It can be pretty reasonable for a judge to be armed, even if they are supposed to have a bailiff for that. It was probably less about the incident, and more about the bragging.
Do I think he pulled the gun because it was a black guy and he could get away with it? Absolutely.
But you have to look at it from an objective perspective. Judges get threatened and it’s reasonable for them to be armed. Now you have to prove this is racism, and not standard self defense. The incident alone makes that difficult. The bragging makes that much easier.
Why do they need to be armed when there are actual cops, the bailiff, and other people who actually have the job of protecting people in the public building? You are delusional. Judges don’t get assaulted on the reg in court. How can he be seen as impartial after showing this kind of behavior?
He didn’t get criminally charged with anything, he was reviewed by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. They can remove judges on the basis of ethics violations, not laws broken, and even the appearance of bias is something that can cause a judge to be censured.
Dude he pulled a gun on an unarmed man. Owning and carrying a gun outside of court? Yes, fine whatever. Inside the court where no one except the bailiff(s) is supposed to have a weapon? Nah mate. No fucking way.
They make us regular people go through metal detectors and even leave our cell phones outside. I think I’m okay with judges not being allowed to strut around with firearms in a courtroom.
Conservatives are so fucking cowardly, they’re afraid of children now? When will that entire party be officially considered a gate group? Because i think now would be a good time.
They are afraid of everything that’s doesn’t fit into their little religious bubble. Years of brainwashing with 24/7 “news” cycles telling them what to be afraid of (anything but them).
Conservatives: Hah! Unions shouldn’t be legal, workers are lucky to get paid. We should eliminate minimum wage, let the free market decide what you’re worth, if anything.
“You support the free market… So you don’t mind my selling pride accessories and clothing?”
Conservatives: Pride is pornographic, and endangers children. We need to restore morality and decency in society, keep children safe!
“In that case, you surely condemn child trafficking, abuse and pedophilia?”
Conservatives: hey it’s fine for adult men to have relationships with teenage girls, that’s when they’re most fertile! Plus the Bible has no problems with it.
“The Bible also says to love your neighbor, turn the other cheek.”
Conservatives: That’s weak minded effeminate liberal nonsense, we should rule with iron fists and show no mercy.
“Are you saying you do know how to rule?”
Conservatives: lol we can’t even decide who to elect as our leader, much less govern effectively. Honestly we’re just here for the grift and free healthcare.
It’s EUR, so like 26k in Dollars or something like that. It’s pretty ok, tbh, I can pay rent and spend on stuff I want here and there. It’s pure speculation, but it’s probably a lot more comfortable than if I would live in the US. I am definitely not poor or anything, but most of the people I know definitely earn more.
That’s amazing to me. It’s me and my two kids, I’m lucky enough to have been able to recently purchase a house but up to six months ago we were living in a two bedroom 900 sq ft apartment and it cost $1300 a month. This is in Ohio, not anything I would think is high cost of living area. Boys were getting old enough that sharing a room and not having space apart was starting to present issues. Nothing bad just felt bad about our living situation. I couldn’t find anything with three bedrooms for under $2200 a month. How the hell does a family of four survive on $26k, seriously what do people do?
I'm 110% on board with global warming, but this graph is misleading.
The author needs to at least correct for population changes (heat deaths per X residents). Even better would be to account for changing demographics, like age and county. From this random stats website, it looks like there has been a dramatic increase in proportion of older residents since 1970. Old people are more likely to die, so more elders = more deaths.
If I wasn't about to head to bed, I might try to fix it, but.... sleep.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure there has been an increase in small plane crashes in AZ. The hot air is much thinner than most pilots are used to, so they tend to forget accounting for changes in thrust and climb rates. I'm pretty sure a couple happened in just the last few weeks.
yeah, people lose so much credibility when they don't even control for simple easy things.
there will always be some confounding factors, but doing rate per population, is rarely hard - andneeded over decade comparisons.
demographic risk adjustment is more complex, so i'd not expect that. but if it is at least acknowledged, then the article is more credible and will get more (of my) attention.
media (and i guess their audience) seem to enjoy hype though . . .
oh shit this is the f.t. i used to think they were among the more credible journo's. pity.
Shouldn’t we be doing more about increasing heat related deaths, even if it would be primarily caused by more people becoming vulnerable to it, or more people living in the zone that is dangerous?
I agree. And shit like this makes me trust financial reporting in general. It's akin to not accounting for inflation in financial graphs.
And yes, the risk adjustment can be as complex as they want to make it, but when I clicked, I was expecting a study of some type. Probably my bias kicking in. My first thought was, "Are they kidding?" Then I saw it was from a news source and thought, "Oh, okay... no wait. Still, they know this is bad, right?"
