President-elect Joe Biden's Cabinet and Staff Nominees

[laughing dog]

If you don't understand referencing Beria when Elixir downplays the importance of due process, then I got nothing for ya.

How is that different than any other time?

You mean Elilxir supporting illiberal authoritarianism? I guess you're right.

No, I mean you have nothing regardless. The irony of a rabid Trump supporter calling anyone out on supporting illiberal authoritarianism is unsurprising.

 

[Trausti]

You mean Elilxir supporting illiberal authoritarianism? I guess you're right.

No, I mean you have nothing regardless. The irony of a rabid Trump supporter calling anyone out on supporting illiberal authoritarianism is unsurprising.

Oh, you also support government or quasi-government bodies accusing students of serious crimes - accusations that can ruin their lives - yet denying those students basic due process. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Derec]

Rapists are people too, y'know. Especially white male ones.

Accusation does not mean guilt. And many of the men expelled were not even accused of anything that violated any criminal laws, much less rape.
In many cases, the man and woman did the same thing (have consensual sex with somebody who had been drinking) but only the men get expelled.

But the feminist Left does not care about that. As long as it's male students getting expelled, it's all right with them!

But to the point - diversity isn't an identity. Nobody self identifies as "diverse".

Very much true. But that's not how "diversity" is used in fauxgressive Newspeak.

Ergo, it's not "identity politics", it's simply an effort to diversify in order to make representative government more ... uh, representative.

1. Qualifications should come first. I am not very impressed with political hack nominees like Haaland and Grenholm. Obama did much better in that regard.
2. White men are very much underresprsented in the Biden cabinet. Thus, it is not really representative in any case. As I said, in fauxgressive Newspeak, the fewer white men there are, the more "diverse" a group is according to them.

 

[Derec]

If it isn't white male... it must be politics! Identity inertia.

Not necessarily. But Haaland is an identity politics pick.

Is it crazy that some people that aren't white wouldn't mind seeing leadership that sometimes reflects their own identity?

It's crazy when that is the chief consideration. Steven Chu is not white for example.

Jebus!

We have Americans getting screwed on loan forgiveness programs they had entered into, trading a portion of career for particular jobs and then being told the paperwork was wrong, you owe us everything, we have a colossal mountain of college debt... and you just keep going to Incel shit.

Due process for those accused of serious transgressions where a guilty verdict can destroy their life is not "incel shit". It's an important issue affecting real people.

 

[laughing dog]

You mean Elilxir supporting illiberal authoritarianism? I guess you're right.

No, I mean you have nothing regardless. The irony of a rabid Trump supporter calling anyone out on supporting illiberal authoritarianism is unsurprising.

Oh, you also support government or quasi-government bodies accusing students of serious crimes - accusations that can ruin their lives - yet denying those students basic due process. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all.

I support due process which is for the judicial system. Institutions of higher learning are not part of the judicial system.

But thanks for proving my point - that you have nothing.

 

[Derec]

Hold on here. It's not like Haaland is a DeVos or a DeJoy.

It is sort of like that, except not even DeJoy attended anti-post office protests.

Everyone needs affordable energy. It's time to move past gas and oil as our primary sources of energy.

Easier said than done, even as we are making great strides.
California wants to ban sales of new internal combustion engined cars by 2035. Let's be extremely optimistic and say the federal government follows suit. No more new gasoline or diesel cars past 2035. Modern cars last 15-20 years easily. So we have significant demand for oil until 2050 at least. Whence should that oil come?
Natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal and has managed to displace it to a large extent from our electricity mix. But there is still a lot of coal being used to make electricity. Getting rid of coal needs to be our top priority - not only for CO₂ emissions but also pollutants like mercury, uranium (coal fired power plants emit orders of magnitude more radioactivity than nuke plants), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc.


This reduction of coal from 45% of our electricity generation to 25% was only possible due to the shale revolution. A revolution that uses hydraulic fracturing. Praise be!

In addition to that, gas is used by most Americans to heat our homes. Upgrading all those homes and businesses to say heat pumps will take decades as will replacing all the natural gas power plants.

The Green New Deal is extremely unrealistic since it wants all this to happen by 2030 but it will happen by 2050 if we are very dedicated and diligent. But in the meantime we will still need fossil fuels.

Putin could hardly be happier than he has been the past 4 years. Indeed it will take a generation to reverse the harms done by Trump.

Putin can be happy about many things Trump wrought, like for example Syria.
But energy is not one of them. Due to fracking, US managed to increase our oil production to ~10 Mbbl/d, about the same as KSA and Russia. That kept oil prices low even before the pandemic and seriously depressed Russian tax revenues and economy. Putin would be much happier if US were to ban fracking, shut down pipelines and produce maybe 3 Mbbl/d because he could then sell his 10 at a much higher price.

 

[Derec]

I support due process which is for the judicial system. Institutions of higher learning are not part of the judicial system.

So they should be able to expel students capriciously? Due process is important in these quasi-judicial settings as well.

But thanks for proving my point - that you have nothing.

Are you talking to yourself?

 

[Trausti]

Oh, you also support government or quasi-government bodies accusing students of serious crimes - accusations that can ruin their lives - yet denying those students basic due process. Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all.

