DMC

It should also be emphasized that a majority of Americans now disapprove of Israel’s conduct in the war.  It should come as no surprise that this is manifesting on college campuses in such a manner.  Especially when it’s the end of the semester and participation sounds a whole hell of a lot better than studying for finals.

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn’t say the organizers of the protest support Hamas.  I said some of the protesters do.  See the AP article I linked it mentions protesters shouting slogans that support Hamas.

The AP article you cited also details many involved in the protests explicitly denouncing what you’re concerned about.

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not saying the protests should be banned.  I’m saying there are elements within the protests that are problematic in my opinion.

Sure.  So?  Why should that stop the elements that aren’t problematic?  You started this off by saying you didn’t understand why they were protesting because the US wasn’t directly involved in the war.  It’s telling that your argument has gone far afield of that since.

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Nope.  I don’t recall protestors in 2020 defending or supporting the buring of buildings… do you?

…And where are you seeing the organizers of these protests supporting Hamas?  This is classic straw manning.

To your broader point, do I suspect pro-Palestinian protests to directly affect policy change?  Nope, absolutely not.  But you can say that about most protest movements.

Based on your logic, the people that participated in the Women’s March, or March For Our Lives, or the host of climate change protests, all should have just stayed home.  The impact of most protest movements is an attempt to shift public opinion and - more importantly - politically engage those that otherwise wouldn’t be.

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There are protestors overtly supporting Hamas, using Hamas slogans, and claiming all Jewish Israelis are colonists who should be expelled from Israel.  Not all of them certainly but some of them.

Again:

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is like saying since there was looting and property damage during the George Floyd protests, that’s all the protesters were interested in.

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Support for Hamas by protesters doesn’t equate to support for expulsion (or worse) of Jewish Israelis?

Dude, read the post you’re responding to:

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Protesting against the indiscriminate violence perpetrated on Palestinians does not necessarily mean support for Hamas.

Ironically, it’s your perspective here that lacks nuance in erroneously assuming pro-Palestine = pro-Hamas.

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

However, I’m also under no illusion that Hamas is the “good guy” or that the use of “from the river to the  sea” is anything but a slogan for expulsion (or worse) of entire ethnic groups within the territory of Israel/Palestine whichever side trots it out.

This is ascribing motives to the protesters that the vast majority of which do not share.  And frankly buying into a concerted effort to delegitimize any pro-Palestinian sentiment.  Protesting against the indiscriminate violence perpetrated on Palestinians does not necessarily mean support for Hamas.  This is like saying since there was looting and property damage during the George Floyd protests, that’s all the protesters were interested in.

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Further if the US cut off military aid today the Israeli war in Gaza could continue without US support… right?

Sure…due to the decades of support the US has already provided them.  I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the protests.  Indeed, my immediate concern is how similar efforts may impede my ability to do my job today and at least already has fucked up my parking.  But the logic of the protesters is really not hard to understand unless you’re entirely new to protesting.

22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given that the US isn’t a direct participant… I’m not sure I understand the point of disrupting US Universities.

Perhaps because the US just passed a bill providing $17 billion to Israel to fund the war effort?  Anyway, here’s an article on what Z was talking about last night.

Trump doubles down on Mike Johnson after foreign aid vote.  Obviously, Trump could change his mind tomorrow.  But as long as he’s backing Johnson I don’t see Greene even forcing a vote.

10 hours ago, Fez said:

My point is just that they need a Speaker simply for the actual mechanics of passing a bill. Which might be impossible if they ditch Johnson before then.

Well, pretty sure they can grant the acting Speaker more abilities if a majority wants to.  Regardless, this seems to be over-extending the hypothetical.

If Johnson is sacked, it’s going to be fairly soon.  While I agree it will probably take awhile to settle on a replacement (or simply restore Johnson if he doesn’t bow out like McCarthy did), I sincerely doubt they’ll go without a Speaker for, like, five months.

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

They will need to act to avoid another government shutdown on October 1. That's so close to the election that the politics get really screwy and I suspect most Republicans will have no desire for a fight.

Yeah, they’re going to pass a CR there like they always do that close to an election.  If the House GOP shuts down the government a month away from the election, Speaker or not?  I suppose it’s possible nut that’s all electoral upside for Biden and the Dems, which is why I didn’t mention it.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Emergency aid for disasters, aid to Israel or Ukraine or Taiwan, anything else that comes up is literally impossible to deal with via laws if the house can't get a speaker. 

Fair point.  It’s certainly concerning on a basic governing level not to have a Speaker at all.  But that’s on the Republicans.  Also, even in October they did designate Pat McHenry acting Speaker.

Another utility example would be electric.  Companies often have functional monopolies within a city/urban area here in the states as I watch my monthly bill fluctuate wildly seemingly without reason.