And whenever you have a chart of historical data like this, you have to at least consider that an increase could be reflective of either improved diagnostic or record-keeping abilities.
More like you just died from old in 1970, versus acute heat stroke in 2023.
I say this being fully on board with the climate change. Charts like this serve little purpose when you don’t properly adjust for the myriad changes that have occured over the last half century. And before anyone says “you mean like global warming,” no, don’t account for that one, because that’s what we’re trying to see.
Yeah, it can be as simple as the death certificates requiring only a primary cause of death.
Old man collapses from a heart attack while trying to change a tire on a hot desert road? Cause of death: heart attack. If more details are requested, they could probably get away with just claiming age-related health issues. The guy is dead, no foul play, the case is closed.
Very much this, and especially over this period. More universal diagnostics, more emphasis on secondary causes and contributors, etc.
And it works the other way, too. Fewer people should die per capita based on faster EMS response times, better medicine, more urban living, etc.
The big one for me is age. I never really heard of people retiring to Arizona until the late 90s. It was always Florida before then. The over 50 crowd is 36% now vs 23% in 1970.
Hmm, but a big part of the problem here is that vulnerable places like Arizona are also those seeing such high population growth. I’m not sure correcting for that would make the graph “better”, it would just show something different.
I'm not advocating for better or worse. In the end, the data shows what it shows. I'm just saying that there was essentially no "analysis", making any interpretation inappropriate.
Hey, more people should survive, thanks to newer medical treatments and more concentration of populations around cities.
On the flip side, there's a larger portion of the population that's older and from out of state.
In between there's the chance that the threat of heat-related health problems should be much diminished due to widespread access to air conditioning. But, that also means more people haven't had first hand experience with heat exhaustion/stroke, and don't realize how quickly things can go from kinda bad to dead.
rates. I’m pretty sure a couple happened in just the last few weeks.
I’ve heard of articles saying that global warming is already leading to more air turbulence and that it is only going to get much stronger by the mid century
Yes. Hot air is thinner, so there's less lift on aircraft wings. There's actually a conversion they're supposed to use that basically says, 'At this temp, treat the plane as if it's actually at this other, much higher, altitude."
Here's one of the recent videos I've seen mentioning it (around 5 min in they mention the "density altitude"). I'm not a pilot and just find the stuff interesting.
As an analyst, this pissed me off. There’s like an oath to never fudge, misrepresent, or be selective with data to manipulate the viewer. We collect raw data for the purest source of fact. It is a single source of truth.
Just a quick Google on one of the glaringly obvious misrepresentations in this graph, and AZ’s population in 1970 was 1.77M; it is now 7.36M. Displaying this graph more truthfully would still highlight increased temperatures impacting increased rate of death to heat, but not at all dramatically, so the creator has misrepresented. Then there’s a lot more to factor in for proper analysis. Healthcare rate with growth? Infrastructure for the same? Why just Arizona?
Climate change science has fact and figure on its side. There is not need to misrepresent it like deniers do. Doing so dilutes and damages the cause by denying the one thing it has, truth.
Exactly. I stumbled across this report from the AZ Dept of Health which breaks it down into per 100k people and the data still supports the author's point. The report then goes on to divide up the population by age, residents vs visitors, county, etc.
Hell, the FT author could have just included a plot of the population growth, which was pretty linear. Not great, but better than nothing.
Here’s a version scaled by population (deaths per 100,000 residents). I’m no expert in this kind of thing, so I didn’t account for other factors, such as age groups. Also, the data I found using the source in the original graph only went up to 2021, and didn’t include 2017 for some reason.
Yeah, that looks more reasonable. The original graph makes it look like there have been ~5x the number of deaths in the last few years compared to ~10 years ago. Adjusted for population growth, it's ~2-3x.
That's still really concerning and makes the point the article was making, while being much more accurate and defensible when scrutinized. Thanks for that!
They already had their convention in July. That’s why they shit themselves throwing a temper tantrum when the Dems switched, having made an assumption that the Dems wouldn’t just not nominate a sitting President.
The Democrats still haven’t had their convention so they still can make whatever chabge they want. If Trump withdraws, the Republican party as a whole would be withdrawing because they already had their convention and chose their representative. Another Democrat can run against Kamala up until the convention, but once the Democratic party chooses their representative, they would also be locked in.
The DNC and RNC aren’t legally bound by the rules they made for themselves. There have been lawsuits in the last 8 years that have established that. They can both do what ever the fuck they want as long as they don’t piss off the really big donors.
I’m not sure what election you participated in, but my ballot listed Joe Biden at the top of the ticket.
So this is an opportunity for you to learn how it really works. Harris was just officially voted to be the Dem candidate and that will be official on Monday.