I support due process which is for the judicial system. Institutions of higher learning are not part of the judicial system.

But thanks for proving my point - that you have nothing.

Here's to nothing.

After finding John Doe guilty of sexual violence against Jane Doe, Purdue University sus-pended him for an academic year and imposed conditions on his readmission. As a result of that decision, John was ex-pelled from the Navy ROTC program, which terminated both his ROTC scholarship and plan to pursue a career in the Navy.

John sued the university and several of its officials, assert-ing two basic claims. First, he argued that they had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by using constitutionally flawed procedures to determine his guilt or innocence. Second, he ar-gued that Purdue had violated Title IX by imposing a punish-ment infected by sex bias. A magistrate judge dismissed John’s suit on the ground that he had failed to state a claim under either theory. We disagree. John has adequately alleged violations of both the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX.

Having determined that John has adequately alleged that Purdue deprived him of a liberty interest, we turn to whether he has adequately claimed that Purdue used fundamentally unfair procedures in determining his guilt. When a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, a state “may not withdraw [it] on grounds of misconduct ab-sent[] fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred.” Goss, 419 U.S. at 574. Deter-mining what is fundamentally fair is always a context-specific inquiry. See Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 86 (1978) (“[W]e have frequently emphasized that ‘[t]he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situa-tion.’” (citation omitted)). Thus, for example, a university has much more flexibility in administering academic standards than its code of conduct. See id. (“[T]here are distinct differ-ences between decisions to suspend or dismiss a student for disciplinary purposes and similar actions taken for academic reasons which may call for hearings in connection with the former but not the latter.”). And even in the disciplinary con-text, the process due depends on a number of factors, includ-ing the severity of the consequence and the level of education. A 10-day suspension warrants fewer procedural safeguards than a longer one, Goss, 419 U.S. at 584, and universities are subject to more rigorous requirements than high schools, Pugel v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 378 F.3d 659, 663–64 (7th Cir. 2004). John’s circumstances entitled him to relatively formal pro-cedures: he was suspended by a university rather than a high school, for sexual violence rather than academic failure, anfor an academic year rather than a few days. Yet Purdue’s pro-cess fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension. “[D]ue process re-quires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evi-dence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story.” Goss, 419 U.S. at 581. John received notice of Jane’s allegations and denied them, but Purdue did not dis-close its evidence to John. And withholding the evidence on which it relied in adjudicating his guilt was itself sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair. See id. at 580 (“[F]airness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided deter-mination of facts decisive of rights....” (quoting Joint Anti-Fas-cist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170 (1951) (Frank-furter, J., concurring))).

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-3565/17-3565-2019-06-28.html

 

[Swammerdami]

Republicans play games that literally kill thousands; and a massive portion of top Republicans are criminals and/or traitors. Yet some right-wingers just live for the day they can catch a liberal misspeaking slightly, or to label AOC an ex-barmaid. 'Pathetic' doesn't begin to describe this.

American "conservatives" in the wild are, almost without exception, imbeciles and/or hypocrites. Engaging one in a conversation on a political topic is like trying to teach a pigeon how to play chess. Intelligent conservatives who are sincere and good-spirited are rarer than four-leaf clovers.

But here at TFT we are fortunate to have sterling conservative intellects, eager to engage in intelligible debate:

Lavrentiy Beria, is that you?

Trausti, Would you be so compassionate as to start a thread "Learn from the intelligent conservative"? It would be refreshing and enlightening to hear your views on Trump and other pressing topics, expressed in the form of whole paragraphs.

Or are snide but cutesy one-liners all you got?

If you don't understand referencing Beria when Elixir downplays the importance of due process, then I got nothing for ya.

I guess I have my answer. Join Derec and that other guy (see how quick we forget?) in My Plonk! List.

In the unlikely event that you ever have more than a snide one-liner to contribute, ask one of the rational TFTers to quote it so I can see it too.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Easier said than done, even as we are making great strides.
California wants to ban sales of new internal combustion engined cars by 2035. Let's be extremely optimistic and say the federal government follows suit. No more new gasoline or diesel cars past 2035. Modern cars last 15-20 years easily. So we have significant demand for oil until 2050 at least. Whence should that oil come?

"Extremely optimistic"? I would contend the federal government will not have to do a damn thing as market forces will dictate the demise of the ICE.

Modern cars may last 15-20 years but people own their vehicles on average 8 years. But this is small beer. Purchasing a new vehicle is the worst investment people make today. They lose as much as 20% of their value in the first 12 months. 10% as soon as you drive it off the lot. Consider making that investment of 40k (today dollars) for a new ICE vehicle in 2030-2035. What do you thing the resale value of that vehicle is going to be in just three years time with more and more people in electric vehicles? Only the most clueless of individuals will be plunking down 60k+ for a new Suburban. So, you may just be stuck with that "modern car that lasts 15-20 years".

Furthermore, ICE vehicles do not run on oil. They run on refined gasoline. When there is less of a demand for this product, what will happen to the price? The cost of maintaining fewer refineries and increased shipping of this not "significant demand" but diminishing demand?