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Sort of, but you can leave a bank, or use another airline/choose not to fly, i have literally no option but to use Thames water. 

Fair point.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can you think of any other business that could get away with going to the regulator, asking to put prices up 44% after paying out huge bonuses to shareholders, and woefully mismanaging their infrastructure?

Not a 1 to 1 comparison but big banks/financial institutions come to mind.  Also, airlines.

18 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Wouldn’t make it more sense to keep a speaker that is indebted to the Democratic Party than risk that the republicans come up with a replacement that probably isn’t?

Only if that indebtedness could be of use.  Like I said, the House is pretty much done for the year at this point, so there’s really nothing to gain.  As for the Speaker’s role in certification, that’s something to consider.  But thing is, certification takes place right after the new Congress starts at the beginning of January 2025.  It’s pretty clear Johnson is going to be replaced after the election one way or another anyway.  And it’s quite possible Hakeem Jeffries will be Speaker once we get to certification.

As for the line of succession, I guess, but that’s pretty morbid and extraordinarily unlikely.

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

imagine [enough] Democrats would vote to keep Johnson seated if only because the next speaker to appear from this Republican House members would probably be even worse (from the Democrat perspective).

The issue even fellow Freedom Caucus members have expressed is there is no clear replacement that could get the requisite votes.  Thus, the Republicans would be in store for another weeks long process with a host of candidates getting voted down.

Frankly, from a political standpoint, the Dems should encourage this.  It’d be the second such embarrassment for the House GOP in six months.  Plus, the legislative portion of this session is functionally over, so it really doesn’t matter who is Speaker.

The reason Dems still might save Johnson is out of actual genuine goodwill - I know, that seems insane in this day and age.  Plus, a number already said they would.  Funny thing is, they might not be able to save him.  It’s quite possible support from Dems could lead to an even bigger revolt among MAGA.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I imagine your father's experimental care are part of research and clinical trials

Nope, expanded access.

13 minutes ago, Week said:

What if he was told that he couldn't [have the surgery] because there were folks out on a Song of Ice and Fire forum that were really concerned about the safety of kids? That seems like it might be compelling.

Well, considering he is aware I post on this forum, he’d probably punch me in the face.

Just as an example, my dad has gone through a number of experimental treatments and procedures over the last eighteen months in an effort to improve his very serious heart condition.  I can only imagine his reaction - as a PhD in Physiology from Berkeley with a half century of experience in medical research - if he was told those treatments weren’t available to him because the government does not have “strong” evidence supporting their effects.  Then again, his reaction would be so vehement it’d may well kill him.  So, problem solved I guess.

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I think that the present nature of the research should be presented to parents and guardians (and to the children themselves) as part of informed consent. They certainly should be told that the research is preliminary and conclusions about the efficacy and side effects of any treatment could change as more research evidence becomes available. But I think once the information has been clearly given, the decision on which treatments to use should be left up to the family and their medical and mental health professionals, without the government being involved. 

Yeah.  And as I tried to express in the UK thread, the idea that the only treatments that should be allowed are those with “strong” evidence supporting their long term effects would be..severely limiting across all of medicine.

19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So I take it, then, that you think that would not be a reasonable position to take?

I gave you my opinion.  Obviously, I’d disagree with the opposite opinion.

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Great! So, let's imagine a person who reads the Cass Review and who says, "Hmm...given how weak the evidence here is, maybe we should rethink or even pause some of these treatments until we know more." Would that, in your view, be a reasonable position for someone to take?

I don’t think the government should be banning medical treatments and/or procedures just because there is not determinative evidence on its long term effects, no.  Absolutely not.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would disallow any experimental treatments.  Because the only way to provide the data for “strong” or “conclusive” evidence is to, ya know, conduct the treatments.  And in many cases, including this one, having to wait years or even decades to fully understand the long term effects.

Further, call me crazy, but I still think medical decisions should be between the doctor, the parents, and the child, NOT the government.  Does that mean there should be much more care before permanent physical procedures for adolescents?  Yes, absolutely.  But again, not a big fan of politicians legislating this - if only because they rarely have any idea what the fuck they’re talking about even if they don’t have a political agenda.

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

Does that mean you think it would be reasonable for a person to draw from the Cass Review the conclusion that the evidence base in this area is weak?

I honestly have no idea why you are splitting these hairs.  Of course she is saying the evidence is weak.  If she was arguing the evidence - any evidence - was strong, then she would be drawing conclusions from said evidence.

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Seems to me reasonable to say there is at least one conclusion Cass drew; namely, that the evidence base in this area is weak. Would you agree that is a reasonable conclusion to draw?

This is literally just another way of saying there’s not enough evidence to draw any conclusions.  Hence her saying things like “unable to determine,” “no clear evidence…has any positive or negative mental health outcomes,” “remain many unknowns” in the quotes you provided.