Nothing forces Trump to be president. He can quit any time he wants.
Oh, he could abort himself, but you know that’s never going to happen. The party is stuck with the weirdo until the election, otherwise.
Because they actively participated in the deification of Trump among their base, so they know that taking Trump off the ballot would split the party (possibly irreparably).
repubs had like 10 chances to jettison trump between dropping him from the party, washing their hands of him, supporting the investigations, and voting to impeach… and they rejected all of them to stand by him
Dems changed to Harris before actually nominating Biden.
Trump is already nominated. Changing at this point would be a much bigger problem for either side.
Even if they somehow did who would take his place? Vance has been very unpopular so far, and they’ve already had a full primary this cycle; we already know they don’t have anyone better than Trump.
Also it would make them hypocrites, not that they care.
Almost a fair point; dems may not have rallied around Harris under other circumstances. But she’s only formally run one other time and that was four years ago and against a former VP (Biden). Not quite the same situation today.
Also the line you quoted doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the point you’re trying to make.
A nomination does not mean that the republican party needs to back Trump. They could have simply chose someone else or even remove him from their ticket. It’s all in their control.
A primary is merely to check and see which way the political wind is blowing before the election. And nominations are not written in stone.
They absolutely have no legal basis, my only worry is that they have activists in SCOTUS which showed us multiple times that they don’t care what the Constitution says.
It used to be the case that sane people with a modicum of understanding of our government/legal system, or even the ability to do a bit of research, they could just laugh this off.
But uh, nope, now we live in corrupt/activist Supreme Court era, which throws out decades of precedent and functionally invents new laws as it pleases.
What I love about Clarence Thomas is he is giving us the road map to oppressive systems we have to take down. He has observed the unspoken rules and has codified them into law with his rulings. When Clarence gets exorbitant gifts for his influence it’s not because he’s greedy, we’ll it is, but it’s also him saying, “these are the rules, I get rewarded because I have the seat of power.”
Clarence is not a secret freedom fighter but he might as well be because he is shining a light and exposing the ugliness that is our judicial system.
Historically speaking, we Americans usually ignore what the SCOTUS says. Virginia was practically segregated into the early 1970s, for example, well over a decade after Brown v Board of Education.
That’s the hilarious part of the SCOTUS. They kind of don’t matter.
The response to an unjust SCOTUS is to ignore them. Like what are they actually gonna do about it?
Step 1 of the plan is to at least make people aware of the plan.
There’s more options available than expanding the court or whatever. Ultimately, the reigns of power largely rest in Congress and the President. Supreme Court is the moral center, they’re only effective if people believe their judgements to be moral and just. Otherwise, their statements are just fancy words on a piece of obscure paper.
Supreme Court has no ability to write laws or enforce them.
There may be an issue with Ohio. The deadline for getting on the ballot the is like 2 days before the DNC, and we won’t officially know who the nominee will be until after the convention.
Parroting bullshit labels like ‘coronation’ when describing the logical decision to promote the VP candidate is feeding into conservative propaganda, even when presented this way.
Especially when it was essentially a coronation for Trump this time. Pretty much no one thought DeSantis or Haley had a chance, and they came the closest. Trump knew it, which is why he didn’t bother doing any of their debates. Which made them pointless debates.
Regardless there was still a primary. I voted in it I had the choice of who to vote for. That there was a clear and overwhelming favorite doesn’t change that fact.
People have been bitching and moaning for months (I bet you included) that Biden shouldn’t be the nominee, that he was too old, that he was in cognitive decline, etc.
Now he’s not the nominee and the bitching is that people didn’t get to vote in a primary.
As soon as we perfect time machine technology, maybe we can give you what you want. Until then, you’re stuck with this reality.
Your answer is to throw up your hands and say “what’s done is done”? How are we doing to get them to do it right next time if we don’t make a stink now?
There are only FOUR Months until the election! The campaign logistics (volunteers, staff, offices, ballots, etc) to set up for a completely new candidate are INSANE and the fact that this has to be explained is mind boggling.
You can complain all you want but complaining about how bad things were handled is like standing on the sidelines whining about the iceberg while people are trying to set up lifeboats on the titanic.
Conservatives are a threat to stable and peaceful societies, and an existential threat to the whole human race due to their climate change denialism. As long as we continue to pretend that conservatism is a valid political ideology and not psychopathy and sadism packaged up to look like politics, they’ll continue to undermine democracy and peace until they get the genocide(s) they keep clamoring for
In the present research (N = 675), we focus on the relationship between the dark side of human personality and political orientation and extremism, respectively, in the course of a presidential election where the two candidates represent either left-wing or right-wing political policies. Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism were associated with right-wing political orientation, whereas narcissism and psychopathy were associated with political extremism. Moreover, the relationships between personality and right-wing political orientation and extremism, respectively, were relatively independent from each other.