What of the cost of manufacturing ICE vehicles as there is less demand, less volume sold? That's a toss up as the manufacturer will have or probably are at this time decreasing their cost in making these vehicles by not investing in advancements in the internal combustion engine. Not to mention the cost of maintaining the mechanics and spare parts for vehicles that contain about 2000 moving parts versus about 20 for electric vehicles.

Then there is charging versus fillin' 'er up. Have you called up a map of charging stations lately? It's thirty minutes today to fast charge on a trip. Thirty minutes of stretching your legs and playing with your phone. Given the rate of advancements in battery technology, in 5 years the charge will likely last for as long as you can drive in a day.

I don't think you are considering the cascading effects when we hit that tipping point in I think five years. After that, to buy an ICE SUV would be like buying a fifty thousand dollar flip phone.

 

[laughing dog]

I support due process which is for the judicial system. Institutions of higher learning are not part of the judicial system.

So they should be able to expel students capriciously? Due process is important in these quasi-judicial settings as well.

There is a difference between fairness and due process. Due process is for the judicial system or should be. Colleges and universities are not courts of laws and should be under the same constraints as a court. We recognize that principle in employment law. Employees do not necessarily have due process rights in employment - they can be fired for theft without proof. That is just as damaging (probably more so) than being expelled from college or a school.

Are you talking to yourself?

With responses like yours, it certainly seems like it sometimes.

 

[Derec]

There is a difference between fairness and due process.

The university tribunals that work based on that Obama-era policy are neither.

Due process is for the judicial system or should be.

We are talking about quasi-judicial hearings with significant consequences for those accused. Why should not due process apply?
You seem to advocating that it's ok for colleges to be capricious in their handling of these accusation.

 

[laughing dog]

There is a difference between fairness and due process.

The university tribunals that work based on that Obama-era policy are neither.

Your opinon is just that.

We are talking about quasi-judicial hearings with significant consequences for those accused. Why should not due process apply?

Because it is not a criminal orcivil justice matter. Unlike a criminal trial, the university ir college is also concerned with the victim.

You seem to advocating that it's ok for colleges to be capricious in their handling of these accusation.

I can understand why a rape apologist would think that being against due process means capriciiusness in sexyal assault situations, but what is driving your use if the fallacy of the excluded middle?

 

[lpetrich]

Jen Psaki: White House Briefings Won't Be A Platform For Right-Wing Propaganda : Biden Transition Updates : NPR

President-elect Joe Biden's choice for White House press secretary says she will restore a tradition. Unlike her immediate predecessors in the Trump administration, Jen Psaki plans to take questions from reporters each day.

Psaki has played similar roles before. She was the spokesperson for the State Department when John Kerry was secretary of state, then President Barack Obama's communications director, and she now speaks for Biden.

"I think more than any point in history ... part of the job of the White House press secretary is to rebuild trust with the American people," she says in an interview with NPR's Morning Edition.

President Trump's first press secretary falsely claimed the biggest inauguration crowd in history. His last made false claims about Trump's election defeat. Psaki promises to be "as fact-based as I can be." She says she won't limit right-wing media outlets' access to White House briefings but adds that "we're not going to allow the briefing room to be a platform for propaganda."

Looks like something to look forward to.

 

[lpetrich]

Andrea Junker ® on Twitter: "The people who belittle Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for being a former waitress are the same faulting Janet Yellen for earning $7.2 million. So, how much exactly should women make?" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Probably an unpopular take but I think it’s important the public knows what their public servants’ financial & income streams are, regardless of gender or party.

We can note how scrutiny gets disproportionately wielded on women, but Wall St ties are a very reasonable to examine" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "a very reasonable thing*" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Also, there *is* a diff btwn working as a waitress vs earning millions from Wall St.

We may not want to admit it, but policymakers’ experiences DO shape their thinking.

Is it disqualifying, etc? That’s for public to decide. Which is why reporting is impt & shouldn’t be attacked" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "(And I say this as someone who gets highly scrutinized for pretty routine stuff while watching my counterparts get away w far more wild nonsense with little to no fanfare)" / Twitter

 

[ZiprHead]

MSNBC is reporting that Biden will pick Merrick Garland for Attorney General.

 

[blastula]

Nice for Garland but I hope he's not too timid about going after the Trump criminals.

Now that they have the Senate, Biden can go bigger on these nominations. Is he wants to.

 

[lpetrich]

Kamala Harris on Twitter: "I am proud to announce these deeply experienced public servants will be joining my team. They reflect the very best of our nation and will help to build a country that lifts up all Americans. I look forward to working alongside them each and every day. https://t.co/C4OJlcbg1i" / Twitter

Who's In Biden's Cabinet? : NPR - only one unfilled position in that page's list: CIA director

 

[lpetrich]

Another article on KH's nominees: Kamala Harris Announces New Additions To Her Incoming Staff

Noting President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris Announce Additional Members of the Office of the Vice President | President-Elect Joe Biden

Seems like KH will be awfully busy.

 

[blastula]

Yellen is blowing up.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12NEKj9Z3hA[/YOUTUBE]

A "Hamilton"-style song about Janet Yellen by Dessa - Marketplace