection. Otherwise, you’re a publisher and should be treated as such.

    This isn’t an idea without some controversy. As believers in the free market, many argue, conservatives and libertarians should let the market sort itself out and take their business elsewhere. As private businesses, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter shouldn’t be under any obligation to provide a voice for those whose views they find abhorrent. And, as Ken White of Popehat argues, it’s a stretch to suggest that the social media providers are the people creating the content. Even many of the advocates of Section 230 reform suggest the move goes against the grain of their libertarianism, arguing that this is a situation just to rife with abuse.

    I think these concerns are misguided. Far from being a violation of libertarian principle, Section 230 reform would be a move to impose free market discipline on the social media giants. The question of whether the social media giants are original content creators is utterly beside the point. Of course they aren’t! But, Section 230 itself doesn’t address whether the service provider is the creator of the original content. It’s about whether they are to be treated as publishers.

    And it’s clear that they are acting as publishers If you’re maintaining an editorial line, you’re not acting simply as a passive pass-through or a facilitator of expression. You’re doing pretty much the opposite. You’re acting to define what is acceptable and what is unacceptable expression on your platform. If you’re demonetizing Stephen Crowder for making a side reference to homosexuality while maintaining a guy like Carlos Maza after he specifically encourages assaulting conservatives, you can’t honestly say you’re just an open platform for people to exchange ideas. If you’re banning Carl Benjamin while giving Antifa a pass, the last thing you’re doing is acting as a neutral pass-through. You’re acting as a publisher deciding what they will and will not publish.

    And that is and should be their right. On that, I completely agree with Section 230 reform sceptics. If you believe in free speech, then you have to believe that people cannot justly be compelled to speech any more than they can be censored. And demanding that social media provide a platform to conservatives is just as much a compulsion of speech as insisting Rush Limbaugh devote a show to singing the praises of Elizabeth Warren or that MSNBC devote a day to critiques of climate change.

    What the social media giants don’t have a right to is special favor from the government. If they’re acting as a publisher, then they should be subject to the same laws and same standards as any other publisher. To treat them more favorably is to grant a subsidy to established and entrenched interests over brick-and-mortar competitors, as well as new entrants in the social media space.

    For just about any other industry the injustice of such a policy would be glaringly obvious. Imagine if the government said the hotel industry or the movie theater industry would be exempt from labor laws or health and safety laws. Or worse still if the government said that certain hotels and certain movie theaters would be exempt from those laws. Libertarians would rightly be up in arms about such a policy. They’d rightly note such behavior as just the sort of crony capitalism that libertarianism rejects. The same applies to the social media giants acting as publishers. You might say that the laws holding publishers responsible for any libel or IP infringement or harassment they publish are bad laws. A libertarian case can be made for or against them. But, holding some publishers liable and exempting others is the least libertarian response. It is, simply put, the government openly picking winners and losers.

    Moreover, the social media giants’ hidden imposition of an editorial line has poisoned so much of social media culture. To understand this, imagine that, rather than the fashionable progressive causes of the day, the social media giants took an editorial line that was “pro-seltzer”. They’d happily let commentary advocating the benefits of drinking seltzer and actively deplatform anyone arguing to the contrary. The public relying on social media for information, believing they were getting truly decentralized discussion about seltzer would only see discussions about how great seltzer is and how terrible those awful people who want to suggest people might want to drink milk are. Without understanding that the social media are only telling you the pro-seltzer position, a good many readers would become convinced, not only of the pro-seltzer position, but also of the social media morality in advocating for seltzer. The non-seltzer people, unsurprisingly, only militate when they realize the public is being lied to about them and their positions. And the less radicalized, lacking a means to evaluate the claims of the genuine anti-seltzer extremists, since the entire anti-seltzer argument has been excised from the public discussion where ideas can be tested, tend to be pushed to the more radical position.

    I respect the social media giants. They took an ambiguity in the law and leveraged it to build a whole new means of communication that offers tremendous opportunity for public discourse. But, with success comes hubris. For the social media giants, that hubris has led them to abandon any claim to that ambiguity. They’re now acting as publishers in the most obvious and clear-cut manner one can find. And, in addition to being an injustice in its own right, that preferential treatment is leading them to behave in a way that is rendering our public discourse increasingly toxic. To set things right, we don’t need to regulate the social media giants and we don’t need to break them up. We simply need to resolve that ambiguity to make clear that they’re either publishers, with all the legal liabilities that any other publisher faces, or they’re public fora where they don’t get to dictate what viewpoints deserve an audience.

  • Monday Morning Links

    This story? Again?

     

    I am making sure these links are a bit more …comprehensive than the preview (non)post of last night. First, though, I ride my Catalan Hobbyhorse… the Trials of the Century are about as sluggish as the OJ trial was. A good summary hereIf there are convictions and imprisonment – and the Catalans do not react with violence…I think it is safe to say the whole independence thing is over. The Catalan STASI are watching…

    OK then. Horse having been ridden, now links.

    • I kind of like seeing a Top. Men. job go unwanted. Or, at least unfilled. For now.
    • GAH! I am not sure even HM would endorse this fetish. Well…maybe, if it involved an enormous amount of butter and garlic?
    • Looks like (((They ))) might be off the hook. DNA testing and a “changed story”…ugh.
    • Cops on meth! No, this is not a story about Florida. “Do you shabu?”

    Come on in, Cacadia has spoken. Or whatever the cryptids say.