We found eleven significant correlations between conservative [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad – [narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy,] all at significance level of p<.00001 – and no significant correlations between liberal [Moral Intuition Survey] judgments and the Dark Triad. We believe that these results raise provocative moral questions about the personality bases of moral judgments. In particular, we propose that because the Short-D3 measures three “dark and antisocial” personality traits, our results raise some prima facie worries about the moral justification of some conservative moral judgments
I’ll never understand how the US, of all the places in the world, in the world, tolerates a law that allows the state to forfeit private property without due process.
I was outraged by the headline, but he said protestors should be arrested in the context of protesting outside of someone’s home. While I don’t think I agree with that, I can at least understand why he would feel that constitutes intimidation.
Aren’t there harassment laws that should already cover this? Protesting outside of a business should be fine. But protesting outside of living areas feels like targeted harassment.
I disagree. That’s like going after journalists/reporters because the huddled outside a senators house because he/she caught in a scandal. Because it’s a group, you could argue that’s intimidation too except that they’re asking questions in the public interest. Protesters whether you agree with them or not believe they’re acting in the public interest too and are trying to change things for the better.
Yeah his whole tirade is ludicrous and he sounds like an absolute asshat, but someone reportedly vandalized his home, and that’s crossing a very big line. He should shut the hell up about whatever he thinks “leftwing fascism” is, and they should stop vandalizing people’s homes.
I dunno, I’m with ya but also if you see protesters, who regular citizens with no special power, as totalitarian tyrants wanting to silence you while also demanding they be arrested with your very real closeness to the power that could that then fuckin’ maybe your house should get vandalized. I’d draw the line at hurting an actual person and then urging people away from vandalism since they might hurt someone by accident but stillllll…
I don’t think congressman Smith’s kids should have to come home from school to see “baby killer” written in red paint on their garage door. Other than that, I already said I don’t agree protesting outside of a public figure’s house should result in an arrest.
It’s possible to understand why someone holds a position they do while disagreeing with it. It’s pretty foundational for a healthy democracy.
I don’t think anyone should come home to find their houses obliterated by an airstrike or a sniper waiting to shoot them through the head.
Smith does, as he continues to finance the extermination and eradication of Palestinians in Gaza.
If his kids are confronted with their father’s complicity in war crimes, they need to talk to him about it and pull him away from this atrocious policy.
I wouldn’t want to see “Baby Killer” signs outside my house either, but if my parents were killing babies I certainly would want to know.
Maybe his kids should be aware of their father’s support for genocide.
Not saying this is you necessarily, but I find it curious that so many people are much more concerned about non-violent acts of property destruction during protests of genocide, than the actual genocide itself.
Call me crazy, but I’m more concerned for the kids in Palestine being needlessly slaughtered because their school was (intentionally) bombed by the IDF, or because they threw rocks at soldiers, than the kids of a US congressman having to face the ugly truth about their father.
I’m much more concerned with the genocide than property damage, but I also don’t think the solution to the problem is more traumatized kids. I don’t know how old they are but if they’re young enough they’re absolutely unequipped to understand the issue or to put pressure on their father. This is a tough one because I feel like I’m getting too far in the “think of the children” lane which is typically just used to shut down dissent. I will say that the obvious solution for congressman Smith is to stop enabling Israel’s actions and leave it at that.
If it’s anything like other criminal inquiries in this country, they will find the lowest paid chump on the totem pole to pin all the blame on while the C-Suite once again walks away with Golden god damned Parachutes.
It’s optimistic to assume they’ll even bother finding someone in the company guilty even if it’s some low level chump. I don’t actually expect anyone to be found guilty in this whole thing. The only time corporations in this country actually suffer repercussions for their actions is when they cost shareholders significant money Enron style.
I think even this isn’t as hurtful to major shareholders - the ones that have decisionmaking power - as you’d hope. They typically have more information and pay more attention than the small fish. They’d offload their shares earlier, for longer, as to not disturb the price too much, leaving the remainder to hold the bag once shit hits the fan. The stock market enables that. They’ve extracted a shit ton of money by steering the company over the last couple of decades. The ones that would really bear the brunt are the shareholders that never had any decisionmaking power, and the company’s workers.
Was he an executive, or just a manager, or just an engineer? Articles (including those on the justice department website) aren’t clear about exactly what his role was. None of the actual executives holed up on DE have appeared to pay the price.
“Senior manager” means manager of managers, still below director.
He testified that actual executives and lawyers gave him his script to read to regulators. He was complicit, he was guilty, but he was far from the topmost person responsible.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.